TIME ALLOCATION (CONCLUDED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

TIME ALLOCATION (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for time allocation of Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, at the supper adjournment I was bringing to your attention the fact that I felt the motion before us to allocate time for the completion of the Barrie-Vespra bill was unnecessary since we are not labouring under any time pressure.

The bill does refer to July 1 as the operative date, but we all know if it were to carry even after July 1, which is still some days in the future, the retroactive aspect would apply. We hope the bill will not carry, but even if the government, with its overwhelming majority, eventually had its way, there would still not be any significant inconvenience in the application of the measures in the bill.

I do regret that the debate in this House at the committee stage has been just a bit one-sided. There has been only one speaker from the official opposition and one spokesman from the New Democratic Party. Even at that stage, with only two speakers hardly having had a chance to clear their throats, the government comes in with this time allocation bill.

If this time allocation motion is successful, God forbid, I hope it would be possible to have a fair allocation of the time within the allocation. One party and one speaker should not necessarily use up all the time and the views of a number of members should be expressed in some orderly way. The government should have the benefit of the opinions of a number of honourable members, perhaps even a few who are elected in support of the government itself.

I do not believe this matter should have come this far. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and his henchman the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) must accept the lion's share of responsibility for the breakdown in the process that would normally, with moderate people undertaking moderate solutions, lead to the solution for which we would all hope.

The government itself has not attempted to negotiate in any meaningful way with the people in Vespra who are so substantially objecting to this position where the government of the province moves in and hands over the lion's share of their assessment to the nearby city. Comparisons are odious in some respects, but I can only compare this with what we experienced with the city of Brantford and Brantford township.

The present Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had other duties at that time, and the then minister and still Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), though he had municipal responsibilities, was able to persuade the two protagonists, as councils, to sit down and work out an agreement.

Some of the loose ends of that agreement have still not been worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned. The minister of municipal affairs would know there are some people involved in that original agreement who feel they have not been treated with complete justice and equity.

He and his officials continue to concern themselves with it, but even under those circumstances, particularly since the change in the leadership of the ministry, there has been a falling off in the feelings that led to the agreement in the first case. As I say, comparisons are odious, but the minister of municipal affairs must surely realize that what was possible in Brantford and Brantford township should have been possible in Simcoe and the Barrie-Vespra situation.

It is true this has been more or less a festering sore for more than a decade. The government, under a number of individuals leading in municipal affairs, has tried solutions involving the Ontario Municipal Board. No doubt it has tried political solutions with the locally elected members. They have been a terrible failure.

We well recall a former minister of municipal affairs, W. Darcy McKeough, who tried to impose his own will on the situation. He sent a letter to the municipal board indicating the outcome of its deliberations that the government of Ontario wanted to see. The members may recall the reference to the Divisional Court that followed that letter. That really threw the whole thing into a costly fiasco.

I do not suppose the people of the province are hanging by their fingertips on the outcome of this debate, or even the outcome of the disposition of the piece of Vespra township that is going to be allocated to Barrie if the government has its way.

There is a mighty principle involved. The opposition at least, and I have a feeling a large number of back-bench supporters of the government, have serious misgivings about the government moving in a matter of local jurisdiction and imposing a solution which is so much against the will of the people who are responsible for the development that is under discussion.

On rare occasions, my wife, my family and I drive up Highway 400, going into the holiday land of the province. From time to time, we cut off into Vespra township to have a hot dog or a meal and to see what is going on in that part of the country. The development has been very impressive indeed. As far as I know, none of that development is permitted without the approval of the master planners here at Queen's Park.

I would think one would find in every instance there is a signature of some minister, even though it may just be a rubber stamp, approving the development in Vespra over these years. It was at their initiative and in some respects at their sacrifice that this development took place. The taxpayers in Vespra township have had the benefit of this additional assessment which assisted the farmers and small businessmen in that area in meeting their local requirements. One can see that when the government of Ontario moves in and wants to take away this large proportion of their assessment and hand it over to the city of Barrie, they have substantial objections.

It is really a wonder to me that the government has not at least tried to sit down with them and point out that over the next succeeding years financial agreements can be entered into which would see that Vespra does not unnecessarily or unduly suffer from the loss of this assessment.

One of the things that made it possible for a similar situation to go on to fruition, if not complete success, in Brantford and Brantford township was the role of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his officials in laying out the agreement that would at least ease the pain and salve the transition over the five- to seven-year period when the additional costs would normally have to be met from the people on the township side. There have been agreements entered into which have been reasonably successful in that regard.

8:10 p.m.

A second reason we should not be proceeding with this is that it is a very rough cure for the diseases brought on the body politic by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, once again as I said, aided and abetted in this fiasco by the sitting member for the area, the Solicitor General.

Further, I want to say that municipalities across the province do not look on this proposed statute as something of little importance. They are very much afraid if the government is successful in this imposition it will then use the same process to "settle" -- I use the word in quotations because it is not really a settlement -- the many problems that have been hanging fire for a number of years in many other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, you may be aware of the problem involving the town of Tillsonburg and the township of Norfolk. The town of Tillsonburg is in the constituency of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) and the township of Norfolk is in the constituency I have the honour to represent. As a matter of fact, the problem results almost entirely from bad decisions made during that period when the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario was imposing regional government on so many of the areas that did not want it. These areas pointed out the problems that would be faced in the future. This is a long-standing difficulty I hope the minister would not dream of settling in a way similar to this so-called Barrie-Vespra settlement.

The municipalities have contacted the minister, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and representatives of the opposition party with well-worked-out resolutions expressing their concern at this high-handed action by the minister and his colleagues. These resolutions have been read into the record and, if we have any luck, they may be read in again as the debate proceeds. I understand there are a lot of new resolutions, even more forceful in their direction to the government.

Certainly, the last thing the government should use in such a sensitive matter as this is anything approaching closure or the restriction of full and democratic debate. I think the municipalities themselves have clearly indicated to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they do not have confidence in his leadership in matters as sensitive and as important as this.

They have expressed their fear that this minister, who has good and successful municipal experience, seems to have forgotten what he learned during those years when he had to deal with his seniors, so to speak, at the federal level. On more than one occasion he probably felt put upon by regulations, decisions and commands from above, if one may use that sort of geography. Now he finds himself in the seat of the mighty and he is acting as a dictator in imposing this sort of settlement in the situation that is before us.

It is almost incredible that he has not personally seen fit to work out some solution with the parties rather than saying, "If you do not agree with me we will nuke you, and we have the bomb in preparation in the House right now." It seems to be a very strange way to approach what is not really a serious problem at all. After all, Barrie has plenty of room for expansion. The township of Vespra had this development planned on its own initiative, and the people who developed out there are very well satisfied indeed. If anything, in the long run, it is the inadequate policies and leadership of the Ontario government that has allowed this sort of development to take place.

As for me, I see nothing wrong with a municipality that is largely rural in its aspects attracting commercial development, properly planned, within its boundaries. Over the years, the chief planner of the province, who used to be Darcy McKeough -- I suppose it is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- has had the power to stop such development if he feels it should not proceed. Over those years we have seen shopping developments take place in townships outside Chatham, Woodstock, Tillsonburg, Brantford and so on, right across the province. If this were a bad thing, why, in heaven's name, was it not stopped, or at least controlled?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was.

Mr. Nixon: It was not and it is not.

All of these things have gone on with the sort of development which, in many respects, is very suitable for a rural township that is close to an urban or urbanizing area.

I have often thought over the years, as various planners at the provincial level have wrung their hands saying, "Is this not a terrible thing?" that they had the power to control this sort of development or stop it, rather than allow it to go to the point where the only solution is so draconian that it is bound to establish bad feelings between neighbours which will take a good long time to die down. It is extremely unfortunate.

As I say, the minister, his predecessors and his colleagues must bear the responsibility for these inadequacies in policy and leadership.

I want to express our concern that this sort of motion comes to our table as we are closing down a very lengthy session. If we are going to be reading the comments on this session in the next few weeks, assuming we get out of here by that time, any reasonable, objective observer will say that absolutely nothing has happened this session except the pronunciamento from the Premier that he is going to extend separate school aid from kindergarten to grade 13.

As far as we are concerned, this was not a matter for debate in the House; it was just brought forward by the Premier, who made the announcement and then walked out to talk to the press. That is really the only significant thing that has happened here this year.

We have had plenty of time to deal with important legislation. The minister, and the government House leader before him, have said that this was brought in during December 1983, but we have not had any significant time to debate it. They have had committee hearings -- that is true -- but the debate in the committee stage here in the House has not been extensive.

I do not want to repeat myself unduly when I say it is regrettable that only one individual had most of the time to put his views. I must say just in passing that I do not criticize him for that, particularly since the government appeared to be intransigent in its approach to this thing; so intransigent that they were not even prepared to sit down with the officials from Vespra and work out any sort of rational compromise or something that would at least move towards a solution without this kind of solution.

In talking about the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I have heard a lot of excellent extended speeches in this House and his was not the worst. I am afraid that is the best I can do for now.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one.

Mr. Nixon: I cannot do any better than that at this stage. I probably listened to more of it than even he did, and I found it hung together rather well. I heard some criticisms being interjected, I think from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) earlier in the day about it being repetitious, but certainly the Speaker and his colleagues who share his responsibilties were never able to significantly pin him on that criticism and the thing seemed to hold together as it went along.

I find I am more easily entertained in here as the years go by and that may account for the fact I was able to listen to his speech probably at greater length than most of the people sitting opposite.

It is unfortunate that has to be a part of our debating procedure, because in an ideal Legislature members who have an opinion and some background knowledge in an affair such as this should have ample opportunity to express that view. I also agree with those who say that eventually these matters have to be settled by a vote of the Legislature. For that reason, I regret that this motion is put before us because I do believe that eventually, with the efflux of time, and as members one after the other have an opportunity to express either their support or their objection, the House would then by its vote dispose of the matter.

