Journal des débats 1984-juin-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, the members may have noticed on their desks yesterday a letter and a lapel pin announcing the 1984 International Ploughing Match in Wellington county. This letter extended an invitation to all members from the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and me. Each one of us represents part of Wellington county here in the Legislature.

The exact site of the match is in Minto township, the part of the county I represent, and the exact site in the township is the farm of J. D. Ross and sons. The Ross family are known as outstanding farmers in Wellington county and also as outstanding Liberals.

The plough was a tool that helped over the years to open up this country. It was used in the early days not only to break the soil but also to plough in potatoes in the spring and plough them out in the fall. It was, so to speak, the beginning of life in the country.

This may have been a problem when one of our lately urban residents joined the farming community to become a farmer. He went to the chick hatchery to pick up his box of spring chickens, and two weeks later he went back to the hatchery and said he needed another box of chickens. The hatchery owner asked: "Why is this? Did the other ones not do well?" He said: "No, I cannot understand it. I planted them either too deep or too far apart."

I know that if the members will turn out for the ploughing match, which is going to be held from September 25 to 29 in Wellington county, they will learn a lot of these things. They will learn what the plough is for and how to use it, and they will not make mistakes as our friend did in this case.

There will be more than 500 exhibits there by people from all across the province and there will be 150,000 people attending. We would like the members to be among them, but most of all, we are inviting members to join in the competition put on for members of Parliament and members of the provincial parliament in Ontario. The winner last year was my seatmate the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), and we want to see that he is not the winner this year. We would like to see somebody such as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) there to challenge the member for Haldimand-Norfolk this year.

We look forward to seeing all members at the ploughing match this fall in Wellington county.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege, if indeed it is a point of privilege. I think it is a legitimate privilege for me as well as the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and the member for Wellington South to invite my colleagues to attend the ploughing match.

I think it is only fair to point out that three or four years ago, when Wellington competed with Grey and some of the other counties for the privilege of hosting this ploughing match, the member for Grey supported Grey and I supported Wellington. It did arrive in Wellington, but though I have several townships in Wellington, it unfortunately ended up in the portion of Wellington that the member for Grey represents, the only township he has in Wellington.

Mr. McKessock: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to point out that when the challenge was on for the location of the ploughing match, I wore two hats that day. Maybe the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel did not notice, but I supported Wellington and I also supported Grey.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would simply like to issue a challenge to my colleagues in the House to come to Wellington and participate in the MPPs' class. I finished ninth or 10th last year down east. I have tried to improve my position. It was a very large field, and I hope it will be equally large this year.

The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) is not in the House now, but last year she was concerned because the invitation went out to members and their wives. This year it has gone out to members and their spouses, so I hope all members and their spouses will attend.

In conclusion, I would like to say on behalf of the president, David Craig, that we would like members to come to Wellington and enjoy our hospitality in this our bicentennial year.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and say, after the members of the other two parties, that I accept the challenge; I will be there. I will also say that we in this party accept not only the challenge at the ploughing match but also that of improving the lot of the farmers generally throughout this province.

FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS

M. Cassidy: M. le Président, sur un point de privilège: J'aimerais souligner la décision de la Cour suprême qui vient d'être annoncée ce matin en ce qui touche a la référence sur les droits de l'éducation des Franco-Ontariens. Je crois que c'est important pour toute la Chambre le fait que la Cour suprême à l'unanimité a déclaré oui aux quatre questions qui ont formé le sujet de cette référence et, donc, a aussi appuyé la position qui a été prise par le député de York South (M. Rae) de la part du Nouveau Parti Démocratique dans notre intervention devant la Cour suprême.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to underline for members of the Legislature the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario this morning in the reference of French-language-education rights, in which the court has ruled unanimously that sections 258 and 261 of the Education Act are in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the degree of discretion given over French-language education to school boards and the lack of the power to manage their own education given to Franco-Ontarians. The court has ruled that minority language rights ought to apply to both the public and the private Catholic education systems here in Ontario.

I would say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that in view of this historic court decision it is time for the government to go the second mile and take steps now to declare Ontario officially bilingual, to opt Ontario into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in respect of French language rights and then to take the necessary actions to amend the white paper and come up with a scheme for French-language education that will be wholly and completely within the system of rights and laws as delineated by the Supreme Court of Ontario.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), I will address a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with respect to this issue. He is no doubt aware of the Supreme Court of Ontario decision of today referred to by our colleague. He is no doubt also aware that the position was put forward and ably advocated by my colleague the esteemed lawyer and member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who represented our party at those hearings. The court in its wisdom agreed completely with my colleague at that point.

Now that the Supreme Court has judged that the francophone minority has the right to its own language and class of instruction in French-language educational facilities and that there should be changes on the school boards, will the minister, as the minister responsible, undertake immediate action to implement that decision of the Supreme Court?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read the decision yet. My colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has it before him and has perused it.

In my discussions with the Attorney General and with others this morning, I gather from the decision that the court gives assent to the course of action this government announced quite some time ago, that is, to amend the Education Act to remove the "where numbers warrant" clause. We had that amendment ready but, in deference to the court, we did not introduce it until the court's decision had been brought down. I understand it is the intention of the Minister of Education to introduce that amendment to the Education Act tomorrow, when she will be back in the House.

In so far as the governance of the schools is concerned, that is, French-language representation and control or governance of the programs in the schools, without reading the report, the impression I have gained from those who have had a chance to read it is that it pretty well parallels the kinds of things put forward by this government in our white paper, which is now the subject of consultation among school boards. That process has begun. As soon as the consultation is finished -- I would say when this House comes back in the fall -- I think it is the intention of the Minister of Education to bring in some legislation based on a consensus.

As I recall, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) said we should be able to sit down over the summer and work out a lot of issues. This is one issue on which we are going to sit down and work out an answer. The member should please remember it is going to take the summer for that consultation process to be completed and there are a number of parties concerned, not the least being the school boards of this province. Everyone has been promised a chance to consult and to work out some solution to this problem, and I think that can be done.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may have anticipated the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in his suggestions of March 23, 1983, even although a number of the suggestions in the white paper have not been acceptable to a number of the people involved. Although it appears they do now satisfy the charter, they are still, as I said, unacceptable to a number of the participants. This gives us an opportunity to involve ourselves in a new consultative process with respect to the representatives of francophones on school boards.

Would the minister consider this summer involving a select committee of this House to deal with that decision and with the white paper proposals, as well as with the disgruntled parties, to develop a consensus so that the white paper proposals, unacceptable as they are, are not rammed down the throat of this Legislature without consultation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: A couple of things have to be said. First, my colleague the Attorney General reminds me that this decision may be appealed and therefore --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: By the Franco-Ontarian associations.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This decision may be appealed by the Franco-Ontarian associations in this province, in which case the Supreme Court of Canada will ultimately hear it.

As far as the proposals in the white paper are concerned, those proposals were put out to consultation committees and to a committee of school boards in this province to which they would have to apply. As I recall it, those school boards came back at a meeting a few months ago and said one solution was probably not the correct answer for this province and it might be that in some areas certain solutions might apply and in other areas other solutions might be the way to handle the problem. They were told to come back again and continue the consultation. I think that has to occur before this Legislature becomes involved in the total process.

The school boards and the Franco-Ontarian trustees' association are now working on that. I am sure my friend the Leader of the Opposition has every confidence that those bodies can work something out. When they have worked that out with the ministry, we will have an opportunity to bring proposals into this House. Then a committee of the Legislature and all members will have a chance to bring their expertise to these matters.

However, I think it is a little premature. It would not be wise at this time to involve a committee of the Legislature in a process dealing with proposals that have already been discussed and are being discussed by the people directly affected -- the Franco-Ontarians, the Franco-Ontarian trustees and the school boards of this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why the government would even contemplate the possibility of an appeal against this judgement of the Supreme Court of Ontario, when what is required is to implement a system of French-language education that will come within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and give to Franco-Ontarians, a century and a quarter after Confederation, the rights that should have been theirs a long time ago?

Why is the government's instinct always to consider trying to appeal or to beat back or to go back into history, rather than moving forward and ensuring that justice is finally done to Franco-Ontarians in education in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend must have misunderstood what I said. Let me make it clear that this government is not considering appealing the decision. There is a possibility, and it has been rumoured, that the Franco-Ontarian associations of this province may appeal the decision because they do not agree with one of the basic premises, namely, that they have separate homogeneous French-language school boards. There remains the possibility they may wish to appeal the decision, but I want to make it very clear that it is not the government's intention to appeal the decision. It may be that the decision will be appealed by someone else, in which case the matter will be in the courts for quite a while.

Mr. Peterson: We can stand on that or we can move ahead and legalize the current composition of the boards. Surely we have enough evidence at this point to move on these matters. I am asking the minister, who, to be charitable, is more sensitive to these issues than some of his colleagues and who has demonstrated personal leadership, to use his good offices to persuade his colleagues to start those dialogues now.

He should not wait for the appeals, which probably will not be forthcoming, but should move ahead to make sure we can have meaningful legislation in the fall after full consultation. I again recommend to the minister the mechanism of a select committee that will make sure all the parties are heard on this sensitive issue, so we can move ahead with dispatch and not involve ourselves with any more half-baked proposals.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that consultation is going on. We have heard a lot during debates in the last few days about involving people at the local level. As I recall, there are 19 school boards in this province where the new arrangements will have to take place. As they discussed the white paper, they all had suggestions about how it could work and how they would like to see it differ a little from the suggestions in the white paper.

As I said earlier, the suggestions about how it could work in different areas of the province are different. I am not sure whether that is the course of action we should take, but it may be that in the Ottawa-Carleton area one form of governance and representation on the school boards for Franco-Ontarians would apply, and it may be that in other parts of the province, such as Metropolitan Toronto, something different should be the model that is followed.

2:20 p.m.

I was not at any of those meetings, but I recall from the reports I got that this was the tenor of the discussions. It was suggested those discussions should continue, and they are continuing, until some kind of proposal is brought forward that the ministry can put into legislation. I probably believe in consultation more than my friend does and I think that is the right course of action now.

The Franco-Ontarian trustees and the school boards affected should try to see whether they cannot come up with models that will be workable. They know they had the support of this government in the general premise that was in that white paper.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have in my hand a letter from Dr. John S. Marshall, MB, Ch.B, whatever that is, from Queen's University, Kingston General Hospital.

He has sent this letter to his patients saying, "Dear Sir or Madam." I will not go through the entire letter with the minister, but he talked about the unavailability of beds in the Kingston area. He talked about the rationalization process.

He said: "The effects of these policies will vary greatly from one medical service to another. It seems probable that your waiting period" -- he is writing to patients -- "will be significantly prolonged because of ministry policies."

He then goes on to suggest that his patients become lobbyists. He suggests that they write to the attached list of people, a number of members of parliament, to put pressure on the government for adequate hospital beds in the Kingston area.

Does the minister really want this system to deteriorate to the extent that doctors have to turn patients into lobbyists to try to persuade him, as the minister, to do what he should be doing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I suppose the short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. I do not recall actually seeing that letter to which the member refers, nor have I received a ground swell of correspondence from Dr. Marshall's patients.

I must say I am in regular communication with the boards and the administration of the hospitals in my constituency. I am quite aware of what the bed ratios are there. In fact, we are fortunate in Kingston. The ratios in my community happen, not because of any action on my part, to be above the provincial targets. There is no shortage of hospital beds -- either acute care, chronic care or extended care -- in Kingston.

That does not preclude physicians, such as Dr. Marshall, from pursuing their own particular agenda. Dr. Marshall may well have an agenda he wishes to pursue.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister reads Dr. Marshall's letter he will see that he fundamentally disagrees with him when he says: "The financing policies of the government, and an increasing work load at the Kingston General Hospital, have resulted in severe budgetary shortfalls at the hospital."

He then goes on with this plea to his patients to try to put pressure on the government. Obviously, if he has chatted with the minister he has been frustrated in so doing. The minister probably gave him the same kinds of answers he gives us.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Ultimately one gives up, either out of boredom or sheer frustration from not getting any facts out of the minister at all.

I refer the minister again to the Ottawa situation where the board chairman of the Royal Ottawa Hospital said people are being turned away. He said, "'Royal Ottawa needs more hospital beds because people are going to become newspaper headlines" because of the budgetary shortfalls and the lack of beds in that area. He said, "Every day the emergency unit is filled to the brim and people have to be turned away."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister persuaded now that there is a real shortage of acute hospital beds in those two areas, and others as well? When is he, as the minister, going to admit there is a problem and then go on to address it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the member may or may not be aware that within the last couple of weeks we announced the approval of a further 80 beds at the Ottawa General Hospital.

An hon member: It paid for them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are paid for but with money from the provincial government. It will be paying for them with money that is already in its budget.

When those beds come on stream, Ottawa will be in a situation where it will be exceeding the provincial guidelines in terms of the number of acute care beds in that community.

There has been some dispute of that by an official with the Ottawa-Carleton District Health Council, although I am sending a letter to him shortly to point out that the data he is using are about three years old and are not current.

The situation at the Royal Ottawa Hospital is the only request, to my knowledge, that we have had. The request from the Royal Ottawa is for 29 intermediate-stay psychiatric beds -- their predicted need. I am not questioning that, but it is not a question of the beds not being available. It is a result of the particular patterns of practice of the psychiatrists in that area. It is their preference that intermediate-stay beds be provided within the Royal Ottawa rather than referring those patients to the Brockville facility.