8:20 p.m.

Frankly, I have no qualms that if people on both sides truly understood the situation, the bill would not proceed and we would not be in a situation such as we find ourselves at the present time. In summation, I simply say we are not under a time pressure, there is no other significant business with which to deal other than third readings of our pay bill and one or two other footling points.

The July 1 deadline in the bill is irrelevant as far as the application is concerned, if the community should be so unfortunate as to have the bill enacted into law. I feel criticism must be directed at the ministers responsible for allowing it to come to this pretty pass.

Their leadership has been inadequate, both in the short term and the long term, in planning and in assisting local officials in planning their own communities. That is a criticism that has been spoken and reiterated in this House on many occasions. It is as true now as it ever was.

On the government side, they simply cannot seem to get their act together to believe truly in the autonomy of the local community and to provide the kind of leadership that would see that autonomy come to fruition with proper, productive and modern planning.

My colleagues and I regret this motion is before us. We feel that in a modern legislature, with all the devices for leadership that are available to cabinet ministers in this modern age, this sort of draconian action should not be required. We have plenty of time to complete a rational and productive debate in an orderly and moderate way. We certainly will not support the motion. We hope the government will come to its senses, withdraw the motion and allow the debate to proceed normally and fruitfully.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the action of the government. I guess I am more surprised at the comments of the government House leader and at the Speaker. In the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, standing order 38 says, "Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the Rules and Privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and may quote the rule or authority applicable."

We have no rule in this Legislature and we have never had a rule in this Legislature for time allocation. It is not part of the standing orders. If anyone thinks it does this House any good whatsoever for a Speaker to be bamboozled by the government --

The Deputy Speaker: There are two things I should share with you and with the House. As you well know, the ruling of this afternoon is not debatable. You also know you cannot refer to the integrity of the Speaker or call it into question. That is a simple, basic fact. I ask you to have those two perimeters in mind as you proceed with the debate on this motion.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, maybe you can help me, since you jumped up right away. Maybe you can quote the rule from the standing orders that the Speaker enunciated this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect, that debate has been concluded, as you well know. The debate on whether it was in order for this resolution to come before this House has been decided by this House. We are now dealing with resolution 8. The debate is legitimate provided you avoid calling into question the integrity of the Speaker. There was a comment that could have been interpreted that way. I cannot permit that.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you or the person who occupied the chair before you allowed the government House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), to make his comments with respect to the appropriateness of the ruling this afternoon. I am going to come to that.

I am quoting a rule that says we have the right to be afforded the protection of the Speaker in this Legislature. I am stating categorically that the Speaker cannot quote a rule in the standing rules and procedures that says we have a time allocation motion.

He can jump up out of his chair as many times as he wants, but we do not have that rule. He can say I am wrong until hell freezes over, but we still do not have the rule. He can quote May, Beauchesne or all of them. In the House of Commons in 1980, 1981 or 1982 they established standing order 75A, 75B and 75C which allow that to occur. At Westminster they have a procedure for it. We have nothing but a precedent that was allowed two short years ago.

Let me go on, Mr. Speaker. When the government House leader rose in his place this afternoon and said the House leader for the New Democratic Party had said there had to be a resolution to these matters, I agreed. What the government House leader failed to tell us, though, was that I agreed that since the last occasion on which this occurred, if this government had wanted to introduce changes in the standing orders, we were prepared to accept time limits on speeches -- 45 minutes, to be precise.

If the government in the two intervening years had been prepared to bring that standing order in, at the end of 45 minutes the time allocated to my colleague the member for Oshawa would have evaporated. But the government chose not to bring the rule change in and preferred to force the Speaker to make these silly rulings to substantiate its position.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your seat. We are headed for trouble. First, you are out of order in debating the ruling. Second, you cannot impugn the integrity of the Speaker.

Mr. Martel: I am not. I am speaking to the motion.

The Deputy Speaker: If you wish to proceed with legitimate debate, I remind you for the last time that those are the perimeters you must not touch.

Mr. Martel: The motion before us is a time allocation motion, which is not part of our standing orders. You can argue as much as you want; it is not there, all right?

The Deputy Speaker: That is fine; you have made your point. I am simply stating again that this matter has been settled; it was settled this afternoon. So I ask you to return to the resolution, if you would.

Mr. Martel: I did not see anyone interfere when the government House leader got up this afternoon and indicated to this House that I suggested there had to be a way to bring these matters to a resolution. He did not bother to go on to suggest to you that I had agreed we could have time limits on all speeches. He neglected to mention that he had agreement from this House leader to see a change in the standing orders that would limit the speeches to 45 minutes for back-benchers. He neglected to tell the House that. I resent that, because the member for Oshawa would not have gone eight and a half or nine hours; he could only have gone 45 minutes.

The government has not seen fit to change the standing orders since the last time we had a time allocation motion, and the time allocation motion is not part of our standing orders. So when I say it rules by motion, what else should I say? It has things that are not standing orders in this Legislature, and because it has the numbers, it can force it through whether it is part of the standing orders and procedures of this Legislature or not; it just forces it through by numbers. Is that the way to play the game?

We have rules and procedures in this House to try to make it work. There are at least four or five pieces of legislation that were not slated and were not on the government's priority list. My friend the Liberal House leader and I agreed to get those bills through even though they were not on the government's list of priorities. We accommodated the government House leader so we could get that business done; we did not have to, but we did.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: You are all heart.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: We could very well have said no to the former whip, and we could have debated Barrie-Vespra all that time, could we not? When the government presents a list of the bills it wants through, we believe that is the list. It is strange. Year after year, whether it be June or December, there are always four or five extra bills at the end that the government wants, although they are not part of the government's list when it comes with its final list.

8:30 p.m.

We accommodate the government and try to get them through because the government needs them; so let the members opposite not pretend there is no sense of co-operation among the House leaders to make the joint work. But when the government comes in with this sort of thing and the government House leader only gives half of what has transpired at House leaders' meetings, then it is a one-sided story. I suspect there is not a minister, outside the government House leader, who was aware we were prepared to put 45-minute speaking times on all back-benchers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is wrong. They all arc.

Mr. Martel: They all are. I see them all nodding in assent. When the House leader came in with that nonsense this afternoon, it was quite obvious they did not know. Nor are they aware the government House leader presents a list of the legislation he wants done. Then to compound it, he adds absolute blackmail to the game, because the motion says we will sit Friday.

There was a federal Tory convention just about a year ago. It had nothing to do with this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was to elect the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Martel: I do not care what it was for. A federal convention does not operate in this jurisdiction and this House did not sit on that occasion.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are listening to the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: When that convention was on, the member knows where he wanted to be. Where was that, Buddy-boy?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We were not holding things up for the member's party.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: The House adjourned for Tory and Liberal conventions.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I will be glad to be here all summer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. All members know our rules include specific direction about abusive language and language that can incite, so all members should return to legitimate debate. You can criticize without that kind of language. The interjections are not necessary.

Let us not say anything, because the member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: To correct the record, I want to say the Conservatives wanted that day off to attend their federal convention. We have a convention this Friday in Hamilton.

Mr. Kerrio: Which phone booth?

Mr. Martel: I do not care where it is held. We also accommodated the Liberal members just a couple of weeks ago, or did the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) forget?

Mr. Kerrio: No, no. I had important business.

Mr. Martel: No. The member has a good memory but it is short -- about that long. He had important business.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Short memories.

Mr Martel: Yes, he has a good memory but it is short. Two weeks ago this House adjourned on Thursday and Friday so those members to my right could attend their convention. We have a motion before us, and it is interesting the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) said last week in one of his interjections: "You will not be able to get to your convention on Friday. We will sit on Friday."

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Good idea.

Mr. Martel: That is a good idea, right. It is called blackmail. He can put it any way he wants. We have advanced four or five or six pieces of legislation that were not on the government's list. We got them done to accommodate them. We accommodated the Liberal convention, and because the government does not like us holding up a bill it brings in blackmail. It is saying to us, "If you want to go to your convention, this bill and Bill 141 have to be through by Friday." That is pure and simple blackmail.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We will see the member here Friday.

Mr. Martel: I tell the members opposite and I warn them now, come November and December, they will go through every set of estimates in totality. They will go through every concurrence and they will be here until mid-February. We will not sit in morning sessions that we do not have to. We will only sit by the rules. We will not cut back anything, if they are going to play that childish game.

I say to the government House leader, if he is going to play that sort of game, we will not accommodate legislation that is not on a list.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will have a long list.

Mr. Martel: Give us a long list. They may think it is funny here tonight, but if they look at the number of hours for estimates and concurrences left, they do not have enough time now to be finished by December 24.

He can shrug his shoulders but I know what it is like the last two weeks of every December as ministers wander around trying to get their last bill through, trying to negotiate with the critic to see if they will let a bill slide through easily. If he thinks he is going to play that game tonight with that sort of motion and expect me to forget by November, he is crazy because he is not going to get it.

It is too bad. The government House leader might have to come back next week, but he will not get a thing through that is not scheduled and he will not get an extra hour's sitting or an accommodation anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Wells: How about Monday?

Mr. Martel: We will sit Monday. We will be here Monday if he wants.

The government House leader knows that when he had a federal convention we accommodated him; we did not insist on sitting. When the Liberals had one we took two days off. It is too bad if it does not suit his timetable for us to finish the bill when he wants. He says to us, "We will penalize you." The former Minister of Revenue, who has been demoted to Minister of Government Services, said last week, "You will sit next Friday." If that is the kind of game they are playing that is fine, but they will pay the price down the road for this sort of chicanery.

I warn the government House leader now that we will be here. There will be five of us here on Friday come hell or high water. But he will pay the price come next November and December.

Mr. Haggerty: Next election there will not be five of them over there.

Mr. Martel: There will be five, enough to tie the House up.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: After the next election there will not be five of you.