We are reviewing that at the present time. I hope we may be able to meet that request, but it does not have the urgency of some of the other requests that have come in -- even from that community. We are not talking about the absolute lack of an alternative in that instance, but we are looking at their 29-bed request very seriously.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents received a similar letter last week and I took the liberty of calling her today. I spoke with her husband and he told me his wife had received a letter and had just been taken into the Belleville General Hospital as an emergency patient yesterday. It was more or less a form letter so I do not know how many people it has gone to in my riding and in other ridings.

My constituent was told by this Dr. Marshall that his wife had very serious problems. She had arteries that were very seriously blocked and she could die at any time; it was a very serious condition. He was very upset that he had not been able to get her into the Kingston General Hospital for this operation.

I feel it is a very serious situation. Would the minister look into this case? We wonder how many other similar cases there are, where people are prevented from going into hospitals to have these serious operations that are required right away.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be prepared to look into any situation the honourable member may regard as an emergency.

It would not be the first time I have done so in response to similar kinds of requests from within the community. Invariably when I have looked into the matter, the case has been reviewed by the medical staff at the hospital. Such reviews are done on a daily basis, and the opinion of the medical staff is not, in most instances, consistent with that of the individual physician who raised the issue.

If an individual on a waiting list for an elective procedure is perceived by his or her physician to be in an emergency or deteriorating situation, the individual has the opportunity to bring that matter before the medical staff at the hospital. The person can be leap-frogged up the waiting list if it is an emergency situation.

There will be differences of opinion among medical professionals. However, the decision to admit or not to admit an individual to a hospital is a medical decision; it is not a decision of the Ministry of Health.

Ms. Copps: Don't blame the hospitals; don't blame the medical staff. It is a decision of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WAITING PLACEMENT FEE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It arises from a question raised last Thursday by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) with respect to the waiting placement fees being charged by a number of Ontario hospitals. Members will be aware from press reports that Ontario has ordered hospitals that are charging the waiting placement fees to stop charging them on the grounds that it is contrary to government policy. According to Mr. Doug Enright, as quoted in the Toronto Star, such fees are prohibited under the new Canada Health Act.

When did the minister or his officials first learn of the existence of the waiting placement fees charged by certain hospitals?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the precise date; I do remember the occasion. I had a visit in my constituency office from an official of a chronic care hospital in Kingston about a month or a month and a half ago -- somewhere within that time frame. At that time, the individual said to me he had heard at a provincial convention that there was a particular hospital, which was named at that time, in which he understood this practice was being introduced.

The following Monday, I met with the officials in my ministry and directed them to communicate with the particular hospital and to tell the hospital it was not consistent with provincial policy and would not be tolerated.

To the best of my knowledge, that communication did take place. It is only since then that it has been suggested there are other hospitals that might have been tempted to pursue that course of action. My position will be the same with them. It is totally unacceptable and it will not be tolerated.

Mr. McClellan: The record will show the minister indicated he found out about it a month ago from a constituent, and that he finds it intolerable. Can the minister explain to us why it was that the Ministry of Health sent out a letter dated February 7, 1984, apparently to a number of hospitals if not to all hospitals in the province, advising them they probably should not charge a waiting placement fee but not strictly forbidding it? Does the minister never discuss these matters with his officials?

Is the minister aware that a considerable period of time ago, the Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph Hospital in Windsor had informed the Ministry of Health about its intention to charge waiting placement fees, as did the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington? Who is running the Ministry of Health, since it is obviously not the minister?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would take exception to that last remark. That is not to say there might not in the past, from time to time, have been some communication from the ministry staff which had not previously been discussed with me. Nevertheless, it was consistent with the policy of the ministry and, if anything, I would have suggested the letter ought to have been much more strongly worded. Nevertheless, it is consistent with policy.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show the minister, in his answer to the question from the member for Bellwoods, suggested these user fees were applicable or were denied in chronic care hospitals.

Obviously, the minister has a tremendous fundamental misunderstanding of the system. The point in question here is that acute care hospitals were being allowed to charge these waiting fee charges for patients who were occupying acute care beds but in a chronic state. The minister will also be aware it is not an isolated incident.

Chedoke-McMaster Hospital in Hamilton was contemplating similar charges, and notices were being sent around to patients. This was being done with the consent of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: If the minister did state a month ago that it was against government policy, why is it that hospitals across Ontario, in a widespread way, were preparing to introduce user fees on acute care beds, which is totally and fundamentally against the Canada Health Act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, the member is incorrect in her assumptions. I did know what I was talking about. I am well aware of the fact I was referring to a situation in an acute care hospital. If she had listened to my response, my reference to the chronic care facility was the place of employment of the individual who spoke to me. It had nothing to do with --

Ms. Copps: They already pay you some fees --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, but if the member would close her mouth and open her ears, then she would understand what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The individual happened to be employed in a chronic care facility, but was referring to a situation in an acute care facility. It was as simple as that. That was the point I had made. I am sorry the member for Hamilton Centre did not understand it.

Mr. McClellan: Quite frankly, I find it hard to comprehend that the Minister of Health of this province was not informed by his officials about a major user charge being imposed by hospitals in this province on elderly people. I find this simply unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Why was it the Ministry of Health knew about this practice many months ago and did not take any action until it was raised in this House on Thursday last? Will the minister at least have the decency to give us a commitment that he will force the hospitals that have charged this intolerable fee to their patients to refund every dime extracted from the patients under the waiting placement fee?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have made my position clear enough to the member, if he cares to understand it. He suggested there was some widespread application of this among the hospitals in the province. There is no evidence to suggest that. There is some suggestion there were some hospitals that were contemplating it, and perhaps a few that actually applied it in some instances. As I have said, that is unacceptable. It must not continue and I will see to it that it does not.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer, if he would like to take his seat.

I am sure the Treasurer will remember that last Thursday in trying to gloss over the cutback in housing construction activity due to rising interest rates, he told my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) the following, and I quote from Hansard:

"With the 14-basis-point rise today, interest rates were still within a range that I believe and have believed should not inhibit activity in Canada as much as many people are saying it has or could. I remain convinced, fortified by the Conference Board of Canada and the OECD -- hardly partisan observers of the Ontario scene -- that we still will see the kind of economic activity we predicted in our budget."

The day after that, the preferred interest rate went up by one half per cent in the United States, and it has now gone up a further one half per cent. Does the Treasurer still maintain that optimism about the effect of these rising rates on the economy, especially in view of the statement of his national leader, Mr. Mulroney, that it is very harmful and that 10,000 workers lose jobs for every one per cent increase in interest rates? If the Treasurer agrees with him, what representation has he made to the federal government or to the Bank of Canada to stop the iniquitous and steady rise in interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question was whether I am still as optimistic as I was a week ago when I gave that answer. The answer to that question is yes, I am.

Mr. Swart: I wonder how the Treasurer can be so optimistic when his own ministry, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, released a study in 1979 entitled The Potential Economic Impact of Domestic Interest Rate Hikes. According to the projections in that report, the one and a half per cent increase in the preferred rate means 20,000 to 26,000 jobs in Ontario have disappeared and the real growth rate has dropped by 0.54 to 0.96 per cent below what it would have been if the interest rates had not increased.

Does the Treasurer not think that is serious enough that he should be making recommendations to the federal government to keep interest rates down?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Conclusions drawn in 1979 will not necessarily stand the test of 1984. Times have changed very dramatically and the impact of some of the interest rate changes is very much related to the point at which consumers are finding those changes occur, their mindsets and the circumstances business is going through. Are they likely to be investing anyway? Are they operating at full capacity? Are they about to invest and holding back for those reasons, or are there other inhibiting reasons? There are a number of things that would make that analysis, which is now five years old, inapplicable in a different time frame.

The point I am making is not that interest rate increases are helpful; of course, they are not helpful. It is only that any presumption that there is an objective and certain measure of the impact of an interest rate increase of half a point on employment cannot be presumed to be accurate by any means.

2:40 p.m.

In terms of our feeling about interest rates, let us be clear. As long ago as three years ago, when my friends opposite were supporting the party in Ottawa that was advocating and defending 22 per cent interest rates, this government, led by our Premier (Mr. Davis) and by the then Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), led the fight at first ministers' conferences in Ottawa against those high interest rates. We did it then, we remain opposed to them today and have made representations consistently through this last period against those high interest rates. The member should remember to do his homework.

Mr. Swart: The minister indicates that he does not fully accept the relationship between high interest rates and a downturn in the economy. Surely he must be aware of the effect of the exceedingly high interest rates in 1981 and 1982 on the purchase of farm implements and on economic activities in general.

The minister will recall that the interest rates of 1981-82 were up in the range of 17 to 22 per cent. In 1981, we had only 277,000 unemployed in this province, according to official statistics. That figure is up now to 438,000. It was up to 514,000 but interest rates came down and the employment situation improved.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: My question is, although the minister said he made representation before, has he made representation now, this year, against the increase in rates, and if not, will he do so?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At the meeting of finance ministers last December, the entire question was raised again and there was agreement among all the finance ministers that every action possible should be taken to keep interest rates down.

One of the important things that governments in Canada could do, by way of ensuring we do not have another round of inflation and to keep interest rates down, was to ensure that all provincial governments and the federal government did what we could to keep our own deficits down, to stop deficit budgeting and to try to make sure that in all our public sector restraint programs we did not fuel the kind of inflation that brings back high interest rates.

I should tell the member that since he opposes all those strategies, lower deficits in this period and restraint programs in the public sectors, he might want to reflect on the advice he offered us.

CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS PROCESS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. He will no doubt be aware of the decision in the Divisional Court yesterday which invalidated the consolidated hearings process into the southwestern Ontario transmission corridor. In effect, it put the discussion or the advancement of that line back to 1981. We have lost a number of years.

He will be aware too that Ontario Hydro believes the minister is responsible. A spokesman said, "It is cold comfort to us that all Ontario Hydro did was publish the notice in the form we were told to by the government." As we know, the notice was ruled invalid by the Divisional Court. We have wasted years on this process.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Peterson: My question to the minister is, how much will his mistake cost the power consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally inaccurate for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) to suggest the notice was a notice given by the government. The notice was designed by the panel. It was set down by the panel and Hydro followed that notice to the letter of the law.

Mr. Peterson: That is not what Hydro says, but if the minister does not want to answer the question, I will ask again: Is he aware that Ontario Hydro is now saying the cost will run $2 million a week for perhaps five years? That is about $120 million a year for five years.

The Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro have made another $600-million mistake. That is the reality. The minister has manipulated that line, has held up construction because elections were coming along, has been fooling around for 10 years, and now a crisis is developing in getting the power out of Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question to the minister is, what is that going to cost and what is he going to do now to get the energy out of Bruce? Will he reconstitute those hearings? When is he going to get them going, and is he going to provide adequate notice to the people affected and have fair hearings for a change?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The Leader of the Opposition again asks us to make a quantum leap by blaming the government for the action of the court in ruling on the basis of a petition that was brought before that court. I have real difficulty in making that quantum leap, given that Hydro is a public utility that is the proponent of this project under legislation that was passed in this Legislature.

I do not remember the Leader of the Opposition speaking up against that legislation. Hydro followed the letter of the law under the legislation and brought its proposals before the panel. The court has now ruled that decision was invalid. We will be assessing the options available to the government and Hydro and we will be reporting on those.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) on the same topic of the court ruling. He is the minister responsible for the Consolidated Hearings Act. As a result of the court's ruling that the original hearing is invalid, presumably he would therefore have to convene a totally new hearing on this proposal by Ontario Hydro.

In view of the fact that the original hearing panel "did not consider the no-action alternative as a decision-making abstraction since it does not fulfil the purpose of the undertaking," will the minister ensure that any new hearing convened on the matter of this Hydro application will hear and consider fully the question of the need for these power lines in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I do not think any rational voice has spoken out against the need for the power to be delivered. That has been reiterated time and time again. I do not think reviewing the question of need at some future point in the context of the reorganized hearings is out of the question. I will pass that on to the board and make sure that takes place.

Mr. Charlton: The board refused to consider the question of need in the original hearing. In ensuring that any reconstituted hearing panel considers the question of need, will the minister ensure that this question is dealt with, not only from the perspective of the need to get power out of Bruce but also from the perspective of whether there is a need for a totally new line or whether existing lines could be upgraded?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I would have thought the member would have been arguing for the need for this line in the light of the fact that this is one of the ways -- he should listen carefully because this is important -- in which we can reduce the levels of sulphur dioxide, which might assist in the whole effort against acid rain. However, I will take the member's comments under consideration and pass them on to the board.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be so uncharitable. The New Democratic Party may have a way to get hydro out of Bruce without transmission corridors and, if it has a way, the minister may want to listen to it.

The minister will be aware that on several occasions my colleagues warned him of the inadequacy of the notice provisions for the consolidated hearing. We told him he was wrong, and now that has been proved by the courts. We have wasted three years and probably $600 million because of an error of judgement by this government and Ontario Hydro. That is a reality.

Will he undertake, as the minister responsible, to constitute that board with dispatch to move on that question and make sure appropriate notice is given in all cases?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I have to take strong exception to the phantom mathematics being exercised by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no way that figure should go unchallenged. What the honourable member has done is take one of his figures -- he always has great difficulty with arithmetic -- and multiply it by some artificial five-year period. In so doing, he comes up with his new number of $600 million. I take strong exception to that. There is absolutely no way in which he can justify that figure.