Mr. Martel: Does he want to bet? Would he like to put his money where his mouth is?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Martel: We have a motion before us that has an element of blackmail about it. Down the road they will pay the price. I will not forget.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will not forget.

Mr. Martel: That is fine. I have difficulty when I keep coming back to the rules because the Speaker rules me out even though we do not have a rule to cover this. The Speaker says I cannot talk about this rule because it is not in the rules. I wish he would quote the rules to me so I would know the rule we are talking about that I cannot talk about.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member yet again he must not call into question the integrity of the chair, no matter who is sitting here. He cannot or he will lose the floor.

Mr. Martel: I am trying to talk about a rule that is not there and I do not know how to quote it to him. If I could pick up the rule book and say that by standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, August 1981 -- and this is what we operate by, I think -- but I cannot find the rule. I have tried.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That may well be the case. I am simply reminding the member that was settled this afternoon by this very Legislature. Now it is no longer debatable so he should put it to rest. May I suggest he merely move on to the motion. That is what we are talking about here in the debate.

Mr. Martel: I am talking about the motion. The difficulty I am having in trying to talk about it is that it does not fit into our standing rules. What am I supposed to do about it when it is not in our standing rules? Shall I write a new rule? Shall I number it --

The Deputy Speaker: Just do not call into question the integrity of the chair. That is number one. Please do not dispute my ruling on that. We have done it enough times now; we cannot belabour it.

Mr. Martel: Is that rule 107 though?

The Deputy Speaker: You are talking about government resolution 8.

Mr. Martel: That is the resolution that is before me and I am trying to find a rule in the rule book. I do not know if it is 107, 110 or 99. I cannot find it. Maybe he can help me.

Mr. Kerrio: Read the rule book.

Mr. Martel: I could read all the rules to him if he wants. It is not in there and so I am impugning somebody's motives.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Why does the member not get mad and go home?

Mr. Martel: No, I like it here.

Mr. Breaugh: Why does he not get mad and stay?

Mr. Martel: Yes, I think I will stay a while. I heard the government House leader this afternoon talk about Bill 179. I presume it is okay for me to talk about Bill 179, since the government House leader spent a considerable amount of time telling me how great Bill 179 was. Three minutes on Bill 179.

My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) tried to indicate to the government it goofed on that bill. He implored the Speaker not to allow the ruling from two years ago on this matter which ended up before the courts. The government House leader had the audacity to say it put Ontario back leading the pack in the provinces. He might want to tell that to the 17 per cent who are unemployed in Sudbury or he might want to tell it to the 600,000 or 700,000 people unemployed in Ontario.

As I said to the Premier when we debated this bill, "If interest rates rise in the United States, that whole bill of goods you sold to the people of Ontario about the wage restraint package will go down the tube, despite the fact that workers did not get any increase beyond five per cent." We are on our way, and they do worry about it on that side of the House. The recovery is not here, despite what the government House leader said today. He might want to tell the 500,000, 600,000 or 750,000 people who are unemployed that we have benefited from that price and wage control that dealt primarily with wages.

When my friend the House leader gets up and tells us all this nonsense, I suspect at the same time he is genuflecting every second step down towards the altar in the hope that interest rates do not go any higher. If they do, we will have more than 600,000 unemployed. The government will not have the workers to blame any more as it did two years ago. They hammered a piece of legislation through then using the same type of legislation and same type of motion, which I remind the Speaker is not in our rule book.

If we look at the rules, my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) quoted standing order 37 this afternoon, "A substantive motion is one that is not incidental to any other business of the House." It must be, however, because the government House leader used this motion two years ago. We were then dealing with wage restraint, and he is now using the same motion to deal with Barrie and Vespra. He is using a substantive motion, which is supposed to deal with one motion only.

The standing order goes on to illustrate, "Examples of such motions are: the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Budget motion, want of confidence motions in allotted sittings, Resolutions, motions for returns or addresses, and motions for the appointment of committees."

I cannot find in standing order 37(a) that this type of motion can be used repeatedly to fill in for rules that do not exist. That is what we have happening now. A rule that does not exist is being adopted by the government House leader. He presents it and says, "It is a substantive motion." What he is doing is a total and complete abuse of a substantive motion, a rewriting of the rules.

As I said this afternoon, I find it rather difficult to accept that we are even debating this type of motion when it has only been used once before, and now a second time. The government has had two years since the last occasion to rewrite the rules. It has not attempted to do so. We on this side have agreed there should be time limits, but the government does not want to do that. It can use its majority and force such a motion through. It does not matter whether it is right or wrong, and it does not matter whether it is part of the standing rules, the government just forces it through because it has the numbers.

We might as well throw the rule book away. That is my suggestion. It does not fit in anywhere. It does not fit in under standing order 37 or standing order 38. There is standing order 36. The government House leader commented on that, except he got himself in a trap. The government was too smart by half.

Was it not the fellow who was carrying the bill, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who wanted to violate the rules again? He violated the rules by wanting to make an introductory statement on clause-by-clause study of a bill in committee of the whole House.

That was a violation of the rules. I did not see anyone jump up and say to the parliamentary assistant that he was violating the rules; no one. I see people leap up when I make a few comments, but no one said to the member for Wilson Heights that he was out of order.

Mr. Breaugh: Quite the contrary.

Mr. Martel: Quite the contrary. He was allowed to go on, so he set the stage for this debate that has run on for a few hours.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no intention of entering into the debate, but I distinctly recall the Chairman having a discussion with the honourable member about that very thing, outlining the fact that there could not be opening comments. But there was unanimous consent by that committee, if the member recalls that. The committee proceeded under unanimous consent.

Mr. Martel: That just shows how co-operative we are. We were prepared to take through a bill or two for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). We took through a couple of bills that were not on the "must" list. We took through a couple for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). We are always accommodating.

The government responds by moving a motion that says we have to sit on a day when we have a convention, despite the fact it adjourned the House when there was a federal convention, not a provincial convention. If the government thinks that is not blackmail, I want to say it is all that and more.

Let me continue. I want to make a few more comments regarding this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: There is some harassment going on here.

Mr. Martel: I guarded against that sort of intrusion over the dinner hour. I went out and had a very nice dinner. I thought I would get a couple of extra glasses just in case I got thirsty tonight. I thought I would do it ahead of time. If someone wants to send them back with other than water, it would be much appreciated.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I was thinking of that.

Mr. Martel: If the minister does that, I would certainly appreciate it.

Let me go on. I cannot help but think back to the bill that introduced the regional municipality of Sudbury. We had a similar situation in Sudbury. When we brought in the regional municipality of Sudbury bill, there was a township called Broder that came right up to the boundary of the city of Sudbury. One half of it had all the industrial and commercial assessment; the other half, like Vespra, consisted of a few scattered homes and whatnot.

The city of Sudbury said to Kennedy, who was then the chairman and did the study, "We think the city of Sudbury should have the half of Broder that has the industrial and commercial assessment." Kennedy, to his credit, said: "No. If you are going to take half of Broder, you are going to take it all, but you are not taking the part with the industrial base." To Kennedy's credit, he put it in the report.

8:50p.m.

Like my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on occasion I drive over the hill on my way home, get something to eat and fill up my car. I could not believe the government was prepared to practise confiscation because really that is what it is.

The government always talks about socialists and how they would interfere. I recall the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with a bill just about a year ago that if any socialist party ever tried to introduce the business community would have gone crazy. They would literally have gone mad if we had tried to take over three trust companies, but the Tories could do it and get away with it.

Here we have another act of confiscation led by the Solicitor General. The government is going to confiscate part of Vespra and then tell them after the fact. It says to them, "Now you can negotiate." What the hell else can they do? If they have it taken away from them, what else can they do? One does not negotiate that way in our society, unless one is a Tory.

The government says to them: "We will pass the bill and then you will negotiate, you beggars, only then. We know you do not want to give it away for a song, but if we have the power of the act, you will have to negotiate." If they do not own it any more, they will want to negotiate to try to get some return with respect to commercial and industrial assessment. What is that called? If that is the government's idea of negotiation, then I am sorry, there is something sick about this Legislature. It is really sick. I find it repulsive.

I used to hear the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) when she was on city council, the great defender of councils. With a bill such as this, one does not go to the wall with the first problem. We had suggested, as of last Thursday, that the government might want to negotiate, establish a committee to do something to negotiate. What does the government mean by negotiation when they will no longer own the land? The government has annexed it. It has taken it away. It has confiscated it. What does the government mean by meaningful negotiation?

I would hope that some of the Tories over there would wake up to what is going on. It is a tough problem. The government cannot get Vespra to give away its commercial assessment. Can one blame them? I understand it ties in perfectly with Barrie. Regional government in Sudbury and Broder township tied in wonderfully well with the regional municipality of Sudbury. My friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) knows the area I am talking about, south of Four Corners. But to his credit, Kennedy said: "No way. You cannot have that happen. You just cannot, because all you want is the part that has the commercial assessment and industrial assessment and you cannot do it that way."

This government is saying to them that it will negotiate after the fact. What negotiation power does one have after the fact? The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations used to be the Minister of Labour. What power does one have to negotiate after the fact? They know they are ultimately going to get what is offered, and it might be increased by 10 per cent to show how big-hearted they are. They are going to get the dirty end of the stick.

I am amazed the government would do it that way. I am amazed the government would use this type of motion to try to stifle the debate. I am not amazed by the blackmail contained in it. I am amazed the government House leader would do it. I have always had a great deal of admiration for the government House leader. I never thought he would try to force us to finality by putting the screws to the New Democratic Party convention.

I have one to tell the government. That is not the way I see it. It is okay for Tories to go to their convention. It is okay for Liberals to go to their convention --

Hon. Mr. Wells: We do not want to keep you from the convention.

Mr. Martel: No, no, the minister is saying to me that I either acquiesce by Thursday night or we do not go to the convention on Friday. That is the position that is being taken. It is straight blackmail and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Martel: The minister can say no all he wants but that is what it is, pure and simple. It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before he made these statements in this debate, has the member ever once asked me or my colleague the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, not to meet in this chamber on this Friday?