Mr. Peterson: It is not so much my integrity I am worried about, because that is impeccable, but Ontario Hydro's integrity is at stake in this issue. I want to correct the record at the first available moment. It is too much to expect that I could ever extract an apology from this minister.

I read only the words of Mr. Ian Wilson, manager --

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Mr. J. A. Reed: This is true. Just listen to the truth.

Mr. Peterson: This is my point of privilege. The member can have his point of privilege in a moment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can hear only one at a time.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Wilson said the following: "Delays and approvals so far have cost Hydro, and thereby taxpayers, $150 million to $200 million because Hydro's earliest expectation was to have a second line running from Bruce by late 1988. The money is gone and the decision means that on top of that there is now a penalty of $80 million to $120 million per year or about $2 million weekly."

If the minister objects to Mr. Wilson at Ontario Hydro, someone who has always given reliable information in the past, then I want the minister to feel free to stand up and attack the integrity of Ontario Hydro if he so chooses.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In addition to the numbers the Leader of the Opposition is commenting upon, at no point did Mr. Wilson mention five years nor did he take that figure and multiply it to arrive at $600 million. Again, that is a figment of the member's very vivid but wrong imagination.

With respect to a comment the Leader of the Opposition made earlier, at no time did David-come-lately mention to me that we were conducting the hearings inappropriately. He has never made that kind of suggestion to me in this House.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The five-year period of $2 million a week was provided by Mr. David Drinkwalter, director of the southwest region for Ontario Hydro. Five times $120 million is $600 million; yet this man continues to attack the integrity of Ontario Hydro and Mr. Wilson. It is shameful that he would personally attack such an esteemed institution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All right. You have made your point.

The member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, after the next election the members of the New Democratic Party will not have to worry about listening to arguments put in this House because they will not be here.

Mr. McClellan: How high can interest rates get? How high is high?

Mr. Riddell: It does not take too much to get them rattled.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As one who is deeply concerned about the distance this government has strayed from democratic principles as we used to know them, I want to ask about the concealed expenditures of ministers and parliamentary assistants.

Since the issue of individual members' expenses has been raised as a result of the tabling of that document which contained misleading information, or perhaps I should say incomplete information, his government has no doubt been scrambling to see what the real picture would show if it were exposed.

Before the House rises, will the minister table in the assembly information on certain Progressive Conservative MPPs in the cabinet and among the ranks of parliamentary assistants which is now buried in ministry estimates, including the mailing costs incurred, the cost of the limousines, salaries of the drivers, telephone bills, printing and stationery bills, travel on government business, special assistants, executive assistants and other staff, of course, and translation costs?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the honourable member opposite read the questions of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) from Orders and Notices. I believe the member for Etobicoke already has a question in Orders and Notices in the exact same words, asking for all that information. It will be looked at, and I am sure that in due course an answer to those questions will be forthcoming.

Mr. Riddell: I am not particularly interested in the questions in Orders and Notices, because very seldom do we get a complete response. I want the response right here in a public forum so the whole world can understand what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: In view of the fact that the constituency office of the Premier (Mr. Davis), for instance, shows only $17,549 for staff, $121 for stationery and $40.88 for long-distance telephone, and the office of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) shows $14,772 for staff, nothing whatsoever for postage and $141.98 for long-distance calls, where are we shown the costs of these special assistants, of which the Premier has many, and of the Deputy Premier's secretary, his two special assistants, his administrative assistant, his executive assistant and his receptionist? Where are they when the Premier's total is $44,823 and the Deputy Premier's is $39,081?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are all in the estimates. In the judicious questioning and back-and-forth discussions that go on during the estimates, all that kind of material comes out, and there should be no problem.

If the member is looking somehow to counteract what he felt was an adverse effect vis-à-vis the private members and the cabinet in the publication of the legislative document, which was a true document of expenses, we now have another document, publicly put out by the New Democratic Party, that inaccurately shows ministers' accounts in inflated amounts, because they do not have any breakdowns. So the members opposite really have achieved their purpose of showing that actually cabinet ministers are spending $1 million or $2 million on expenses, which is what they tried to show in that press statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact is that I made a statement outside this House when a member of the media asked me. I think it is quite legitimate for the Board of Internal Economy to address the problem that has been raised and to see if there is not --

Mr. Bradley: Why did they not address it last year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not recall why they did not address it last year, but the problem has been suggested, and at some point, Mr. Speaker, you as the chairman will preside over that matter.

3 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I know General Motors products are very cost-efficient these days, but will the minister please tell us what kind of limousine he can buy and drive with a chauffeur for a full year at absolutely no cost? I would like to get one of those. All his ministers have one.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: When the minister says the board can deal with this, he knows full well I have tried to get the board to deal with it for two years. If questions are not going to be answered appropriately, we will ferret out the real facts, if the ministries are not prepared to answer the questions asked in Orders and Notices by the member for Etobicoke.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I think I have done about 16 or 17 sets of estimates in this House over the years. If anyone had ever asked me the cost of the car and the salary of my chauffeur, I could easily answer.

Mr. Elston: The minister would not know.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly I would know. I could give the member that information and I can recall doing so many times.

Ms. Copps: What is the cost? Tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I recall the question, the member was asking for the make so he could buy one.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. The women of Ontario and I are beginning to wonder if promises have any meaning for the Attorney General, except as a way of avoiding answers to questions about family law reform, which he has been promising since December 1982, more than 18 months ago. We are badly in need of reform to offset recent court decisions that are undermining the concept in the Family Law Reform Act of marriage as an equal partnership.

When is the Attorney General going to deliver on his December 1982 promise to bring in legislation to reform family law not later than March 1984, and on subsequent promises made in 1984 to bring in legislation before the end of the spring session?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state once again that our Family Law Reform Act of 1978 has proved to represent a very major reform of the law in this area and has introduced into the existing law a very high degree of fairness. There can be no doubt of that.

We indicated there was going to be a review of this legislation. That was announced on its fifth anniversary. Not surprisingly, we have heard a great many interested comments from many hundreds of Ontario citizens and groups of citizens. As I said before, it is my intention to bring in some legislation before the end of this session.

At the same time, this has provoked a good deal of debate and a fair amount of controversy. There are issues about which reasonable and fair-minded people can disagree. I had hoped we might be able to bring in legislation before we adjourned for the summer, but at this time it is obviously not going to happen. We will have legislation before the end of the session.

Ms. Bryden: It appears the deadline has moved from spring to December very quickly. Apparently, the cabinet must have turned down the Attorney General's proposals.

There is an estimated $42 million in unpaid maintenance orders outstanding in Ontario, affecting 40,000 women and thousands of children. The government promised in the throne speech that a strict enforcement of family maintenance awards would be instituted. When is the Attorney General going to deliver on the promise he made in reply to a question from me, in which he said on April 12, "I can fairly state that before the end of the spring we will have some quite significant initiatives to announce"?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The province will be involved in the automatic enforcement of maintenance and support orders. We are still working out some of the details and cost implications, but this is the route we are going.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it has been clear from the Leatherdale decision that the current definition of family assets in our legislation is wide enough to drive a Mack truck through.

How does the minister expect the women of Ontario to take him seriously when he stood in the House this year and said he was going to introduce legislation before the end of this session, and when he stands up one day before we are expected to rise and he has done absolutely nothing? How does he expect to have any credibility with the women of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this government has a great deal of credibility with the women of Ontario, and I am very confident that situation is going to continue.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Is the minister aware that the federal Department of National Revenue will give tax credits for articles donated to charity, that is, articles of commerce that have a real value and must be appraised by independent experts to determine their value?

In view of the fact that social agencies in Toronto reported yesterday that they have a crisis in requests for food coming from people who have exhausted their social benefits, will the minister head up a task force of officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, who would be required to put a value on it; the Ministry of Revenue, who would be concerned with the matter of giving up revenues, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services in order to provide a system of appraising and distributing donated foods? I would point out that this is working effectively in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting suggestion. I will be glad to pursue it with my colleagues.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to point out that carloads and trailerloads of food, often fresh fruits and vegetables -- and the minister is well acquainted with that industry -- will arrive a day or two late for sale, and rather than put that produce on the market at a fire-sale price, these companies will often be quite willing to donate it provided they are given a reasonable tax credit for the lower value.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McGuigan: Is the minister aware that processed foods are often handled in this manner?

As a final point, about two weeks ago the federal government put in effect an arbitration board to take care of these matters so that we will be reasonably assured that companies are not claiming twice for the value of the goods -- once from the tax credit and once from an arbitration award back to the original shipper.

Hon. Mr. Dean: Regarding the last point, it would seem to me the mechanism must already be in place to ensure that there is no double claiming of that sort. Since the matter of charitable donations is a federal responsibility, I think it would be inappropriate for us to muddy that water at this time.

3:10 p.m.

I would also like to suggest to the honourable member that in any such activities where our government is or would be involved, in my judgement it is important to be sure we do not perhaps inadvertently get into a disruption of normal commercial processes so that we take away from the producers of these crops -- who, I am sure the member knows, get little enough of the total sale value at the present time -- their right to get an adequate return on what they are producing. Surely we are not suggesting that we have some kind of fire-sale technique or giveaway program at the expense of the producers.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. On May 15 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) when she would be making a full statement to this House in response to the Macaulay report. She replied:

"Mr. Speaker, I do intend to respond in full to the Macaulay report in the fairly near future. I am pursuing a very careful review that I indicated I had in hand and I will be addressing all of the recommendations."

We have today and tomorrow left in the session. In the interval, the minister has made a couple of remarks in this connection to a conference or two--

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Hamilton West please resume his seat. Nothing is out of order.

Mr. Martel: He did not say it was a point of order; he said it was a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Well, a point of privilege. The minister obviously said she would reply in the near future. She did not give us a commitment to making a statement before the end of the session, so the member's personal privileges have not been abused in any way.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to correct the record. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) chose to interpret the remarks in my question that it was the position of the New Democratic Party that there was no need to get the power out of the Bruce nuclear generating station.

For the sake of making sure the record is very clear, I would like to say that although the NDP happens to agree with that position, the position was developed by the thousands of residents of the ridings of Grey-Bruce, Dufferin-Simcoe and Simcoe Centre, where members of the Central Ontario Coalition Concerning Hydro Transmission Systems, in consultation with energy experts in this province, made a submission to the Ontario cabinet attacking the need for that transmission line.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member has clarified the point.

PETITION

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for justice for injured workers, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are in full support of the proposals of the Association of Injured Workers' Groups for justice for injured workers:

"1. No discrimination against existing injured workers;

"2. Pension for life, for disability for life -- a two-part pension compensating the injured worker on a permanent basis for life for both the pain and suffering and the wage loss resulting from the disability;

"3. Automatic indexing for cost-of-living increases;

"4. No deduction of Canada pension plan benefits."

The petition is signed by a number of people from the town of Welland.

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, knowing as I do how much all members on all sides of the House respect the fine and good work that is done not only by their legislative assistants but by their constituency assistants, it gave me great displeasure to read recent journalistic accounts which impugned the integrity of a constituency assistant in eastern Ontario, specifically Helen Corcoran, who was the constituency assistant in the riding of Frontenac-Addington prior to the member there having a change of political heart.

I have been in that area many times. I want to stand on behalf of my party and on behalf of Helen Corcoran and say that of the constituency assistants whom I have known -- and I have worked as a constituency assistant myself for four years -- I have never met a person with a finer reputation or a greater dedication to her job than Helen Corcoran. I find the attack by the member of the Legislature absolutely scurrilous and I expect that he would withdraw it in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as that may have been, it is hardly a point of privilege.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work more than five consecutive days without a day of rest.

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 116, An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to declare that surgical procedures for breast reconstruction are insured services under the Ontario health insurance plan.

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 117, An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I tried to get the Premier (Mr. Davis) or the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) to second this since they bought Suncor. This one has more value.

The purpose of the bill is to vest the title and control of the assets situated in Ontario of Inco Ltd. in a crown corporation, the Ontario Nickel Corp. If compensation cannot be agreed on -- this is not confiscation -- provision is made for arbitration. The object of the Ontario Nickel Corp. includes the task of operating and maintaining the assets of Inco Ltd. so as to provide employment and other economic benefits to Ontario. We would locate the headquarters in Sudbury.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a bill of interest to all the members, who have been waiting for it. I thought I had better bring it in at this time.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruston moved, seconded by Mr. G. I. Miller, first reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for a deduction of $100 from a member's indemnity for each day of absence from the assembly while it is sitting, unless the absence is because of illness, pregnancy, childbirth or official business. However, a member is allowed 10 days' absence per session.

Mr. Speaker: May we have the concurrence of the House to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to consider the operation of the Centre of Forensic Sciences, the Ontario Fire College and the Ontario Police College during the summer adjournment.

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to consider the principle and terms of the Day Nurseries Act, RSO 1980, chapter 111.

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

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

On section 1:

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I think you are beginning to get the hang of this. You got that right off the bat.

Mr. Martel: With the new rule in existence, Mr. Chairman, the new rule we made yesterday.

Mr. Renwick: It is too bad we had to waste yesterday on procedural matters.

Mr. Martel: But now we have the new rule. We do have a new rule.

Mr. Chairman: I can sense that the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has some pressing comments.

Mr. Breaugh: I had a few brief comments to make on this before I was so rudely interrupted last Friday. We spent an entire afternoon and evening yesterday on a procedural wrangle that was really unnecessary. I want to make some remarks in response to some of the interventions that have been made. In particular, I was pleased last evening to hear, at last, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) addressing the assembly on this bill, which he dropped on us last December and then promptly ran away from for about a six-month period.

I thought it was interesting that in his remarks he attempted to address, rather selectively, two areas of concern I had expressed for some time. I think it should not go unnoted that last evening, for example, this government did something that no parliament I can find in the free world has ever done. It moved closure on what is ostensibly a boundary dispute bill. I cannot find a precedent anywhere in the free world, in any parliament, where a government has found it necessary to move a closure motion on what appears to be, on the face of it, a boundary dispute.

I think that is unfortunate, but typical of the way things work around here. While his government was moving two closure motions in the Legislature of Ontario, the Premier (Mr. Davis) was playing softball with the press gallery. Although that is a small note, not meant to be extremely critical of the Premier --

Mr. Rotenberg: Where was the member's leader?

Mr. Breaugh: As a matter of fact, my leader was visiting some communities in northern Ontario to talk about some concerns they have. I think that is a reasonably legitimate thing for a political leader to do. While he was doing that and while the members were here debating the closure motion, the Premier was playing softball.

I seem to recall at least one other occasion when the government was in trouble and the Premier resolved the issue by putting beer in the ball park. He seems to have developed a rather amazing tactic that when something of great controversy is going on in the Legislature of Ontario, he does something that takes the entire press gallery off to a ball park somewhere. That is rather an unfortunate comment, not only that it worked the first time but also that it has worked the second time.

Mr. Renwick: He will not be like Drake. He will not sink the Spanish Armada tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Who was the Premier playing ball with?

Mr. Breaugh: He was playing ball with the press gallery last night. I understand, from press gallery comments I heard as they came back from their defeat, they were quite angry because the Premier ostensibly was fielding a team from his office, but they found when they got there the Premier and Ed Stewart, and about nine other ringers brought in so his team might defeat the press gallery team. That was unlike the opposition parties, who at least had the honour to go on to the field of combat themselves and take on violent people like Claire Hoy in actual combat.

Mr. Chairman: This is all very interesting, but we are here --

Mr. Breaugh: I am simply replying to the interjections from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Martel: Why does he interject all the time? Last night the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) played the House here for hours, and he did it last Thursday.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: He is forever interjecting.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Oshawa thanked me in debate last evening for helping him stay in order, because it has been very difficult in this debate in this committee.

Mr. Breaugh: I did. That is one little matter I wanted to get on the record, because there are closure motions floating around this Legislature these days and I am somewhat concerned that more closure will be used.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is really into little finger games this way. Some day I will explain to him what this little finger game means. It is not particularly obscene, but he may be interested in it.

Mr. Mackenzie: He wants some of that overtime the workers are getting.

Mr. Breaugh: He is just lining his pockets, probably.

One of the things that concern me no end is that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and, I believe, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in his comments used a word that I find somewhat offensive and that I am sure the Chairman does. It has been bandied about here several times in interjections and in the course of speeches that there has been a filibuster under way on this particular bill. You will know, Mr. Chairman, that you have endured long hours in the chair to see that there has not been a filibuster because there cannot be a filibuster in a parliament.

A filibuster is rather typically an American technique in some of their chambers where they do not have any time limits on debate, which is something we share. In those jurisdictions they can read a phone book, they can read a magazine, they can sing, they can hum, they can do anything. Filibuster is a technique that is used when a member has the ability to occupy his place and speak and when there are no limits on how long that person may speak.

In a parliamentary system you cannot filibuster, because you will constantly be reminded by the chair, quite properly, that there is a piece of legislation or something before the Legislature that must be addressed. So in a parliamentary system you cannot filibuster; you must speak to an issue that is before the Legislature.

In this case we are all making brief introductory remarks, to which we consented unanimously in the House. We began by allowing the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) to do it; he had as long as he wanted and there was no time limit on it. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) had as long as he wanted. I, unfortunately, will not have as long as I want because the government has unfortunately moved closure.

Mr. Rotenberg: Because you are filibustering.

Mr. Martel: You make new rules, though.

Mr. Breaugh: There is an interjection from the member for Wilson Heights about a filibuster again, and I am just trying to explain to the poor soul that you cannot filibuster in a parliament.

Mr. Rotenberg: You certainly can, and you have done it. You have made up a definition that is not true.

Mr. Chairman: Order, the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, when members opposite use the word "filibuster" they are not insulting me by a long shot; they are insulting you, because to allow a filibuster you would have to allow us to be out of order, and it has been my experience for a few hours now that you ensure with meticulous care that we stay roughly within the perimeters of this particular bill.

I wanted to deal with that because it was a small point, but I am a stickler for parliamentary procedure, and I think it should be noted that the people who have occupied the chair during the course of these brief remarks have attempted to do a rather difficult job: to deal with interjections and to keep me on stream, which ain't easy.

I was interested in the short speech given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing last evening because I think he did at least make an attempt for the first time through all these hearings and through all the committee stage of the bill to do something I have asked for. I have asked the parliamentary assistant repeatedly to put in front of us a timetable, a track record -- whatever he wants to call it -- a simple list of occasions when the ministry in one form or another has attempted to negotiate with any of the parties that were involved in this particular dispute.

The minister last night gave a rather lengthy response in certain respects, and I listened carefully to it. I took the trouble to get the Instant Hansard this morning and to go over it. He reiterated what most of us already know -- at least those of us who have followed this dispute for a while -- that yes, indeed, there is a long history of events that were put together before the introduction of the legislation.

3:30 p.m.

What I had been asking for, to be a little more specific about it, is to know exactly what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has done that could be loosely interpreted as being negotiations since he introduced that bill or in recent times.

He read a rather lengthy list of events. However, after you read the Instant Hansard, you will see that what he really said for the record last night is that since the introduction of this legislation there has been one meeting. That, I suppose, is what we are supposed to accept as being a set of negotiations.

One meeting was held on March 21 at which I believe all of the interested parties, including Vespra township, were present. That meeting was basically an informational session. There was not a great deal of negotiation under way. However, that is the sum and substance of all the attempts on the part of the government of Ontario to negotiate: one single meeting.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think the member for Oshawa inadvertently is misinterpreting the remarks made by the minister last night. The minister of course said there was only one meeting. However, the member for Oshawa is saying that is the only attempt we made to negotiate. I think the minister indicated there were very many attempts by this government to get negotiations going.

The reason there was no negotiation is not because of lack of effort by this government but simply because Vespra would never come to the table when they were invited. The member for Oshawa knows this very well. This is why there have been no negotiations.

Mr. Epp: The member for Wilson Heights was not even here yesterday.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: With all due respect, I am sure the member for Wilson Heights had inadvertently misled us substantially. I am not asking how many hearings of the Ontario Municipal Board were held.

Mr. Chairman: The member knows full well that, in committee or in the House, you may not use the word "misled."

Mr. Breaugh: I beg your pardon, sir, but you must have a hearing problem in your right ear. If the member for Wilson Heights can use that word, this member can use that word.

Mr. Chairman: No, I did not hear the word "misled." As a matter of fact, before you rose to your feet, I was about to respond to the member for Wilson Heights to remind him that there will be opportunity for him to debate. Further interjections made under the form of points of order, unless they can accurately be determined as being that, are going to be disallowed.

I did not hear the word used there. This is why I was objecting to your using it in your comments.

Mr. Breaugh: Sir, I would simply ask you to read the Instant Hansard. If I am wrong, I will be happy to withdraw, apologize, get on bended knee or whatever would please your fancy. However, I think you will find I simply used the word that was used to me.

Mr. Rotenberg: I used the word "inadvertently." I believe that is parliamentary. I said the member for Oshawa inadvertently misinterpreted the minister's remarks. I assume that is parliamentary.

Mr. Chairman: I have no problem with that.

Mr. Breaugh: All right, let me replace the words. I want to make it easy for you. The member for Wilson Heights inadvertently misinterpreted -- how is that?

Mr. Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Breaugh: Are we all parliamentary now?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is all better.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not until the member for Oshawa withdraws.

Mr. Breaugh: If it makes the member for London South (Mr. Walker) happy, I would be happy to withdraw "misled." I would not want to leave it on the record that his government tried to mislead anybody, no matter how true that might be.

To get back to the point, I think what transpired last evening was the first effort on the part of the minister to lay down the government's track record. Although it sounded good at first wash because there was a lengthy list read, when the Instant Hansard is read, one gets down to the point that the member for Wilson Heights is quite correct.

Since the government of Ontario introduced its legislation, the sum total of the effort on its part to negotiate a settlement in this matter was one single informational meeting. There was an inference -- and this is all it is -- that one member of the ministry staff, Eric Fleming, was given some direction. It is very loose, but it is almost there; he kind of drove around the area. I think --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: If the member for Oshawa is going to continue his filibuster -- which it is -- and not allow any reply, and continue to misinterpret the remarks of the minister, I will have to correct him.

As we always have said, it is correct that there was only one meeting. It is not correct to say that was the sum total of the efforts. The government made constant and continuous efforts to try to get the parties together for negotiation. Constantly and continuously, Vespra refused to discuss any form of negotiation. This is why there has not been any. With all respect to the member for Oshawa, his version of what has happened is not in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I must remind the member he cannot get up on a point of order and interrupt the debate or make debate.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect --

Mr. Chairman: Order. With respect, the member for Oshawa is describing how he disagrees or feels, and he is interpreting comments that he heard made by the minister last evening. As long as he stays within the perimeters of legitimate debate and proper language, he has the floor. Your occasion will come.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling, but I ask that in future when the members opposite continue constantly to rise on phoney points of order that they also be called to order for the same reason, because they are not, and they continue to rise on those points of order.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure this committee is going to be extremely watchful.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, the opportunity was there last night. Lord knows, I have been asking this question for the better part of six months now. The minister had the greatest opportunity in the world last night, if he had chosen to accept it, to put on the record of the Legislature of Ontario every single phone call, every whispered conversation in a corridor, every chance, fleeting, on-the-record or off-the-record conversation that ever occurred. I openly invited and begged him to do that.

I begged the member for Wilson Heights, who has some unusual ideas about on-the-record and off-the-record conversations. I have been asking him to put that on the record. I do not want to be buffaloed.

Mr. Rotenberg: If you sit down, I will get up and talk about it.

Mr. Breaugh: The member had the opportunity last night to get his ego off really well. He had two closure motions in one night. That is enough for him. He does not have to move closure every day. He does not need to move it every afternoon either. The member should just sit there and shut up. That is what he gets paid to do.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rotenberg: You know you are wrong, do you not? That has been getting you --

Mr. Chairman: Order, the member for Wilson Heights. The member for Oshawa knows full well that our rules do not permit language of that sort, so could we return to the legitimate debate, please.

Mr. Breaugh: I would be happy to.

The point I was trying to make is that for some time now I had been attempting to get the government to substantiate, to define and to tell us what it means by this line we keep hearing that it is constantly trying to negotiate. From my information, that is not what has transpired. From my definition of negotiations, the holding of one informational meeting does not constitute an attempt to negotiate.

The members will know, and I will put it on the record here, that I have probably done as much in trying to negotiate as the whole government put together. I had a conversation with the Premier yesterday at lunch downstairs. We had a quiet little chat. We have had a couple of quiet little chats here. I chatted with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as we walked into the Legislature last night.

That is probably more negotiating than has gone on by the whole ministry during the course of this thing. It befuddles me. I am clearly confused as to why the minister would even pretend to be negotiating and would be using that word when, by my definition, none of that has transpired whatsoever.

I was interested in a number of things the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had to say last night because he is a man who is not given to long, flowery debates. He is a man who tends to be a bit gruff around the edges and aggravates people somewhat from time to time, but that is simply his manner. Because that is his manner, it is sometimes difficult to know when he really means to offend someone and when he does so almost because of his personality.

I found that he was straightforward in saying it last night, even though there was a good bluff around the edge about a whole lot of meetings having occurred, a whole lot of hearings having been held and various letters having been sent. He admitted that the sum total of their efforts to negotiate a settlement to this dispute since the introduction of legislation was a single meeting.

That is significant. When it sets its mind to it, this government is really very good at this. It is very good at filling a conference table with studies, because it has them in spades. It is very good at providing all kinds of reports about different aspects. It is very good at providing sets of numbers so one can negotiate about them. In other words, it is very good at setting the stage for a set of negotiations.

3:40 p.m.

I am aware that ministry staff are excellent people in trying to get a set of negotiations moving. They know how to do that very well. I have seen them do that on a number of occasions. Why that skill has not been exercised in this dispute, why the government has chosen to move closure on this bill, why it will set a parliamentary precedent by moving closure on a boundary dispute, why it would run the risk of being seen as unfair and undemocratic when none of this is necessary, confounds me no end.

I want to move to a couple of other points the minister raised in his remarks. Near the end of his remarks last night he brought into question the circumstances in some of the negotiations that surrounded another boundary dispute I am familiar with. When the region of Durham was proposed for my area, there was the government in full flight attempting to negotiate a reasonable settlement. In fact, he quoted a little motion I had put at the Oshawa council some 10 years ago. I want to respond to that, because it is exactly my point about negotiating. I think it is what is missing from Bill 142.