Mr. Martel: I did not hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Has the member ever asked me or the House leader for the Liberal Party not to meet in this chamber on this Friday before he made these comments in his speech tonight?

Mr. Martel: The minister knew full well there was a New Democratic Party convention on Friday. Everyone knew it. The Liberal one was mentioned; conventions are a fact of life around here. We have always made sure that members of this Legislature could attend their conventions. The minister knew of that convention.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I did not know there was an NDP convention. I heard rumours of it.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Government Services said last Thursday, while sitting in his place, that we would not be out of here to go to the NDP convention. Does the minister want to check the record? Let him check it. I tell him that is what was said.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order: The member never asked me if the House could not meet on this Friday. Is that not right?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I implore you, as a past Scarberian yourself, to allow this point of order because I think the House leader for the government party is unintentionally drawing us away from the fact, if I can put it that way. He is asserting or trying to make it sound as if he did not know about the convention. He is trying to make us believe he did not know we were meeting at a convention in Hamilton when the whole province knows and is talking about it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order at all. It is out of order. The member for Scarborough East has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Scarborough East? Scarborough North.

Mr. Martel: I have not moved yet.

The government House leader can say I did not ask him. He knew there was an NDP convention. He also knows that for the Liberal convention we sat on Wednesday so the Liberals could be out of here on Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Kerrio: We asked the House.

Mr. Martel: Oh, baloney.

Mr. Breaugh: The Liberals went on bended knee.

Mr. Martel: I heard a member of the Liberal Party say --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the debate.

Mr. Martel: -- "If need be I could stay over." I say to the member for Niagara Falls that I attend the House leader's meetings.

Mr. Kerrio: I expect if you asked for the day off, they would give it to you.

Mr. Martel: By that motion it looks as though the government intends to.

Let me gather my notes here. I have to continue.

Mr. Kerrio: Does the member for Sudbury East want me to put the motion?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East is returning to the terms of the resolution. He is on his way back.

Mr. Breaugh: It is a long trip but he is returning.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I keep returning to the rule that does not exist. I want to quote it but it is not there. I can never find it so that I can quote it to start my remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is out of order.

Mr. Martel: I hope I am not going to cause the Clerk any indigestion, but he is having a rough time. Every time I mention this the Clerk almost --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He could get a whiplash.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Clerk has nothing to do with the terms of reference of this resolution, nor does trying to return to a debate that is totally out of order when you start to talk about the ruling of this afternoon. Let us not get into that.

9 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I am talking about the motion. Let me read the motion to you. I want to read this carefully to you, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"Government Notice of Motion No. 8 -- Mr. Wells -- Resolution -- That notwithstanding any order of the House, the House sit for the consideration of government business, afternoons and evenings Monday to Thursday and Fridays until 1 p.m. until further order and the consideration of Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra, by the committee of the whole House be concluded not later than 5:45 p.m. on the first sessional day following the passage of this motion" -- I can go on and quote the entire motion.

Maybe the Speaker could help, if he were so inclined. I want to know under what rule in this rule book that motion applies? Maybe the Speaker can tell me.

The Deputy Speaker: We are not having to refer to any rule; we are not going to debate; it is undebatable. You know full well that matter was dealt with, I say it yet again, this afternoon. We are now returning to notice of motion 8.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you perchance check to see if there is a quorum present?

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

9:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum present. The member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He is the only one.

Mr. Martel: I need only one.

Mr. Nixon: He is here all alone.

Mr. Kolyn: Where are the New Democratic Party members? If they are not going to listen to the member, neither are we.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a quorum. The member for Sudbury East is continuing with his debate.

Mr. Martel: Did I break up the cribbage tournament? I am sorry. I did not mean to break it up. I apologize.

Mr. Havrot: Four NDP members.

Mr. Breaugh: If it goes any higher the member will have to take his shoes off.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in order to show how magnanimous we always are -- Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Shall I recite the six bills we gave that were not on the list?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: We know that.

Mr. Martel: The minister will not get his now.

Mr. Breaugh: It will remain a secret forever.

Mr. Martel: I am sorry, it is gone.

To expedite the business, I will make one final remark and take my seat.

Mr. Kerrio: Hear, hear.

Mr. Martel: The member for Niagara Falls should not be so enthusiastic or I will punish him tomorrow.

As I wind down, try as I might I cannot find in this rule book the rule that is being applied here tonight. I hope the government will consider some rule changes we have been advocating. There was agreement at the standing committee on procedural affairs -- and the chairman is sitting back there -- which had all this worked out. The maximum time was 45 minutes per member. If the government did not want to move to that, it is not my fault.

In conclusion, I resent coming in here and seeing a new rule to enforce something that is not in the rule book.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Call it common sense.

Mr. Martel: The member can call it what he wants, but it is not there. If we went by common sense we would do a lot of things in here differently. We would even give the backbenchers a role.

In the interest of getting the business done, we will oppose this awful motion because it seems to me the government is using a sledgehammer to break a peanut. I remember when the new boy, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), came to Sudbury in regard to the regional municipality of Sudbury bill. I guess he was a parliamentary intern then. I took him out to Laurentian University and we spent the day chatting with some people about the Kennedy report on Sudbury local/regional government and the regional municipality of Sudbury bill. He was a new boy on the block.

9:10 p.m.

I would like to put this proposition to the minister before he proceeds any further. He should simply say to the people of Vespra tomorrow morning, without this silly nonsense and without this bill: "We are prepared to negotiate. I will head up the negotiating team and sit in the middle between you and Barrie." We do not need this draconian motion. We do not need this piece of legislation in the form in which it is. I will work with the government to bring it to a head. In that way we will not set precedents of this nature in this Legislature.

It is confiscation to put people to the wall and then suggest to them they have to negotiate. They have no power. They have no source from which to get fair negotiations. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would do himself credit and he would do the Legislature credit if he suggested to his House leader that he is prepared to head up the negotiations to resolve this matter, starting tomorrow. Then we could all go home this evening.

If the government does not get it, it can always come back. I suspect, in all sincerity, they would get it. Let us not go through this sort of nonsense in order to resolve this. It sets precedents down the road that could be unconscionable. I have enough faith in the minister to think that he and Mr. Fleming, a person in that ministry for whom I have tremendous respect, can bring it to a head. We could do that without having to go this route.

I would urge the minister to try that first, rather than this. We are prepared to come back next Monday if the government cannot get it through, if it cannot resolve it. We would urge the minister to try the negotiating route and see. Vespra tells us it is prepared to negotiate.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We can do that when the bill is on the floor.

Mr. Martel: Leave it on the floor for another week and negotiate with them, then we can come back. We would be prepared to come back on one day's notice if the government cannot bring a resolution to it without this type of legislation.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, when I interjected this afternoon, something I very seldom do, condemning the Conservative government for its dictatorial tactics, I was not simply a voice in the wilderness. I believe most members in this Legislature have received resolutions from municipalities stating what this resolution that I have in my hand states.

I am going to read part of it, "Further, we again call upon the provincial government to withdraw Bill 142 on the grounds that such legislation is dictatorial, undemocratic, contrary to the wishes of the people, contrary to the greatest common good, unjustified and recognized as being a dangerous and unprecedented threat to rural municipalities and to the county system." There we have it in one sentence. I am shocked at how far this government has strayed from what I considered to be the democratic system when I entered this Legislature.

Churchill was one of the great leaders. It is too bad we have not seen more like him in recent times. He once said about democracy, "It is far from perfect but it is the best system that has been devised to this point in time." Those may not be the exact words, but that is what Churchill was implying when he talked about the democratic system.

I wondered what the word "democracy" really meant when I viewed what was going on with this government, so I took the dictionary and I looked up democracy." According to one of the best dictionaries we have in the country, "Democracy is government by the people, that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them." In other words, it is government by the people, but that is not what we are seeing here with this kind of a resolution.

I guess I was naïve when I thought, upon my election in 1973, that I was going to have an opportunity to participate in the democratic system. I was not here very long before I learned exactly what Churchill said: democracy has its imperfections. I am convinced that no government has strayed so far from the democratic principles as this government here in Ontario.

I do not need to remind the Conservative Party that I was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1973 to stop further imposition of regional government. We in southwestern Ontario saw it as something disastrous and nothing more than a wasteful expenditure of taxpayers' money. In other words, the imposition of regional government was simply another high-handed tactic of this government to strive for more power. The Premier --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Who wrote this?

Mr. Riddell: The member should come over and have a look.

As I was sitting here looking at government members carrying on their dictatorship, I started to put some notes together.

Mr. Piché: On a point of order --

Mr. Riddell: Sit down. I have the floor.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would first like to look at the text of the honourable member to see who wrote it. This member is abusing democracy right now. I would like to know if he is agreeing with the member for Oshawa and the nine hours he has put in in this House abusing his legislative privilege. Is that what he is saying?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) please take his seat?

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. The chair will decide who is in order and who is not. The point is out of order. It may be some kind of point of comment.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege --

Mr. Piché: I have the floor right now.

The Deputy Speaker: No. The Speaker has the floor. The member for Oshawa had risen on a point of privilege.

Mr. Piché: Let the record show he has gone over nine hours right now.

The Depty Speaker: Order. Will the member for Cochrane North take his seat please. You know my options.

Mr. Martel: You had three final warnings the other night.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of chatter here today. I just listened to the member for Cochrane North say I abused the privileges of this House for some nine hours. For many of those hours you were in the chair, you were the man who was holding this House according to our standing orders.

I take some offence that members opposite would accuse me of abusing other members' privileges. More than that, I commended you on several occasions for keeping me in order. I want the remark that I was abusing the privileges of the members here, which was made in a rather weaving manner by the member for Cochrane North, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: To answer the member's reason for being on his feet, it is not a point of personal privilege. As to withdrawing a remark, we have had allegations flung back and forth across the floor that have been very abusive. Let us return to the debate.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Cochrane North would stick around, he might learn something. It gets a wee bit annoying when the member drops in to the Legislature once in a while --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) please take his seat, and would the member for Cochrane North please avoid abusive language. He knows our orders.