When the province decided it would change boundaries and create a new region, that was the government of Ontario working as I know it can. It was the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) going to Eastdale collegiate in Oshawa with a big slide show, presenting what the government wanted to do. We had ministry staff, parliamentary assistants and other ministers visiting each of the councils in the area and there was a real flow back and forth.

For example, they had done an Oshawa-and-area planning and development study which had cost a little over $1 million. It was not particularly pertinent to this region they were now proposing -- the boundaries were substantially different -- but a lot of planning information was in place.

There also were all kinds of work studies about serviced areas and about what could be serviced and what could not be serviced in a short period of time. There were population projections, there were demographics, there were all kinds of economic projections, there were estimates made of all the assets and liabilities right down to machinery that each of the municipalities owned at that time.

There were definitions drawn up about what might become a regional road and what would be a local road. There were projections made about who could better provide social services, who could better provide public works, at which level would planning be a more direct and important link in the process. As many members know, I am an advocate of the planning process, warts and all. It is not perfect by a long shot, but it is a process, as I have seen during my participation, that eliminates the number of big mistakes that are made. One cannot ever get to the point of never making big mistakes.

Councils are democratically elected and on occasion they will do things that are not according to proper planning principles, but that is where the natural flow of the political system ought to work. There ought to be a way for people to say, "That is a very clear, logical way to proceed, but I do not want to do that." That is the political process entering the picture.

Last night the minister reminded me of this set of negotiations that had gone on around another boundary dispute, so to speak. So I am aware of the capacity of this government. People such as Gardner Church came to my council chamber in Oshawa and said, "What do you want to do?" People such as Fred Crome, our commissioner of works, would lay out big maps all over the walls in the council chambers and say: "These are the serviced areas. This is where a future serviced area could be put in."

After we received all that information and bounced it off our employees in the city of Oshawa, after we talked to adjacent municipalities, after we talked through seemingly endless meetings with staff and various ministries here, then we would move resolutions back and forth.

Oshawa was presented with a new set of boundaries that did not make much sense to us in the OAPAD study. For example, no one had ever said the city of Oshawa ought to be extended all the way up to Port Perry through some of the best prime agricultural land in the whole region of Durham, in fact in the whole province. Some of the best farms are located in that branch of Oshawa that goes roughly from Taunton Road to what is now the town of Port Perry.

We looked at that map and said: "But this is a city you are talking about here. What is a city doing with Windfields Farm in it? What is a city doing with all the big dairy farms in it?" That did not make very much sense to us. One thing that would make some sense to us would be to take off our servicing reports what we called the 10 lots in Courtice and attach that to the city. At that time the province said no; for whatever reasons, it did not want to do that.

I want to put on the record that 10 years afterwards the city's position in that matter does not look too bad. What we referred to as the 10 lots in Darlington at that time are now areas of growth in what is now called the town of Newcastle where those service capacities are needed. They are directly hooked into water and sewage treatment plants in the city of Oshawa.

There are developers down there in that area, what we refer to as the 10 lots in Darlington, saying: "The pipes are here. We see that the servicing capacity is available and we now want to develop and attach ourselves to the city of Oshawa." Even in that instance, although the government of Ontario said no, we thought we had developed a good rational argument. We thought we had enough planning documents, servicing documents and economic documents put together to say that would have been a sensible boundary formation.

We were saying at that time, and it is still true today, we were providing that area with police, fire protection, ambulance services, all of that, because it made some sense. As a council we were not particularly upset that they wanted to give us all this farm land and put that into the city. It did not seem to make a great deal of good common sense to us, quite frankly, but on the other hand we felt we were far enough along in the planning process to say, "All right, we can handle that."

The only difficulty is that in the middle of that, we were aware then and we are aware now, is one huge farm called Windfields Farm owned by a fellow by the name of E. P. Taylor, whom members may have heard of. He does not live on Windfields Farm any more. He lives on Grand Cayman Island. At one point in his career as a thoroughbred breeder he decided he would like to stop raising thoroughbreds and start raising high-rises.

We are aware that one plan of development was put forward some years ago, and we are constantly aware that people are living within the city of Oshawa, even though it is on farm land, and saying: "I live in the city of Oshawa. Can I not build duplexes here? Can I not build a subdivision here?" The city council is having to say, "Technically you are within the city of Oshawa, but you live in a rural area." We are familiar with that kind of pressure.

In response to the minister -- who was rather gentle in his remarks last night, so I will try to be gentle today -- had he shown any of that potential to put together documents, studies, plans and forecasts, and had he shown any of the capacity in the Barrie-Vespra dispute to put together the kind of staff I saw in my council chambers in Oshawa 10 years ago, thanks to some very bright, energetic people who knew what they were doing, we would not be here this afternoon.

We certainly would not be looking for a legislated solution to this kind of dispute. That would not happen. It would not be on the deck and the minister would have been able to stand in his place last night, not to say there was one meeting, but to give a list of all the occasions when formal meetings were held with committees of council. He would have been able to list almost ad nauseam the number of occasions when civil servants returned phone calls providing information to local municipal officials. He would have been able to itemize all the staff meetings that were held. He would have been able to show all the motions from various councils that flowed back and forth offering positions that had to be accepted or rejected. He would have been able to give a virtual litany of contact points, which I call negotiations.

My basic premise here is pretty straightforward. He should have been able to do that last night, instead of saying there was one single informational meeting; he should have been able to establish that the government of Ontario has tried to negotiate in a meaningful way, and never mind the stuff about having 14 meetings over 10 years; he should have been able to establish things clearly, and I know in my experience that when this government wants to, it can snow us under with information and provide us with staff reports until we are sick of seeing them.

There is no end of bright people working in various ministries who know how to put together information, who know how to negotiate and who can respond to a council that says, "That is fine, but we want to do this," by saying, "We can give you 95 reasons why you should not do that." I know the capacity to negotiate and to resolve an argument or dispute is there within the government. What I also know is that, in this instance, the government chose not to use it. That is clear and it is unfortunate.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is also not correct.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Wilson-Heights is interjecting again. He is babbling on over there. He has had six months to respond to this.

Mr. Rotenberg: No, I have not.

Mr. Breaugh: In six months he has not chosen to respond to it once. He has not done anything more than flubber away in his usual manner.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member has been flubbering away for 10 hours and has said absolutely nothing.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: I have had 10 hours of debate on this matter. The member has had 10 years to resolve the dispute and he has not been able to do it. His smartest move would be to sit there and stay silent, because the record is absolutely disgraceful and he knows it. The record is absolutely abominable.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Use some authority, Mr. Chairman, and throw that man out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, why do you not get the member to use something other than street or gutter language?

Mr. Breaugh: If he thinks "sitting there in silence" is street or gutter language, the minister and I had better go outside; I will tell him some real street and gutter language and his little pink ears will turn Tory blue.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: I am not here to give the minister lessons in the vernacular.

Hon. Mr. Norton: This is a parliamentary chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: "Sitting there in silence" is hardly unparliamentary.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is difficult to see one behave as the member is.

Mr. McClellan: Why does he not leave?

Mr. Nixon: Let us get back to the real great stuff.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Treleaven): The member for Oshawa, please continue. Are you through?

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to continue, but I am being harassed from both ends of the chamber, viciously and wantonly by power-mad politicians.

I want to put on the record that on other occasions when the government of Ontario chose to use its resources, it used them well. At the end, what it meant for us in Oshawa was that we passed a flock of motions about boundary changes and responsibility. We won some and lost some. That is the political process.

At the end of the process, we all had to admit we had our share of debate. We won some arguments in the course of settling those boundaries and we lost some, but we could not walk away saying, "We never had a chance to negotiate." These people were all over us, day in and day out.

If we had said, "The government of Ontario did not give us what we wanted," the minister could have stood in his place on almost any matter under discussion at that time and said: "That is true. We did not give Oshawa what it wanted but we gave it the opportunity to get a lot of facts in order, access to our staff and opportunities to meet and move compromise motions, and it had a chance to participate in the democratic process." That is known as politics.

We would have been unhappy. At the end of that boundary argument in Oshawa council we were unhappy, but we could not say we were ignored. That is the critical difference. We could not say the government of Ontario did not want us to participate in the process. We could not say we had not had the opportunity to negotiate. We could and did say that we lost some and that we did not like the final result. At no time did we have the liberty of saying the government was treating us unfairly or ignoring us.

That is simply the point I wanted to make. There was no sincere effort on the part of the government of Ontario to do anything that could be vaguely called negotiating. That did not happen. In committee and during the course of this brief set of remarks I have given the opportunity for the government to respond, and I have been harassed a little around the edges, as best the member for Wilson Heights can harass anybody, which is like a chihuahua chasing a bull. That is about the extent of it.

Mr. Rotenberg: My friend is the bull, because he is full of it.

Mr. Breaugh: He is getting very unparliamentary; rude as a street fighter.

Mr. McClellan: Gutter language.

Mr. Breaugh: Gutter language, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) would say.

There is a need to establish clearly even at this late date, this afternoon, as I speak, brief though these remarks are, that there is still an opportunity for the government to negotiate, if it wants to, a settlement to this dispute. It is choosing not to.

We sat here yesterday afternoon and evening with members of the Vespra council in the chamber. I did not see any government member, certainly not the minister or the parliamentary assistant -- there is reason for that -- going near these people. All a government member had to do was walk across the chamber, sit down beside the members of the Vespra council and say these simple words, "How would you like to do a little negotiating this afternoon?" They would have said yes.

The government chose not to do that. It is a government decision to move closure on this kind of debate. It is a strange one indeed. It is symbolic that it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who moved at the end of his remarks last night that the question now be put. He moved closure after he had had his say, and I know there were other members who wanted to speak. I really think there is something wrong with a system that allows it to go this way; there is something wrong with a process that is so clearly out of whack.

As I said last night, there are government members opposite who, if not now, certainly in the near future when they are back home facing their municipal councils, when they are at the fairs this summer and this fall or when they are at the socials, will be trying to explain for a little while the actions of the government in using closure on a bill such as this.

I predict, and I think there is not much risk in it, it will not be very long before they will abandon that line completely and try to dissociate themselves from the actions of this government. They will try to say there is some vague parliamentary tradition that a minister must always get his way or something, and they will look for means whereby they can rationalize as best they can the actions of the government on this bill.

They will be looking at the 104 municipalities that said, "Do not pass this bill"; they will be looking at all the other municipalities that said, "Not only do not pass this bill; do not put a closure motion on the proceedings for this bill." I think they will say in retrospect, and it will not take very long for retrospect to set in, that this was a wrong thing to do, this was a horrible precedent to set.

The bill itself has been kicking around for a brief while here, not as long as some bills. One could say we had what would pass in some circumstances as a set of hearings, although several objections were raised to the forum and the format of the hearings.

The bravery of actually going up to Simcoe county to hold public hearings is much touted. I want to point out once again that this was not very much of a set of hearings; it was really a very limited set of hearings. It was, in fact, one hearing session, which did not go on for very long; the latter part of an afternoon and the early part of an evening was the extent of the hearings in Simcoe county.

It seems to me that on any other matter, on any planning matter, for example, we would not allow the Ontario Municipal Board to go up there and say: "Fine. We are here to hold public hearings, but we are here only for a couple of hours, and only those who can get here during that time period will really have much of a chance to participate." There was the pretence of that.

One could argue that there was some clause-by-clause debate during the course of the committee, and there was: an afternoon and part of the following day, when the committee was finally allowed to see what the government really intended to do. But there was not much deliberation on it. The boundary lines are certainly rather arbitrarily drawn, and the conditions under which the bill was put together were rather unusual in my legislative experience around this place.

I suppose the government may choose to do some other little fancy footwork around the edges. The government could, I suppose, say, "Now we have passed the bill, but it has not been proclaimed." We might perhaps in the near future hear some agent of the government say: "We will not proclaim the bill for six months. We will now go off and enter into negotiations."

It is an unconscionable act, a ridiculous act, to pass a piece of legislation like this, which is going to have an impact now and for the foreseeable future on at least three of the municipalities in the area -- the city of Barrie, the township of Vespra and the county of Simcoe --when none of these parties has any idea of what its liabilities will be in the foreseeable future.

This government, for example, could make the city of Barrie very unhappy -- and it is likely to do so, quite frankly -- in the near future by putting all the financial obligations for compensation on to Barrie. That is quite possible.

I am reminded that in a recent budget it did something very nice for our seniors and our handicapped in allowing certain assessment privileges to flow through to them, but that loss of assessment will fall to the municipalities, not to the province. It would not be the first time it decided to settle a dispute with somebody else's money, so the city of Barrie may turn out to be very unhappy with this in the very near future.

It is not unfair to say that if it wanted to offer compensation, for example, it would clear the record this afternoon over legal fees, for one thing, that have been incurred over the last few years. The minister keeps touting the figure of $1 million. I tend to think that comes out of the air, but it is his number.

Mr. Nixon: How much?

Mr. Breaugh: One million dollars in legal fees over the last 10 years.

Mr. Nixon: They passed that five years ago.

Mr. Breaugh: That is quite possible. In my view, $1 million is still a lot of money. I appreciate that in the government's view --

Mr. Nixon: Not to these downtown Toronto lawyers it is not.

4 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Never mind the downtown Toronto lawyers. I dare say there is $1 million floating, flying, hanging and doing various other things in the front yard of Queen's Park today. There are flags out there; there is a $60,000 sign; there are new flagpoles; there is some kind of anti-nuclear bandstand being built out there that could probably withstand a direct nuclear blast.

If we are still here debating this bill on July 1, the government will probably blow a pretty good wad on that celebration. Last year in one evening of entertaining the bankers of the world, it put out close to $1 million for one evening's soirée.

Mr. Nixon: That is repetitious.

Mr. Breaugh: The member says that is repetitious. He probably went to that soirée, the devil.

I want to ask the minister a question once again and then I am going to conclude because I know other speakers are anxious to proceed. In his reply last night the minister attempted in a weird way to respond to that favourite old question of mine, "What role was played by the law firm of Goodman and Goodman in this transaction?" The minister would lead me to believe that a lawyer in Barrie read the newspapers and on that basis advised his council it ought to withdraw its objections to the expansion of the Cadillac Fairview mall.

The minister made no mention of the fact that this decision was more likely to be made on Queen Street in the offices owned by Cadillac Fairview and that the law offices of Goodman and Goodman are also in that building. He made no mention of the fact that John Craig Eaton is one of the people who will wind up being a tenant of the Cadillac Fairview mall, which is at the heart of this controversy, and that Mr. Eaton also happened to host one of the many triumphant dinners in the Premier's honour at the Toronto Hilton Harbour Castle.

The minister made none of those connections at all. We are led to believe this afternoon on the record that all this happened through some lawyer in Barrie reading the newspapers. One would have to be a neophyte in the Legislature and nearly blind to politics in Ontario not to understand that the power structure is somewhat different from that.

Mr. Nixon: Is being a neophyte legal in Ontario?

Mr. Breaugh: I think being a neophyte is legal. There may not be many in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: I can tell the member there is none. We have a number of thespians.

Mr. Chairman: Could the chair make an inquiry of the member for the aid of the committee? We are still having his short opening remarks, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Breaugh: That is right, but winding down, as they say.

Mr. Chairman: Yet we know we have a date with destiny on the vote in this committee. May we have some indication from the member when we should move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?

Mr. Nixon: The chairman cannot be more gentle than that.

Mr. Breaugh: I am responding to his gentleness. Just prior to your coming back from your break, sir, I informed the previous chairman of the committee that I am concluding my remarks.

Mr. Epp: That is what the member said three or four days ago.

Mr. McClellan: This is so interesting I want to hear more. Tell us more about Fred Eaton.

Mr. Breaugh: No. John Craig Eaton is the gentleman in question. We are aware of all the players in this. I have attempted to lay them out for the folks around here.

I have not yet had an answer to my question. What was the role played by the law firm of Goodman and Goodman, and in particular by one Fast Eddie Goodman, in putting together this deal? That question was asked a long time ago. It has been asked everywhere I can think of to just about everybody I can think of. No response is forthcoming.

I have asked what the minister means when he says he has attempted to negotiate this dispute since December. As I have pointed out again this afternoon, not much of an answer has come about that. I have asked from one end of this province to another, "Why is the government proceeding with this bill in this way when it is so unnecessary?" No answer is forthcoming to that.

Why does the government not simply stand this bill down until the fall session and go through a series of meetings? If they can come back in the fall and establish very clearly to me that they met once a week with people from Barrie, Vespra and Simcoe, attempted to contact them regularly and attempted to provide information back and forth, that constitutes negotiation to me. If the government were able to say at that time that Vespra township was not prepared even to sit down at the table through all this, then I would have to yield my place within 30 minutes without question.

We have no shortage of questions. What we have is a shortage of direct answers. They have not been forthcoming. This is one of those situations when, perhaps by choice and perhaps by the way of the world, this Legislature has got itself into two closure motions on a boundary dispute, something that has never happened in any other parliament.

I dare say if we had such a thing as a secret ballot here, this bill would go nowhere. There would be lots of government members who if they were not threatened with sanctions by their whip, would be prepared to say: "This does not make a whole lot of sense, fellows. Somebody had better answer some of these questions." This Legislature would be faced with a much different set of circumstances.

I have been able to speak on this question and get my concerns on the record. They are concerns I believe to be valid. Though I have taken some abuse from members opposite, I have been chased around the block by larger dogs than them and they do not bother me a great deal. It has been quite remarkable in the sense that it has been almost a civilized activity we have gone through.

I appreciate that the chair on a few occasions anyway has seemed to me to be harassing me slightly, but I must say it was done gently and in a way that was very parliamentary. I want to commend the Chairman and the other people who have occupied the chair during the course of these brief remarks for conducting themselves in a way that was both exemplary and very parliamentary.

I sincerely regret the government of Ontario moved two closure motions last night and that it has refused consistently and steadfastly over a six-month period to answer any of what I think are the relevant questions. I recognize that ministers do not have to answer questions or answer to things I think are important, but I do think that, at some point, not just the people in Vespra township but people in municipal governments around Ontario will want some answers. They will not be happy with the stonewalling that has gone on here; they will want some logical explanations, none of which is forthcoming.

I want to conclude my brief remarks by saying the government has chosen its own route, which is fair enough. This government has a majority. None of us has any illusions that it ever has to pay any attention to the opposition or that it ever has to do what is right, wrong, fair or reasonable. It has a majority and it can do what it wants. That carries with it a large measure of responsibility to be both fair and equitable by anyone's standards and to address itself to the problems of a little township such as Vespra, even though the government does not think the township is being fair or playing the way the rules are supposed to be played.

They had the audacity to question the government of Ontario, the tenacity to say what they thought was correct and to stick with it over a lengthy period of time. They were so uppity they actually used lawyers, went to court and made appearances before the Ontario Municipal Board when they thought something was wrong.

That is an unfortunate price we all pay in a democracy. We have to listen to opinions we do not particularly appreciate. We have to pay some attention to people with differing points of view. Frankly, I think this would all work out fine if we sat down this afternoon and said: "That is it. We can do one of two things. We can negotiate our way through a settlement this afternoon or include some kind of settlement package in this bill."

I am aware that the government is not prepared to do that. I wish it were. The minister could make a statement some time in the next few days that would say, "Here is the kind of compensation offer we are prepared to put forward to Vespra township, Barrie and Simcoe county." I am aware that is not forthcoming either.

I keep hearing rumours that everybody knows what the government's position is, but no one will say what it is. I think that is unfortunate. This is a situation where everybody now wants to get this thing over with and resolved. But it has gone on for so long and the animosity is so deep that nobody is foolish enough to get into some kind of secret backdoor meeting where a deal is put together. We have all had enough deals in this matter. That is not the way this will be resolved.

4:10 p.m.

As we are forced through this debate by means of closure motions, I hope and pray that somewhere this government is going to come to its senses and say: "We did what we had to do for whatever reasons, but in the final result we need to re-establish our credibility on this matter, not just with two or three rural townships, not just with the city of Barrie and not just with Simcoe county, but with municipal governments all across Ontario. That is a prime requisite of the government in the forthcoming weeks."

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has persistently said they always treat everybody fairly and well. I hope they do that. I wish I could believe that would be the case. That has not been their track record in this case. It has been abominable, and I think they know that. I am not sure they are not moving closure just out of an attempt to save face and show they are once again the bully boys on the block, that they have the majority, that this is the Big Blue Machine and they are going to stomp on one more rural township. I think that would be sad.

I want to close with a plea that the government of Ontario finally attempt to put together a compensation package and make it known publicly so that municipalities in the area can respond before we conclude this debate. I think that is possible and it is reasonable.

That would take away some of the sting of hurt feelings of people who feel not only disappointed that they did not get their arguments accepted, but that they were shown a great deal of disdain by this government and that they were not even allowed to participate in the final negotiations on this bill. I think it is incredibly important that this government does that. I beseech them to put that package out in the next day or so to let a set of negotiations begin and to expedite them as best they can.

With those brief remarks, I conclude my introduction to this clause-by-clause debate.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for about a week to speak on this bill and on the closure motion.

Mr. Chairman: On section 1?

Mr. Haggerty: No. I was a member of that committee and I think I should have the opportunity to express my views.

Mr. Chairman: I have just one question. Is it section 1 on which the member wishes to speak?

Mr. Haggerty: We are dealing with the whole bill, particularly section 1, and the annexation --

Mr. Chairman: We have had the opening comments by the critics and by the parliamentary assistant. Now we are moving to section by section.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The member for Oshawa has had more than ample time during the week. He again abused that privilege today by taking up the last hour on this matter when we thought we would be able to get into this. My colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) was a member of that committee and wants to speak on it. He is not going to abuse his privilege. He just wants to make a few comments. I hope that you will extend that latitude to him.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if we could agree that --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. Chairman: Order. I am responding to one. The point I am making is that I am sure it is in the best interests of the committee to move on to our responsibility, and that is to deal with the bill section by section. Perhaps the member has remarks under section 1. If not, perhaps there is another section under which they could be focused.

Mr. Haggerty: If it is the section on annexation, then I have something to say about annexation.

Mr. Renwick: That is section 1.

Mr. Haggerty: That is section 1 and it covers a rather broad area.

As I indicated, I was on the committee dealing with Bill 142. If we look at section 1 of the act, it says "annexed area" between the city of Barrie and the township of Vespra. Of course, it gets into other areas that relate to annexation. Normally, when an annexation takes place from one municipality to another, there is a formula that uses the word "compensation" in the act at some place in the discussions.

I was a little disappointed the government had to bring in closure on this bill. This is a rather sad and dark day in Ontario. At this time of year we are always reminded of one of the great charters of rights, Magna Carta, signed on June 15, 1215, which gave the rights to the courts to every person. I looked it up to see what I could find out about it. It says it was signed by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, and it is called the bill of rights. The king promises that no constable or other bailiff shall take a man's corn or other chattels without payment.

Our Constitution followed from the great constitutional history of England and the parliamentary form of government there based on the democracy at that time, particularly the beginning of it. I suggest that justice is not being followed through here on that principle of Magna Carta.

I look back to the introduction of the bill on December 15, 1983, and I want to go back to what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said. He said, "The fact is that in the bill that will go out I thought the committee wanted to have some degree of flexibility in being able to discuss something that is worthy of discussion rather than being told" -- and this closure tells us the intent of the government; we are being told to curtail debate on it and get on with it -- "'This is what is going to happen. You are going to spend two days, three days, two weeks or whatever period of time in just going through a raft of things.'"

I sat on that committee and about all we did was go through a raft of things. There were 149 submissions presented to that hearing and heard by the committee and there were also delegations. About 95 per cent of them were opposed to the bill; there were even some people in the city of Barrie who were opposed to Bill 142. The chamber of commerce comes to mind as the only group that was in favour of it and it could not give just a reason for it.

The minister went on to say: "I am not about to lock myself in on July 1 or January 1, other than to say I hope the committee will come back with the advice of Vespra, Barrie and others with a realistic proposal." After hearing all those submissions, the committee, particularly the persons in opposition and even government members, thought this thing was being railroaded through, that we were being told what to do.

The minister went on to say: "I suggested very clearly in my statement in the Legislature that we will be making, along with Barrie, some compensation to the community of Vespra. It has been told that time and again, but I cannot give a figure until I know what the boundary line is going to be. Obviously, I cannot start to try to project something when I do not know whether it is really going to be in or out of the proposed new boundaries of Vespra and Barrie."

We sat and heard the delegations. I think there was a consensus among the majority of committee members that in the original proposed Bill 142 we were going to take in the ridge of the trans-Canada pipeline, some 4,000 acres. In the Ontario Municipal Board decision it came down to 347 or so acres. The minister indicated he wanted it on that high ridge, which would be the dividing line between two watersheds. The majority of the committee came back and suggested 2,000 acres of land.

That was back in February. The minister has had most of February, March, April, May and June, and still has not come in with the compensation formula that will be used. I think he and even his staff have had ample time on this.

4:20 p.m.

I raised some questions in committee on this matter and I thought I would get some clear-cut answers. The parliamentary assistant did say in reply to my questions to him, "The policy of the minister and the ministry in these situations has been, and in this situation would continue to be, that the minimum that is given to a municipality for loss of assessment from the municipality which is taking over the assessment is" -- and this is the financial loss to the municipality after the first year of the annexation; in the case of Vespra, it would receive, "100 per cent of its financial loss."

In this annexation taking place, we know the township of Vespra will lose about 90 per cent of its industrial or commercial development assessment. In the second year it would receive 80 per cent of its financial loss, 60 per cent in the third year, 40 per cent in the fourth year and 20 per cent in the fifth year.

In this case, because it is half of 1984, Vespra would receive 100 per cent per year and a half. That leaves 100 per cent for the extra half year. That is the minimum the minister would be ordering Barrie to pay Vespra.

If I were going to be at the negotiating table on behalf of Vespra township, there would have to be a maximum if the word "minimum" were used, if one wanted to bargain in good faith and come to some reasonable solution without having a shotgun held at members of the Legislature on the closure motion. In fact the shotgun is being pointed at Vespra township, its residents and its council because the government is saying, "You are going to have to take this route because there is no alternative." That is what has been said to the township of Vespra.

That is the minimum the ministry would be ordering Barrie to pay Vespra. The actual dollar amount cannot be available at this time because the actual dollar amount is not available until the assessment and the effects of the unconditional grants are accurate. I think the ministry has had ample time to come forward in this area with some more reasonable terms to solve the problem.