Mr. Piché: I find that doubly insulting.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Members cannot use insulting language. Let us return to the debate.

Mr. Riddell: I will talk to you, Mr. Speaker. I am simply saying it gets pretty frustrating when certain members sit in this Legislature and participate in the parliamentary system, while other members come in periodically and about all they can do is --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We will move on to another speaker if we have any more of that language. It is only inciting the type of behaviour we have seen sparked around the chamber.

9:20 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely feel you are the type of person who would apply that ruling to all sides of the House.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying I was elected to this Legislature to stop further imposition of regional government. Those of us in southwestern Ontario could see the disastrous effects of regional government that had been imposed up to that time. We could see it was nothing more than a wasteful expenditure of taxpayers' money. If one were to talk to any of the people in the municipalities that are under regional government right now, they would probably say they would get out mighty quickly if they could.

The Premier, at the height of his power, could not bear to see two Liberals march into this Legislature after the by-elections of 1973, so he put a stop to further imposition of regional government. He knew a general election was pending.

At least we were successful in that mission. Maybe this is one case where democracy did work within this Legislature, but I would like to see it working far more effectively than it is at present in dealing with this resolution.

Mr. Martel: Ask him for the rule.

Mr. Riddell: No, I am not going to talk about the rule. However, as is the --

Mr. Piché: Now the member is in bed with Elie.

Mr. Martel: The member for Cochrane North should tell me the rule that applies here.

Mr. Riddell: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I had thought --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. I say to the member for Sudbury East and the member for Cochrane North, I distinctly recall the member for Huron-Middlesex was nothing but polite and attentive to your debates. Order.

Mr. Riddell: As I had indicated. I thought we had brought an end to regional government. But as is the Premier's custom, as well as that of some of his cohorts over there, he endeavoured to bring it in through the back door by what the member for Sudbury East would probably call blackmail.

Let me give an example. Regional police grants were much higher than municipal police grants. That is a way of bribing the municipalities by saying, "Look, if you are going to get in on all these good grants you had better regionalize." That is what I call bringing it in through the back door.

Health councils were also forced upon municipalities, if they were to make their voice known in matters pertaining to health care. French services were brought in the back door while the Premier stood at the front door and shouted for all to hear, "I will not make Ontario officially bilingual." That is what I call governing through the back door.

The Deputy Speaker: The member really has to help me to see how that fits into the resolution.

Mr. Riddell: I am just citing some examples of how far we have strayed from the democratic system. That is also obvious in the resolution we are dealing with now and I am going to develop it.

Here we are debating a motion which is intended to stymie debate on a very controversial bill. The government seems to forget we are elected to give whatever debate is necessary on bills of such a contentious nature. This government takes the attitude that the oppostion members are redundant in what is supposed to be a democratic system.

It is a sad testimony to democracy that this government would dictate to a lower tier of government, as it is doing in connection with the Banie-Vespra situation, not to mention the shabby way it treats the opposition role in this parliament.

This government treated labour most shabbily and unfairly in its closure motion in 1982 when we were dealing with Bill 179.

Mr. Piché: I take exception to that.

Mr. Riddell: That is exactly what happened. For any government to break up contracts between labour and management the way this government did back in 1982, it has to be nothing more than a dictatorial government that completely ignores settlements made on a local basis.

Mr. Piché: My God, this is terrible.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I wish the members of this Legislature had the opportunity to visit the country I visited over the Christmas holidays, South Africa, to see for themselves how a dictatorial government actually operates. If they were over there to see the government in South Africa controlling every radio station and every TV channel, and there are only about two of them, and controlling the type of --

Mr. Piché: What about the CBC and CTV? Who rules them? The New Democratic Party, that is who. Who else is on CTV?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: The South African government controls things visitors can do and not do, see and not see. In other words, if I had spoken out against that government when I was over there, I would have --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane North, last call. Order. That is the last warning.

Mr. Riddell: The point I am trying to make is that if members of this Legislature, particularly the Progressive Conservative Party, which is straying very far from democratic principles, had an opportunity to see what a most undemocratic government is like in South Africa, they would come back here and decide very quickly to follow democratic principles once again.

If I were to dare to speak out against the government in South Africa, even though I was a Canadian visiting that country, I would be picked up off the street and put in what they call their political prisons. Believe me, there are people in those prisons, people of the cloth, ministers of all faiths, who had enough courage to speak out against the apartheid policy of the government, only to find they were suddenly picked up, whipped into the political prisons, there to spend dear knows how much time. Some of them have been in there for 10 and 12 years.

Coming back from a country where I saw this type of government policy, it really bothers me to come into this Legislature and see the government rule with an iron hand, completely ignoring a local decision that has to be made between Barrie and Vespra. If the government feels it has to become involved, surely it can do so through negotiation and not through the heavy-handed tactics it is trying to use in Bill 142.

Here we are trying to carry out our parliamentary responsibilities, trying to retain democratic principles and wanting to debate Bill 142 to show the government it is making a mistake. That is our responsibility as opposition members. What does the government do? It comes in with a closure motion to stymie further debate on Bill 142. It says: "We are going to do exactly what we want to do, folks on the other side. You had better like it or lump it." I take offence at that.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We take offence to a filibuster.

Mr. Riddell: There is no filibuster.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Filibusters are against the rules in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Is that a new rule too?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Filibusters are not allowed in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: What are you doing, writing the rule book over again or what?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Only the member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Then keep him on the subject.

Mr. Riddell: I am absolutely on the subject. It bothers the minister to see a motion introduced into this House that is going to stymie further debate on a bill of such a contentious nature as Bill 142. It bothers him and that is why he is interjecting.

9:30 p.m.

The government has made a mistake with this closure motion. As the member for Sudbury East has said time and time again, a motion of this kind is not found in the rule book but the government is going to make the rules and play the game as it wants to play it.

It cannot go on, it has got to stop; and if the government is not going to stop it of its own accord, the day will come when the members opposite will be on this side of the House and we will be over there running a democratic system of government, which has been lacking in this province for 40 years.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief intervention.

The Deputy Speaker: We have heard that before.

Mr. Breaugh: I am not sure this government really understands what it is doing here. I want to speak directly to the use of a closure motion, this motion in particular. I want to make a final plea.

I am not one who is accustomed to making pleas to this government to have a sober second thought, to stop and think what it is doing. But the idiocy of using a closure motion on a boundary dispute is, as far as I can determine, unprecedented in the history of parliaments. I cannot find in our House of Commons, in the British House at Westminster, in all of Beauchesne or in all of Erskine May an instance in which a government took a matter such as a boundary dispute and made it the subject of a closure motion. It is unprecedented.

Closure motions are motions related to matters of major public concern, on which a government feels it really has no ability to end debate other than by moving a motion such as this one to order the business, which probably falls into the category of what most parliamentarians would refer to as a guillotine motion.

It is true that one can find in the British House, for example, fairly regular use of a form of guillotine motion; but that has been used there for some time, members are aware of it and it has become part of their practice. Everyone on all sides at Westminster understands that the government does not really use a guillotine motion; it is part of the normal proceedings there for some matters. But in attempting to establish why this government at this time would put this form of closure on this bill, I am at a loss to provide an explanation.

Let me tell members what I do know, Mr. Speaker. I read into the record some of the comments from the 104 municipalities that opposed Bill 142. That represents a total population of about 299,244.

Mr. McLean: We have heard that before.

Mr. Breaugh: As a matter of fact, you have not heard that before. The population represented in the 11 counties opposing Bill 142 -- including the county of Simcoe, I might add, for those members who are from the Simcoe county area -- is 747,584. That excludes some cities on the assumption that they have been separated from the counties.

I read into the record some of the comments and resolutions from those various municipalities because I believe they are worthy of the notice of the Legislature, and not all members got that. I noted that some people feel that what those municipalities had to say is drivel; some people feel it is not reasonable to have this Legislature listen to that, perhaps on the assumption that in rural Ontario they do not know as much as the members of this Legislature do about the sophisticated levels of government we have in Ontario.

I think that is unfortunate. I believe that in rural Ontario we probably see democracy in one of its best forms, unencumbered by a whole lot of staff people who write speeches for folks, unlike the Ontario Legislature where many members require someone to write out their every word.

When you go to a county council you hear it like it is. You hear people talking about the problems in their county or their municipality, and they give their own opinions, not someone else's opinions, not the staff's opinion. They do not give a speech that is written by an executive assistant; they just sit there and tell people what they think about what is being proposed.

I want to put on the record tonight this resolution from the county of Lambton:

"The county of Lambton has recently endorsed the resolution of the county of Simcoe regarding Bill 142, and whereas the county of Lambton has also passed a further resolution petitioning the provincial government to allow the fullest debate and not to introduce closure regarding this bill, and whereas it is deemed appropriate for the county of Simcoe to support the county of Lambton and reiterate the intent of the county of Lambton resolution, now therefore be it resolved that the council of the county of Simcoe hereby petition the provincial government to allow the fullest debate and not to introduce closure or any other parliamentary procedure to expedite the third reading of Bill 142, and further that the clerk be instructed to telegram this resolution to the Premier of Ontario and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing."

As I understand it, as of now, three counties, Lambton, Middlesex and Simcoe, have taken the time to pass a resolution and communicate that feeling to the government of Ontario, to the Premier, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and if my copies of the letters are right to most of the local members involved as well.

There is an awareness at the county level and at the local municipal level that this government entertained the possibility of closure for reasons which are certainly not clear to me. They said, as specifically as county councils could say: "Do not do it. Do not use closure on this bill."

What confounds me no end is there is no sanity to this, none whatsoever. This government does not need this bill to survive. This government does not need to save face on the matter. This government does not need to withdraw the bill. This government does not need to make a minister resign. This government does not have to do a thing.

Last Friday morning this government could have said: "We had a shot at this bill. Now we are going to adjourn the House for a recess and we will send our staff people, our minister, the Premier or whomever you want to that area, and we will negotiate the financial package that goes along with this." Most government members would understand that normally, when one comes to this kind of an impasse, one tries to put together some financial package so everyone on whom it will have an impact in this community will at least know what the numbers are. Barrie should know, Simcoe should know, Vespra should know and the ministry should know.

I do not think anybody is making an argument that it is an impossible thing to do. We have argued all afternoon and evening about this closure motion. All through most of that time, representatives of the Vespra council sat under the gallery. They left a little early, because they did not have a car with them and they had to catch a bus back home tonight.

All the time they sat there, there were ministers sitting opposite and staff people sitting under the gallery. It was well within the realm of possibility to my mind that if some of the talented people around this Queen's Park of ours had set their minds to it, they could have negotiated that package today. They chose not to.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had only to walk across the aisle of the Legislature and sit down beside Reeve Harry Adams and talk to him. He would not do it. That is a shame. That is a tragedy. That is stupidity in government.

I do not know why this government has chosen to move this closure motion at this time. I know it is unnecessary; that much I do know. It ought to be possible for this government, as sophisticated and as strong as it is, with a majority and with many talented civil servants who are skilled at putting together financial packages and at negotiating, with just a minimal amount of effort on its part to have done that. They chose not to. They say that after the bill receives third reading they may choose to do that.

What escapes me totally is why the government of Ontario, with all its sophistication and with all the resources at its disposal, has decided to take this one rural township and really sock it to them. It makes no sense to me at all. I have asked that question for a long time now and I have had no answers.

The pretence is that some negotiation has taken place. That is not true by my definition of negotiation. It is true that one single meeting was held at Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology. That is hardly negotiation in my book. It is true that the government has said, "Vespra can come to us and negotiate with the government of Ontario." By my definition, that is not negotiating either. That is an offer to come and visit, but that is a long way from negotiating.

9:40 p.m.

I feel very strongly about this particular motion before us tonight. This is the darkest day this province has seen for some time in relation to Ontario's rural municipalities. It is particularly dark because there is not an ounce of common sense in it. It is so stupid, it is beyond belief.

I cannot find a precedent anywhere, in anyone's parliament -- at least on the surface of it -- for the use of a closure motion of this kind on a debate about a boundary annexation. Governments do not do that. They use closure motions rarely, and with some discretion.

In my nine years here as a member I have seen roughly four or five closure motions. They are not a common occurrence. I could understand the last one on the wage and price control bill, where the government felt there was a great philosophical split and the opposition parties were obviously at odds with the government. It felt it had no option. That involved every citizen in the province in some way or other.

We are talking about a little rural municipality here. We are talking about using all the government's power. Quite frankly, I am concerned that we are debating a closure motion tonight because somebody -- I really do not know who -- feels their nose would be out of joint if the Ontario government did not stomp all over Vespra township. That is a sad commentary on modern government. That is an uncivilized thought.

I told the people from Vespra council when I first met them: "You come down here and you will get a set of public hearings, but do not be silly about it. Do not expect a whole lot of fairness. Expect that people will sit in a room and listen to what is said, but do not think this is a county council where you are expected to act and react with people who appear in front of you. These people know how to ignore you pretty well." They have done that.

It is rumoured in certain parts -- and I believe it -- that one of the prime movers behind this bill is not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing but the Solicitor General. He has managed to stay relatively silent on the whole matter for about six months, except in his own particular riding. That is fair. That is his game.

One of the first lessons a minister must learn when he comes to Queen's Park is when to sit down and shut up. Those who never learned that lesson often got into trouble. It is the same with ordinary members, the back-benchers over there. They soon learn that one of their first roles in life is to stand up around 10:15 in the evening. It is not necessary to know why you are standing up; it is only necessary that you are physically able to get vertical roughly at 10:15 p.m. and give a little nod toward the chair. They understand that is simply what life is all about, unpleasant as it may be.

I have a lot of reservations about the motion in front of us now. It is unnecessary. It is ungraceful. I am saddened somewhat by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who is, above all other things, a graceful politician. He looks good. He rarely says wrong things. He is, for the most part, one of the most gentle persons I have seen. I believe he is a competent minister of the crown.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member should calm himself.

Mr. Breaugh: No, no. He is doing, perhaps, one of the greatest disservices to parliamentary democracy that I have ever seen. I am certain that in his heart of hearts, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows this closure motion is wrong, that it should not be in front of us tonight. He knows that and, yet, he somehow feels it is his duty to defend the faith, to defend the government's side.

When we get into these moments of great stupidity in here, I often wish someone on the government side would just come over to the opposition side and say, as a gesture of humanity, "We have a minister who has done something dumb here." In this instance, I cannot even tell the House which minister it is.

Why can he not say: "We all make mistakes. It is true we do. Let us just forget this for awhile. Let us just go away. We will come back another day and try to do things right. We will try to straighten out this mess."

I was flabbergasted, quite frankly, when on Friday morning, at the end of the day's proceedings, the government House leader announced the Ontario government's intention to move closure on Vespra township. That is beyond my comprehension. It is unnecessary. It is stupid politics. That is one of the prime reasons I did not think it would happen. It is so incredibly dumb to move closure on a bill of this nature.

It would be so incredibly easy for the government to do the commonsense thing and simply sit down and say to Vespra township: "You guys had lots of debate on this matter. That was your deal. You have a chance to air that." I think we would all be happy to say that this airing of the issue has occurred. It would be common sense for the government of Ontario to say: "We are going to take the next four months and resolve the final component here. This financial obligation package will be put together over the summer. It will come back again in the fall when the Legislature is resumed, and that is it."

It gives the government all the power it would ever need to use on poor little Vespra township. I even made the ultimate sacrifice. I said today, and I would be happy to reiterate again tonight, that I do not feel I need to go on for any great length of time. Within 20 or 30 minutes of resuming this debate in the fall I could say what I had to say; there is no question about that. So if the government is worried about the debate going on forever and a day, that is not going to happen; I have made that commitment and I would be happy to keep it.

What I am concerned about is that this government is going to move its closure motion in here tonight, a wrong move if ever there was one. It is saying to all those people, about three quarters of a million of them who live not in the cities but in rural Ontario, in the counties and municipalities that thought enough of this problem to pass a resolution in regard to it: "We do not care about you; we do not want to listen to what your council has to say. We want to move closure tonight, and we do not have to give a good rationale for closure."

I listened this afternoon to a couple of ministers of the crown say, "At some point a government has to decide." Normally the argument about guillotine motions and closure motions is simply that there is some great issue in front of the Legislature that must be decided, there are great differences among the three parties and we are not getting anywhere; that there is a need for this, there is an urgency to it, it must happen and so we will move closure.

The government cannot make an argument on this bill of anything close to that nature. It cannot tell me the shopping centre is going anywhere. The members opposite all know they have their approval through their law firm of Goodman and Goodman to proceed with the expansion of the mall; that is happening anyway. The government knows it will probably not proclaim this bill by July 1 this year, so it will not fulfil one of the qualifications that is in here.

It knows this sense of urgency is altogether absent from this argument. It knows that the sensible, normal way to proceed would be simply to say tonight: "Let us get out of here. People are tired, people are hot, people are angry; they need to cool it off a little bit. We have lots of civil servants who can go up there and put this package together over the summer. We will bring it back in the fall; we do not have to reintroduce it, and Breaugh is going to sit down and shut up within 30 minutes. So there is no great hassle; this thing is going to be put away so smoothly, so fairly."

If the government came back in September or October or whenever the House resumes and said to us, "Here is a list of the days when we met with Vespra, Barrie and Simcoe county; we met with them once a week every week for four months and we were unable to resolve this financial argument," I for one could not then say that at least the government did not try.

We said in committee that this argument has gone on for 10 years; that is not true. This argument has gone on, off and on, over a 10-year period, which is not to say the argument has gone day by day.

Even in regard to what I heard in here tonight -- that I have spoken for some nine hours, which seems a fairly lengthy time -- I think I have had a couple of evenings, a couple of afternoons and part of a morning. That is hardly an undue period. It has been said in here, and I regret it -- it has been said, in fact, by the government House leader -- that there was a filibuster under way.

You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, because we are parliamentarians who happen to be interested in this thing, that in a parliament you cannot read a phone book, you cannot filibuster as they can in the American Congress or Senate. In a parliament there is no such thing as a filibuster; in a parliament you must at least address yourself to the matter at hand.

9:50 p.m.

Constantly and persistently through the course of the contribution I made, the government of Ontario did not participate a great deal other than to interject from time to time. The table officers, and I think they ought to be congratulated for it, did what table officers are supposed to do. The Chairman of the committee of the whole House made it a habit to ensure that I was on track, that I spoke about the one bill consistently as I went through my opening remarks.

What happened was an unusual occurrence. We got into that situation because the member for Wilson Heights, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, asked for unanimous consent to give some opening remarks. When I said yes, I did not know whether he was going to talk for five minutes or two hours. I have been in estimates where ministers have talked for two or three hours. I found it somewhat difficult to listen to but I listened to it. It is not that hard.

Therefore, I find the motion before us a most offensive one. I find all closure motions of this kind to be particularly offensive. It is one thing to say, as the British House does, "We have a guillotine rule here and what we are going to do is simply talk bills out." Everybody understands what is going on.

For example, when we have an emergency debate here, we know the rules of the game are very straightforward. One may get to move a motion and he knows he can talk until six o'clock and at six o'clock that will be it for the day. I do not protest that aspect of it for a moment. I understand what we are doing there. However, this motion constitutes a substantive change from the way this House deals with its business. It is incredibly difficult for me to justify, even in a parliamentary sense, why the government would move at this time to put this closure motion on the record. It is not a sensible way to proceed.