I talked to the reeve of Vespra township. He told me his council has not been advised of any amount of compensation as yet. I do not think the government has any intention of settling down to deal with them.

There were some concerns raised by government members. One of the issues was that the 2,000 acres of land to be given to Barrie included some valuable agricultural farm land in that area. Some of the members on the Conservative side said they thought this should not be the way to go.

The parliamentary assistant said: "The government has a policy designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that urban sprawl does not desecrate the rich agricultural heritage of our great province. This was first announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as far back as 1966 in a statement to the Annual Conference of the Association of Mayors and Reeves in Sarnia." That was Mr. Spooner outlining the government's policy for urban development in rural areas.

One can look at that statement of policy, followed by that of the great dreamer of Ontario, the Honourable John White, when he addressed the Association of Rural Municipalities at the Royal Connaught Hotel in Hamilton on February 4, 1974. He is very critical of the municipalities. He said, "In respect of urbanization, what I want to discuss is the problem of urban development or urban influence in rural areas where proper land use controls are lacking."

That was almost eight years after Mr. Spooner had something to say about it. He said: "The principal offenders are those who build cottages in uncontrolled rural areas, city people who build homes on agricultural land with no intention... developers who thwart the plans and intentions of town councils by building shopping centres just outside town boundaries."

One would think the government, in particular the minister in this area, would be consistent with their policies. It was not too long after that the Honourable John White was driving past the town of Dunnville into Jarvis through Simcoe when he had a dream, a vision I guess it was. Apparently he saw the light and he said, "I want to build a city at Nanticoke."

He went in and froze some 14,000 acres of good agricultural land in that area. Much of it sits idle today. My colleague indicated to me today that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is responsible for selling off some of that land up there now and some of it is going back to farm land.

That is how consistent this government is with its planning developments. It was not critical of that purchase of the 14,000 acres at Nanticoke to build a city of 350,000 people and put up shopping plazas and everything else that goes with it. But here it is dealing with the little municipality of Barrie. It was fortunate enough to have some commercial development take place in a small township on its outskirts with a small assessment. I also understand there were previous annexations.

Yet here the government is very critical of that move because somebody else had gone into another municipality and decided he would build there. If developers cannot get what they want in the downtown core of these cities I suppose they must move to some other area. Unfortunately they go out into a township.

I would like some clarification of the point in the minister's address last night where he said: "Bill 142 will allow us an opportunity to formalize the commitment and also to indicate clearly our obligation. It is not spelled out in dollars because we have not had the opportunity to negotiate it."

I think the government has had the opportunity. I would like to know, what commitment? Who did the government make a commitment to? Was it directly to the city of Barrie, saying the city could take 2,000 acres of land and do what it wanted with it? I would not oppose this so much if Barrie were a part of the county structure of government, but it is not. There is another party to this that is also going to be shortchanged and which is not even mentioned in here -- the county itself.

I do not know whether there is going to be compensation for the urban roads or other services in that area. Barrie will walk off with that assessment, plus another $20 million that has been committed for development in that area by Cadillac Fairview. That means there is $20 million in assessment that is going to be added to the Barrie coffers without any compensation to the township of Vespra or the county at all.

I do not know what proportion Barrie pays into the county board of education or into the county library services or into the county roads in that area. There are many services the county provides in that area and losing this assessment is going to cause a severe impact upon an already hard-hit county. I should not say just Barrie as a county, but every municipality is hard hit today for tax dollars. I suppose this means there is going to be an additional tax levy put on the county structure of government and on the township of Barrie.

With the programs they have had in the works there for the last five or 10 years, a shortfall of assessment will certainly cause severe property tax problems to the owners in that area. It was mentioned during the hearings that the shift in property tax will be much greater after losing the commercial assessment.

4:30 p.m.

We on this side are looking for answers, but they will not be found until the government can come up with some areas of compensation -- fair compensation, something that is not at the whim of the minister. If the committee had the authority at that time, it could have come to some conclusion about fair compensation.

It is my personal view, having sat on the committee, that we were used by this government. They knew full well they were going beyond the 347 acres or so handed down by a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. It is good politics to say: "There will be 4,000 acres involved in this. Come back with new boundaries." The boundaries came back 2,000 acres more, which is more than the city of Barrie requires. It has not been able to fulfil the services it promised when it annexed the township of Innisfil.

I suppose this is where the commitment comes into the picture. We know the government promised $24 million of upfront money to the city of Barrie for annexation purposes. If Barrie were to get the land from Innisfil and the township of Vespra, $24 million of provincial funds would be put in there. I do not know the details. It was never explained what would be incurred. I understand the money would be used for hard services, sewer and water improvements, in the annexed area.

Whichever way one looks at it, the county has to raise the money from other sources or obtain permission to get it from the consolidated revenue fund. It is certainly going to involve Ontario in a certain amount of cash flow to help finance this commitment, and I suggest that is the wrong approach to take.

When we talk about annexation, I think of when the government and Darcy McKeough brought in regional government. There was a form of a closure motion then, I remember. We debated first, second and third reading in almost one day. We worked around the clock. I remember many of the members on the opposition side worked in shifts during the debate on the regional municipality of Niagara bill. We were still debating that bill around three or four o'clock in the morning. It was finally brought down. I guess one might say there was a form of closure. The government said, "Enough is enough," and brought in the vote procedures. We on this side were shot down.

Any of the regional bills that have been passed to restructure county governments are based on the government saying: "We are following the principles set down by Mr. White in 1974. He wanted to control urban sprawl." I think of the regional municipality of Niagara. Since the larger cities have taken in the townships, particularly the townships of Humberstone and Bertie and other townships throughout that area -- the city of Welland has taken in the townships of Crowland and Thorold -- one can see more urban sprawl in those communities than ever before, even with the official plan.

Malls have grown from one municipality to another. For example, in the city of Port Colborne, two malls were built almost on the same road, at the Highway 58 intersection. Both of them are starving right now and one has closed up. This is happening in all the malls throughout the region. It is interesting to look at the development, when we are supposed to have controls to save agricultural land. That has not taken place.

The government hides, saying, "We are following out our policies of 1966 and 1974," which is nothing but hogwash. They have not stuck to that principle. We can find this right through Ontario. I think in particular of Nanticoke where the government bought 14,000 acres of land, which sits there idle, growing weeds. They let farmers come in and crop some of it.

This bill and the motion of closure on it are hard to accept. I see no reason for the government, if it is really talking about a fair deal, not to sit down with Vespra and say: "The minimum is this. We are willing to go this route."

I am sure Vespra would see it written on the wall that it is going to have to bow into it or take this route of forced legislation and closure. That would really resolve the problem without having a shotgun at its head.

If I were a taxpayer in that municipality, I would have my council fighting tough too, the way Vespra has. They will lose 50 per cent of its total assessment. With the grant structure this government has, and cutting back on funding to municipalities, Vespra is going to have a tough, severe time providing the amenities programmed for the last 10 years.

This government has taken an unjust approach by having closure and even bringing in Bill 142, because Vespra was a viable municipality. It asks nothing but to be left alone, but the government is taking its cash flow. That is like putting it into bankruptcy. That is what the government is going to do with that municipality.

If this government has the courage, let it, through the parliamentary system, come in with the compensation we hear so much about, as the minister indicated on December 15, 1983. The boundaries have been decided by the government members. Let us have the compensation and the numbers now for us to make a clear judgement call on this bill, particularly as it relates to the closure motion and the annexation in total.

The government has been sitting on it for four months now. Surely there is sufficient staff. I know they are capable over on that side of coming up with the numbers we are looking forward to. I would not want to sit there and let the minister say at the end of the bill, "I may decide what the compensation is." If he can hold a shotgun to this Legislature now, who knows what he is going to do to Vespra. He will probably bury it after the blast.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we ready to take section 1? Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Breaugh: I would be ready to take it if there was someone here to take it through. I want to point out there is no minister of the crown and no parliamentary assistant in place in order to proceed with the legislation.

The Deputy Chairman: He is in his place now. I think I see him.

Mr. Breaugh: If it were not for my good graces to occupy the time of the House, he would not be in his place.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Breaugh moves under standing order 85(a) that the Chairman leave the chair. This motion is always in order and takes precedence over any other motion. It is not debatable.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, let us try to be reasonable about this whole thing. Let us get the show on the road. If the member for Oshawa wants to play games, let him play games, but let us try to be reasonable and mature about this and try to discuss the clauses in front of us.

The problem is before us. We have an important bill. If people do not want to treat this as an important bill, they can go home and play their games at home. They are being paid a reasonable salary here at Queen's Park and they are being paid to be mature. If they want to play games, let them play them at home.

The Deputy Chairman: All I can say is the member for Oshawa had ample opportunity under --

Mr. Breaugh: I just wanted you to know I appreciated --

The Deputy Chairman: I am going to defend the member. He had ample opportunity under the standing orders to lodge that motion and the motion was defeated.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Erie supported the motion and voted with the NDP. It is unfortunate that the other two members -- I am dealing with the Liberal caucus here, so it is normal to have one on one side and two on the other.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we able to proceed now with Bill 142?

Mr. Breaugh: We have managed to give the parliamentary assistant, such as he is, the opportunity to get back to his seat. It seems to me he is almost ready to deal with the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Let me ask one good question. Does any other member wish to participate in this debate on section 1?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with section 1 which deals with an important aspect of the bill, and that is the annexation of 2,000 acres of land, the principle of the bill itself. Within those 2,000 acres, we have about 320 acres which originally were granted to Barrie by the Ontario Municipal Board. Part of that total area represents a considerable amount of the assessment for Vespra itself.

For a small municipality, we can see that losing 90 per cent of its assessment all of a sudden is a very important factor. If we were to extend that parallel situation to the city of Toronto or to any other municipality in this province -- I am sure the Premier would not like to see his own dear Brampton lose 90 per cent of its commercial assessment or 40 to 45 per cent of its total assessment.

We have a bill that is being extremely unfair to the municipality, this very small municipality which has been penalized by the provincial government for trying to attract a certain amount of expansion and businesses -- trying to attract businesses such as K mart Canada Ltd. and a number of service stations. I think there were a Towers store and a number of other large stores.

They are being penalized for being farsighted, for permitting expansion, as my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) indicated yesterday, which the provincial government has permitted over the years. They have their civil servants to advise them on various policies and they permitted these policies to exist in other municipalities.

We are obviously opposed to this bill. We are opposed to the process that the provincial government has decided to take through this motion of closure. We wish a number of our members had the opportunity to speak to the bill, and we are going to oppose this section as well as every other section.

I know other members will wish to speak on other sections, and they should have an opportunity to speak on each section if they wish to do so, so I am going to cut short my remarks.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that section 1 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I am anticipating an amendment to section 2 on the part of the government to push back substantially the date which now reads a July starting date, which I believe, for all practical purposes, is not possible.

I would have anticipated that the parliamentary assistant, quick-witted person that he is, would be proposing an amendment to push this date back to January 1985. I am looking for some indication that he is still alive over there. I think rigor mortis has set in. I am sure he will want to respond to that point in this brief but very pithy clause-by-clause debate.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the member for Oshawa has finally asked a question he wants answered, rather than asking all those rhetorical questions.

I have given no notice of any amendments, which I would have done had there been amendments. I am not putting forward any amendment to change the date. There is no reason to put forward an amendment to change the date and it will not be done.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that section 2 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a very important aspect of this bill, and that is compensation. We are dealing with the assets of the township that are going to be with the township on July 1, and the very important assets that will go to Barrie.

Barrie has already been given about $19 million for services and so forth. That is what the province has given to Barrie in the last few years to provide services to the city and to some of the expanded areas.

We noted during the committee hearings that many of the areas annexed by Barrie on the understanding, I think from some years ago, that they were going to get services, still did not have services 15 or 20 years later. That is an important point. If an area is annexed and there is some expectation that it is going to be get services and then it does not get services, that area has been annexed under a false pretence.

We know that the commercial area has the understanding it will get services. Originally, I thought Barrie wanted that area because that 320 acres was not being properly serviced, yet we understand now, after the bill has been introduced, that a lot of those areas are not going to be getting the storm sewers, sanitary sewers and hard services that are important to commercial areas.

I am not saying they are asking for it, because they never wanted to be part of Barrie in the first place, but now that Barrie has money from the provincial government for expansion and now that they are going to be annexed, the logical thing to follow is for them to get those services; yet it does not appear they are going to get them.

I wonder where the government stands on this. I hope the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights, will address this important point to bring the members of this Legislature up to date with respect to exactly what services are going to be offered by Barrie to the annexed area, and particularly to the commercial and industrial area which is the heart of the area to be annexed.

When we are dealing with compensation and when we are dealing with assets and liabilities -- we are going to have an opportunity to speak on this a little later -- the township of Vespra is giving up a considerable amount of its assets. Barrie is not really going to assume any liabilities. As a consequence, Vespra township is going to have to lay off people because it will not have to service the same area. They will lose some of their assets. I wonder where the government stands with respect to giving a true package of compensation to the township of Vespra.

The minister was able to grace us with a few hours of time during debate on the bill yesterday. As we know, he is always conspicuous by his absence. I know, Mr. Chairman, how concerned you are about that point. He is absent time after time. I think his hand must shake when he gets his paycheque as a minister every month. He is seldom here to speak on a bill and to address the important issues of the day.