It is a sad day for people in Ontario, particularly those in rural Ontario who have some empathy with the people in Vespra township. Their councils have taken the time to express that. Some of them went further. Each day more are telling us that in addition to just being opposed to Bill 142, they are also opposed to the use of closure on that bill.

I suspect in future years this government will rue the day it brought this motion before us. I think it is a difficult thing the government has done. It must be difficult for some members opposite, with whom I happen to sit on many committees. I know this is not their choice. I would suspect if a free vote were allowed on this closure motion tonight there would be more than a few members on the government's side who would say, "Boy, I talked to some people back home" --

Mr. Piché: The member is dreaming.

Mr. Breaugh: Why does the member not just weave his way out of the chamber for the rest of the evening and do us all a favour?

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would it be possible to find out how long the member for Oshawa has been speaking -- I know it is over nine hours -- and how long he has been abusing the privileges of the House?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The chair will decide who is abusing what. Your point of order is out of order. The member will kindly take his seat and the member for Oshawa will continue with his debate.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to know how many warnings the member for Cochrane North gets in here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Back to the debate, please. The chair will deal with all those other matters.

Mr. Breaugh: I keep waiting for the chair. I hope I get as many final warnings as that member has had this evening.

Mr. Martel: That was his third one tonight.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, that is the third time tonight. It seems to me we ought to have a three-times-and-out rule. It would not be a bad idea.

I want to conclude my remarks on this motion.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: On the other hand, if it makes the member for Cochrane North happy, I want to continue my remarks for a period.

[Applause]

Mr. Breaugh: Just a minute. I am getting confused. I think I have the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) on my side. I certainly do not want to play in that game. The final insult would be if the Minister of Government Services agrees with me about anything; I do not care what it is.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I agree.

Mr. Breaugh: He and I are not on side on anything.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would know it was the wrong side if I was on side with you.

Mr. Breaugh: There is just myself and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) against him.

Anyway, before I was rudely interjected upon, I was trying to conclude my remarks. I believe this is a sad day for Ontario's Legislature. I believe this motion is one the government is going to hear about for a long time and not only from me. They are going to hear about it from every member of a municipal council, particularly in a rural area, from one end of Ontario to the other.

I want to tell the honourable members opposite, many of whom come from these rural municipalities, they had better get ready. They are going to spend the summer at social events, at strawberry socials. They are going to be at the fall fair in Lambton county, in Simcoe county, in Middlesex county, from one end of this province to the other. They are going to be explaining to members of their local councils why they had to move closure on this bill and why they ignored what their municipalities had to say on the matter.

I know what it is going to be. I am going to put it on the record; then I am going to conclude. I will put even money tonight that the members opposite who have to go back home to the folks and explain to them what they did tonight in this closure motion will say something along the lines of, "It is just one of those stupid things governments do these days." The defence will be that eloquent.

They will say, "I personally did not agree with it but I am a government member and I was told I had to vote for this closure measure." They will say words to that effect. They will be doing that in Tweed, in Picton and all over Ontario all summer long. They will say: "It was not me, boys. I was told by some big wheel in Toronto I had to vote for closure, even though your council told me not to."

They will go back home to events from one end of this province to the other, all summer long, and deny up, down and sideways that they personally had anything to do with this bill. They will be giving all kinds of rationalizations, such as that they voted for closure tonight because the honour of some minister was at stake. What malarkey. Some of them will probably say the future of the government of Ontario was in their hot little hands tonight and if they had not stomped all over Vespra township, somehow the Big Blue Machine would fall apart.

The nonsense will continue for some time. I will be interested, as I go around municipalities this summer, to hear the feedback I get from local councillors who ask their local Tory member: "What in the world did you do on Bill 142? Why in the world did you have to invoke closure on a bill like that?"

I am going to gather up a bunch of those responses. If the government members did not like the nine hours I had in this spring session, I want to put them on notice now. They had better be very careful of the kind of baloney they spread around Ontario this summer to justify using closure on a bill like this, because I am going to slice it up and bring it in here for them and they are going to listen to it next fall.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: I think there will be some.

Mr. Piché: The member should quit while he is ahead.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Cochrane North has managed yet another interjection, brilliant as always.

I want to conclude by saying that what the government is doing tonight is totally indefensible. I will watch over the summer period how they move to defend the indefensible. The government members should watch what they say when they are out around the cow barns this summer because, if I hear what they have to say, when I hear their denials of any responsibility for standing up and voting for this closure motion, they are going to listen to it all fall long.

What is more important is not that I will repeat it for the edification of the Legislature. It is that people who live in their communities will know, because we are going to make the government members stand up and vote on this one tonight. We are going to put their names on the record and we are going to tell their constituents what they did to rural Ontario, what they did to Vespra township --

Mr. Piché: The member can start by putting my name on the record. It is spelled P-i-c-h-é.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: That is not bad.

Mr. Martel: Is that the last warning again?

The Deputy Speaker: It is only when he does not come to order that he has a problem.

Mr. Breaugh: He is lurching about in his seat over there. If he does not get his seat belt on shortly --

The Deputy Speaker: Back to the debate.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me conclude with this. It is unfortunate we are put in this position. No amount of rationalizing in the world will explain it to ordinary people who think governments ought to do sensible things. This is not sensible. It is insensitive and inappropriate. It is plain stupid.

10 p.m.

It is something which, as an opposition member, I should greet with great glee because, like regional government and a number of other matters, it will point out to people in Ontario that this government, which pretends to be a friend of rural Ontario, is no friend at all. I do not rejoice in that for a moment, because I am aware of the pain and suffering that will occur to the people of Vespra township for a long time over this bill.

I regret that. I oppose the motion for closure in front of this Legislature. I will oppose the vote on this closure motion when it is called later this evening.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of remarks concerning the sequence of events relating to the annexation.

Mr. Haggerty: Is this closure yet, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let us deal with the issue that seems to be paramount in the minds of most. Just to preface it, we have looked at the boundaries; we went to committee. The committee reported back on an adjustment of the boundary; this was exactly what we expected it to do, because we had said we were drawing a boundary for the greatest area possible and there would be some reduction. This was done through a public forum; there was an opportunity for many to take part and to be heard in the debate.

But the area that seems to be causing some concern is about whether we have been in a position of negotiating with Barrie, with Vespra and the province. Let us go through a little bit of the history. This will answer some of the remarks made by the member for Oshawa not only tonight but in past opportunities to speak on this bill.

Back in 1976-77, Barrie made an application to the Ontario Municipal Board. During the time that Barrie's application was before the board the then minister, Mr. McKeough, met with Vespra council on several occasions to explain the government's position on the application and offered financial assistance should annexation result in a substantial loss of assessment to Vespra. That letter was on September 30, 1976, which again was followed by letters on January 5, 1977, and October 26, 1977.

I quote from one of the letters Mr. McKeough sent, that of January 5, 1977, "It is regrettable that it was not possible for the municipalities to come to an agreement among themselves and to avoid the expensive and divisive methods in which everyone is now involved."

Let me move on to 1980-81. Vespra asked to be included in the Barrie-Innisfil negotiations. On November 15, 1980, while the Ontario Municipal Board decision was before the Supreme Court and Barrie and Innisfil were negotiating an agreement, Vespra wrote to the Premier requesting that the township be included in the boundary discussion. The reeve's letter characterized the board's proceedings as "totally fruitless, exorbitantly expensive and extremely time-consuming."

The Premier responded to the reeve on December 8, 1980, indicating that a provincial negotiating team would be established if both municipalities requested it. While Barrie favoured the approach, Vespra did not. Obviously the negotiations proceeded informally without provincial involvement.

On February 18, 1981, Vespra wrote the minister as follows: "We are totally unable to accept Barrie's position paper as a basis for negotiations. As such, it must be regrettably accepted that there is no alternative but to allow the matter to return to the municipal board."

Then Barrie suggested in a very positive way that the province step in, and Vespra disagreed. On March 19, 1981, responding to the March 6 invitation from Barrie, the reeve wrote to the Barrie mayor: "I regret that we are still not prepared to accept provincial involvement to the extent referred. We had felt that we had made our position in relation to this aspect of the matter very clear to you."

Then we moved on to October 14, 1981. This was getting close to the time when Barrie and Innisfil were reaching an agreement. The minister of the day wrote:

"Now that Barrie council and Innisfil council seem to be near an agreement, it would be unfortunate if the other boundary issue in the area were not also resolved. I know efforts have been made to agree in the past, but I hope that a further effort will be made. I am willing to provide a senior member of my staff as a mediator to try to bring the parties together. I have sent a similar letter to Mayor Archer and would ask that you speak to each other on this matter in the near future and get back to me."

The city urged the acceptance of the minister's offer on October 23, 1981, in a letter that the mayor of Barrie sent to Reeve Buie of Vespra. Vespra requested clarification, suggested that any settlement wait until the agreement between Barrie and Innisfil had concluded and admitted, "We frankly do not know any longer what it is that we are supposed to be negotiating that may require the services of a mediator." That was in a letter from the reeve to the minister on October 28, 1981.

On November 11, 1981, Vespra wrote the city indicating negotiations were premature, and their dislike of the idea of a provincial mediator was underlined.

Let me move on to 1981-82, to the introduction of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, Mr. Speaker. On November 18, 1981, the township forwarded a brief to the minister supporting the introduction of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act. Council claimed to be appalled with the Ontario Municipal Board process which, far from finding an acceptable solution, had created expenditures which council neither asked for nor wanted. The township congratulated the province for bringing in the legislation and attempting to find some far more acceptable and civilized method of resolving these issues than has existed to date.

On December 2, 1981, the minister wrote the municipalities encouraging negotiations and offering the services of the newly formed municipal boundaries secretariat. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk knows a great deal about that. The township responded on January 12, 1982, requesting further clarification.

On February 2, 1982, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act was proclaimed. On February 5, the minister suggested it was time the municipalities met with the director of the secretariat, Mr. Isaac. He wrote, "I have asked Mr. Isaac to contact you as soon as possible to arrange a suitable meeting date." Three days later, February 8, the city applied under the act, but Vespra responded by threatening court action to prohibit Barrie from proceeding.

On February 18, 1982, Vespra advised the minister that the council "never has accepted nor, in the view of the recent developments, does it now accept that Barrie is entitled or justified in attempting to annex any lands whatsoever from the township of Vespra." Then, in a letter to all the taxpayers in the township released that same month, council explained it was not going to tolerate interference in its affairs either from a neighbouring municipality or from the province.

On March 4, 1982, we received a letter from the legal counsel of the township which was sent to Mr. Isaac, director of the boundary negotiations secretariat, indicating any discussions or meeting would be premature and serve no useful purpose. Further, any correspondence between the secretariat and Vespra should be channelled through the lawyer's office.

Then, in the spring of 1983, as members all know, Barrie once again applied to the OMB for a further hearing.

10:10 p.m.

Back on December 6, 1983, I introduced the bill in this Legislature. I said at that time:

"I take the view that there is no prospect of negotiating a solution. In my view, legislation is the only way to conclude the matter. In the process, there will be time allowed in committee for further input and debate on the location of the new boundary and an opportunity for those citizens who wish to be heard to state their views.

"The bill to be presented today provides the basis for a solution, with details to be refined following debate before committee ... "

The actions that the government took in allowing the bill to go to committee and to the very area we were dealing with showed the government was prepared to listen to any convincing argument in committee as to why the lines should be varied.

The member for Oshawa made a number of remarks that were positive in relation to the line. He said we had decided we would have a boundary line drawn in the bill. We said very clearly and distinctly, and the member mentioned it today -- this goes back to the time we were bringing it into committee -- that the boundary line was not drawn as a heavy black, red or blue line, so it allowed for a great deal of flexibility.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has also spoken of the boundary line and the flexibility. He had some remarks to make in relation to that.

I say clearly to this Legislature that we have had a number of opportunities and we have presented a number of opportunities since December 6. We have asked Barrie-Vespra to meet with us. We have tried to find a way to resolve the problem. With all the dates, letters, correspondence, negotiations and discussions that have been conducted in the past, there is not a willingness to sit down and try to find some way of resolving the problem.

The member for Oshawa suggested there has been a request from the municipalities for negotiations. The Liberal critic contends: "The ministry wants the township to sit down and negotiate and accept the principle that Barrie needs this 2,000 acres of land. The township is not prepared to accept that." I think the members will recall that from June 4 of this year.

There have been several offers of assistance. The local member, the Solicitor General, relayed an offer of the provincial government relating to assistance back on January 9. That was again, I want to recall for the convenience of this House, repeated throughout the committee meetings. At the March 21 meeting, convened by the Solicitor General, Vespra took the position confirmed by its letter that it would listen but would not comment. Following that meeting of March 21, I asked the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Fleming, about whom members of this House have spoken in glowing terms, with the ability to --

Mr. Martel: Are you speaking to the motion?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I am; very much so. This is the reason the member is debating whether we have gone through the negotiation process.

Mr. Martel: You are not speaking to the motion.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is the reason for the motion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is right.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I could not help overhearing the member's interjections, but I also listened to the honourable members developing the debate. It was much along the lines the minister is following now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I suggested that, following that meeting of March21, Mr. Fleming go to see the city, the county and the township to exchange information on the estimated impact and projected cost of annexation. While some questions remain on specifics, the stage is set for negotiations.

I want to suggest positively to this House that we have received a proposal from the county in trying to arrive at a financial settlement that we are seriously considering. If Vespra had been as willing to put forward some suggestions as the county has, we could have found ourselves in a similar position in trying to resolve the problem. There has been no movement by Vespra whatsoever in indicating what it believes it is entitled to, as a result of annexation, from either Barrie or the province.

The time for any financial agreement remains entirely -- and I want to suggest this positively -- within the initiative of the local municipality. I repeat, since December 6 we have tried to find a way of bringing Vespra to sit down and review, discuss and negotiate the financial responsibilities. It is virtually impossible to conclude negotiations when one of the parties does not want to be at the table or even to indicate it is prepared to come with a written submission as to what it can do.

I have said it in this House, in committee and in estimates, and I defy anyone to argue the point, that this province has been committed to fair and equitable compensation, calculated without prejudice to the political stance taken by the township in opposition to the bill. We have said clearly and fairly that we will deal with Vespra in a very open and forthright fashion.

When I look at what the mayor and the reeve of Innisfil said at the hearings, it was a very positive statement. I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has to say, in the negotiations in his part of the province, that while there were some disputes over some finite items, basically there was full acceptance that the province had dealt with them fairly and openly.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk came to me on more than one occasion to try to see if we could smooth it out. I did not think I was being a dictator at that time in any way, shape or form. I was wide open to the member's suggestions and views, even though he is in opposition.

He made suggestions to me. He brought the mayor and the reeve and various others to negotiate with us. We tried to find a very reasonable solution, not only to the financial problems but to some of the other servicing problems they were experiencing in that community. I was open, free, willing and able to give them what I felt was a reasonable solution to the problem. Indeed it must have been, because they ultimately accepted it. That was not under strain or duress, I can assure the House.

Bill 142 will allow us an opportunity to formalize the commitment and also to clearly indicate our obligation. It is not spelled out in dollars because we have not had the opportunity to negotiate it.

On December 6, I suggested very positively to the representatives of Vespra and Barrie when they met in my boardroom with people from my ministry, that we could very well find ourselves at a financial position before the bill received royal assent if they would sit down and negotiate. That was not to be.

I want to conclude with one other remark in relation to questions raised as to how the sequence of events took place in December. We have been under this uncertainty for a long time; some 10 years. There have been some complications. There have been OMB hearings. In each case, the OMB did not dispute that Barrie was entitled to the land. We did get involved in some finite problems within the law, for which lawyers are paid to take it through the various court systems.

Ultimately, if we look at the hearings, the court orders and the OMB, there was never a dispute as to whether the land should go to Barrie or not; it was on some technicalities in getting it to where it happened to be at that particular moment.

In December, on the day I was introducing the bill, a week or 10 days prior to Barrie and Vespra coming in to see us, there was a great deal of speculation -- as the member for Oshawa and others will recall -- as to what was going to be the final position. We were now being drawn close to the hour of decision. If it did not conclude by February, under the old negotiation position, the whole act fell into disarray and we would have to start over from day one.

I said very clearly to Vespra and others we were not going to allow a 10-year effort to go by the boards because of a date in February. I was going to have to take some other action. The mayor and the reeve were well aware of what those actions ultimately had to be.

When I drew those communities into the boardroom for discussion, we went through the whole sequence of events. No one argued with that. They knew very well they had already spent millions of dollars both from the local taxpayers and from the provincial government. Indeed, they had spent far beyond anything realistic, even in trying to arrive at a settlement.

Mr. Nixon: All those lawyers lugged the money back to Toronto.

10:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will not deny that, but that is the wish of the local government to hire whomever they wish. I guess they felt the best legal counsel was here. I have nothing to say about that. That was their choice as to whom they hire as legal counsel.

On the particular day they came in, I had indicated to Barrie and to Vespra what we were going to do. The member for Oshawa then asked how certain events took place so quickly. Obviously, Barrie's solicitor was advising them on what was likely to happen just from reading the newspapers. At the conclusion of the meeting, on December 6, 1983, the city of Barrie handed me a letter which clearly indicated their interest in withdrawing their objection to the ministry's zoning orders. That was the sequence.

A day later, I then took the initiative to withdraw the ministry's zoning order after I had placed the bill in the House. Two or three days later, Cadillac Fairview made their application for a building permit to construct the $20-million addition to that particular shopping centre. Very clearly, we had that sequence of events.

Just to respond to one other remark, the member from Haldimand-Norfolk said we had not taken the actions to try to curb some of these developments on the municipal boundaries, that we had allowed them to go on unabated. He knows that is not correct.

Mr. Nixon: I do not know it is not correct.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, the member said that earlier tonight, but he knows it is not correct.

We placed 79 ministerial orders in this province to prohibit the development of any shopping centres on the perimeters of major urban areas in recognition of the planning policies of this province which would allow major urban areas to develop the major shopping areas; not the rural areas, but the area that bears the cost of servicing. We made 79 orders.

I will admit there were several horses that very clearly got out of the barn before the action was taken. We did take the initiative to do it.

My last remark --

Mr. Martel: Go ahead. We have all night.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not have the ability of the member for Oshawa to continue for nine hours without a glass of water.

I want to respond to the charge that urban municipalities automatically get the rural territory they request with one example. In 1973, when the government announced the details of the new Durham regional government proposal, members of Oshawa city council were quite displeased about not getting the western 10 lots of Darlington township, rural territory Oshawa wished to service and see developed.

Council voted to send a letter of protest and a delegation to Queen's Park. The member for Oshawa may recall that the young councillor who introduced the motion of protest was, if I understand correctly from the historical records -- they are 10 years old, so they must be historic by now -- none other than the current member for Oshawa.

It goes to show we do not take that particular position.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion for a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves the motion in accordance with standing order 36.

I have no alternative but to put the question in accordance with rule 36.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. Standing order 36 clearly states that upon putting the question --

Mr. Martel: The guillotine. There is a rule in the book. You can quote that one, but you could not quote the other one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The previous question is well provided for without notice or a seconder, and there is no debate permitted.

10:34 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Bennett's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McMurtry, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Sheppard, Stephenson, B.M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Martel, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Swart, Sweeney.

Ayes 52; Nays 25.

10:39 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wells's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McMurtry, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Martel, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Swart, Sweeney.

Ayes 54; nays 25.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon we will continue with consideration of Bill 142 in committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 10:43 p.m.