4:50 p.m.

In the minister's absence, I hope the parliamentary assistant will be more specific with respect to compensation for the small but important municipality of Vespra. We hope he is going to be able to do that very shortly.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, unlike the member for Oshawa, the member for Waterloo North has asked questions he wanted answers for.

What services will be provided to the annexed area? I assume that when this area becomes part of the city of Barrie, Barrie will take on the responsibility of servicing it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there has not yet been any discussion between the two municipalities about the takeover of service, except for the phone call made today by the chief of the Vespra volunteer fire department, who said in effect, "As of midnight Saturday night we are not going to respond to any more fire calls in the annexed area," without any attempt on Vespra's part to ask Barrie, "How do we sit down and have an orderly transition between the two municipalities?"

Be that as it may, I am sure the Barrie fire department will assume its responsibility at midnight Saturday night to provide the fire protection services. I am sure there will be discussions among the Solicitor General, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Barrie police department about taking over the police force at some time in the very near future. Other municipal services will be phased in by Barrie, because that is its responsibility.

As far as a true package of compensation to Vespra is concerned, the member for Waterloo North mentioned the employees. Fortunately or unfortunately for Vespra, it collects the taxes from this area but really provides no municipal services except firefighting on a voluntary basis; it provides no police and no garbage collection or the other services that are provided. So there does not seem to be a problem with any employees losing their jobs.

Compensation for loss of assessment is covered under section 9, which we will get to soon. Regarding the assets and liabilities that are attributable to the annexed area, this section provides very well for a system whereby they can be totalled up, because the representatives of each municipality will be on a committee, and if one municipality is not happy with the result, the Ontario Municipal Board, which Vespra seems to think is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- it likes it now when we are in the legislation process -- can then arbitrate if there is a disagreement, and I hope there is not.

I hope that once this bill does pass, Vespra will be prepared to participate in what would then be its legal obligation to negotiate under both section 3 and section 9.

The Deputy Chairman: Before the member for Oshawa continues, may I suggest that the fact that there is a time limit in the government motion does not mean we cannot go more quickly than the time limit; it is only as long as we do it before 5:45. The member for Oshawa may want to be apprised of that.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I had intended not to attempt to blockade anything in the course of going through this clause-by-clause debate this afternoon.

I want to put you on notice that I do not intend to sit here this afternoon and listen to that kind of cheap shot from the member for Wilson Heights. He just stood in his place and said the start date is July 1, then he gives the volunteer fire department in Vespra some kind of small, piddling raking over the coals, as much as he can muster, for saying that after the start date, which he chose -- and he just reiterated it -- it is not going to provide fire service.

I do not know what he thinks he can possibly gain by insulting a volunteer fire department in Vespra; I do not know whether this is the height of his intelligence or not. But I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, and him indirectly, that I do not intend to sit here for the remainder of this afternoon and listen to him take cheap shots at anybody from Vespra or say things that are stupid and derogatory about a volunteer fire department in Vespra or anywhere else. More important, I do not intend to listen to his garbage about me any more, either.

He may get questions that he likes a little better than those he gets from me, but I will ask them when I feel like asking them and I do not take any direction from him. So if we want to proceed smoothly and in a co-ordinated manner this afternoon as we move through this debate, I suggest the member for Wilson Heights would do us all a great service by disappearing.

The Deputy Chairman: I am not going to comment on that.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the master of cheap shots is over there. He has been doing it for nine hours.

Mr. Breaugh: He is at it again.

Mr. Rotenberg: You have been doing it all afternoon. You just said it. The problem with the members opposite is they can dish it out but they simply cannot take it. They just cannot take it at all. They are very thin-skinned.

The Deputy Chairman: We will now take section 3 which is before us.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I was not criticizing the Vespra volunteer fire department. It was under orders from the Vespra council because the fire chief had said, "I have my orders." All I am saying is it would have been much nicer, in the spirit of co-operation, if the fire department's volunteers had said -- despite the fact that Vespra is unhappy with us -- "Let us make the transition Saturday night. Can we sit down and work out an orderly transition?" rather than saying, "After Saturday midnight we are not going to do anything because those are the fire chief's orders."

That was not done. It should have been done. It is not the fault of the Vespra fire department. Those are the orders it received from its council.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, it is not just a cheap shot against the volunteer fire department; now it is a plot with somebody who has agents of Vespra council up there directing the volunteer fire department in what it will and will not do.

Perhaps it might even be that somebody read the bill which says it comes into effect on July 1. The parliamentary assistant just said that. He can suck and blow all he wants. I am telling him to have the common courtesy to sit down and shut up for the remainder of the afternoon; do his government a service.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put to the parliamentary assistant some concerns that come over from our experience in Brantford with the provisions of section 3.

The parliamentary assistant may recall Brant-Brantford took an entirely different road to solve its boundary problems, which had gone on as long as those in Barrie-Vespra. We used ad hoc legislation, or at least specific legislation, for that particular situation, which led to general legislation called the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

That might have been used here, but because the ministers involved and their various assistants could not find enough goodwill in the two partners to proceed, they had to proceed by this legislation. A section similar to section 3 is in the general legislation and applied to Brant-Brantford.

In the instance here, an arbitration group is established. If the two sides do not like the arbitration, they can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Our experience in Brantford township and Brantford city was not a particularly good one. We did not have a rush of bad feeling and acrimony; as a matter of fact, it was just the opposite. In the two councils and their negotiating groups, there seemed to be a feeling that, with the goodwill expressed by the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, they could set aside a number of items -- I think there were about seven items -- for later arbitration and that this would all work out fairly for all concerned.

So the agreement went forward and the bill was passed relatively painlessly, because both sides had reasonably opted for its principle. But the matters that were set aside for arbitration have resulted in a good deal of difficulty. I would not say acrimony, frankly, because the principals have been able to maintain a moderate stance.

I do not want to mess the ongoing negotiations by being particularly critical of the present minister, but he has been somewhat unbending in this direction. If he were here, he might rise and take a different opinion, but in my objective, fair and informed view, he has been somewhat unbending.

These seven items were sent to arbitration. The arbitration decision was quite acceptable to Brantford township which originally might have felt itself the injured party. Just like Vespra, it had to give up a substantial percentage of the overall assessment in the whole township. The shopping plazas, the developments and so on, all went into the city. The arbitration was established in circumstances of certain water facilities and other things.

5 p.m.

The city of Brantford looked at the arbitration and the provision of the bill, which was similar to this section 3. It said if one side did not like it, it should appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. That is exactly what they did.

As a matter of fact, in an attempt to sweeten the pot a little, the minister offered to throw in a specific amount of money. I should remember the exact amount. It seems $50,000 sticks in my mind, but it may have been substantially more than that. In relation to the value of the services under consideration and under arbitration, it was not particularly large.

The township council in its wisdom, after considerable debate and by a vote that was not unanimous by any means, decided to take its chances with the Ontario Municipal Board. The city had decided it did not want to accept the arbitration award. The payment that would go from the city to the township was considered too generous.

As I said, the minister intruded a bit, and from his point of view, I suppose, quite generously. But the township said, "We are going to take our chances on the Ontario Municipal Board hearing." As is so often the case, the hearing went against them, in spite of the fact the arbitration had been done impartially and at arm's length by experts essentially from outside the discussion.

Now the minister was in a position to say: "You had your chance. I offered this money on the basis you would not proceed to the OMB." The township had not even applied to the OMB. It was quite prepared to accept the arbitrator's decision. It was the city that had gone to the OMB. It was the city that had decided it would not accept the arbitration commission's decision.

The township found itself on the short end of both sticks. It had accepted the courting of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs to go forward with the agreement in a moderate way without acrimony and without calling in the Toronto lawyers from the Bay Street towers, who make a custom of driving out to these innocent rural municipalities in their Rolls-Royces with the Brinks truck behind them. We have been able to avoid that.

The councils of the city and the township were on a good, friendly, first-name basis. They had lots of arguments, but it was not the sort of thing that deteriorated into the irreparable personal damage that sometimes occurs when these arguments go on and on. At the behest of the minister, they had set aside about seven items for arbitration. They accepted the arbitration. The city did not accept the arbitration and went to a further review by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Now that the township has lost, the minister, to some extent, is even unwilling to assist in the funding as much as he had before. I can see the response to that would be, "You take your chance and if you lose it is like going to the horse races." But in this instance it is not like going to the horse races. Both sides are trying to represent their ratepayers in as fair and equitable a way as possible. They are trying to get the best possible, but fair, deal for the municipalities concerned.

I am not right up to date in the last week or two on what the disposition has been. I know one of the minister's senior officials had gone to Brantford and discussed this at length with both sides -- not that he can act as an arbitrator, but it is certainly hoped that at least he can restore the sweetener of the original offer from the minister.

I am simply saying that while this action seems to be cut and dried, it can lead to inequity and unfairness. When the bill imposes arbitration, in fact, it is not arbitration; it is just a gentlemanly suggestion from a group on all sides.

We will probably find that Vespra will not be satisfied with the arbitration and it will go to the OMB anyway. On the other hand, if Vespra is satisfied, Barrie will say: "That is too rich for our blood. We are certainly not going to pay that kind of money. The bill enables us to have it out." They will be at the OMB and there will be the procession of Rolls-Royces once again.

I am very concerned with section 3. I do not have an easy solution other than to say that it has to work with the goodwill and leadership of the minister, the parliamentary assistant and those people associated with them.

I think my remarks last night irritated the minister a little. I implied that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did it better than he did. If he got that impression from my speech, I cannot help but say that is what I intended to say. I guess the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot do all these things.

I simply have to call on the good sense of the parliamentary assistant and of the minister, who is not here. They should try to remember their own experiences at the municipal level, which were extensive and largely successful, and try to realize that as advisers to the Lieutenant Governor in Council they have to take a broad and generous view.

When they move into a situation like this, by the words "broad and generous" I mean they are going to have to dig into the provincial Treasury, not to pay all the bills, but to pay enough of the bills so there can be an equitable and mutually acceptable solution. If they try to load too much of the cost on one side or the other, then they are going to lose all the advantage even of this imposed solution, which still allows access to the OMB, and gain all the costs, delay, acrimony, bad feeling and general screwups that can result therefrom.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has put forward, and I appreciate what he says when he indicates there really are no simple, easy solutions to this.

This bill has been drawn somewhat differently from the Brant-Brantford bill, possibly because of that experience. We have not set up an independent arbitration. Subsection 3(3) says, "The committee shall consist of the treasurer of the city, the treasurer of the township and such other person or persons whom the minister may appoint."

Mr. Nixon: The parliamentary assistant called them arbitrators, but they are not arbitrators.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is exactly the point I am trying to make. This is not an independent arbitration. It is a committee, composed, as I say, of one from each side, plus one or three independent persons, to try to sort it out. I like the words the member used, "to work with goodwill on all sides, work with goodwill and leadership from the government."

From my point of view, I can say quite frankly, and I can speak from the minister's point of view and our officials' point of view, despite whatever real or imagined acrimony has happened over the past six months or the past number of years, when this bill becomes law, as far as we are concerned, that will all be put behind us. All the politicians and the officials in the ministry will deal as well as we can without acrimony to try to bring as much goodwill as we can to all parties in this negotiation under section 3.

I would point out to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that there are three financial adjustment sections, if I might use that term. One is section 3, which deals only with those assets and liabilities now owned by Vespra and which are attributable to the annexed area. There has to be an adjustment because Barrie is taking over certain assets it should pay for and taking over certain liabilities it should offset. In other words, if there was something there that had a debenture against it, it is an offset. That part of it should not be too difficult, but it may be.

The second part of the compensation package comes under section 9, which says in part, "The city shall pay to the township and to the county of Simcoe, as compensation for any loss of assessment," which may be a little more difficult to negotiate. The third, which I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk called the sweetener, was put in deliberately for that purpose in section 12. "The minister may, by order, under section 12 pay to the township or to the city or to the county of Simcoe" such sums as may be deemed advisable.

In the scenario the member brought forward, if it happened one party was agreeable and another party was to some extent not agreeable and the agreeing party got the short end at the OMB and lost what it had, the minister could say, "Yes, that was really unfair."

The minister has the option to say, with the goodwill that will be in this ministry no matter what has gone on in the past: "Wait a minute. That was a bit unfair and party A, B or C" -- because there are three parties to this -- "deserves a bit of a sweetener for what it has gone through and because of its goodwill." That option is there for the minister in section 12. I cannot remember whether that was in the Brant-Brantford bill.

5:10 p.m.

We are not setting up an independent arbitration; we are setting up an internal arbitration. We hope after this bill becomes law there can be an end to whatever has gone on without pointing fingers, and the beginning of a reasonably happy negotiation, a relationship of goodwill between Barrie and Vespra under this section so they can reach an agreement. If they cannot, it will have to go to the OMB, but there is still the option for the minister to put in a sweetener.

With respect, there is no right way of doing this sort of thing. We tried to draw it in what we considered to be, with our experience, the fairest way possible to all parties to settle this matter.

Mr. Nixon: If I may just continue for a moment, I would point out to the parliamentary assistant that essentially the same provisions were found in the Brantford township/city of Brantford bill. The minister is right about the arbitration because I said it was at arm's length in the Brantford area, which was all the more reason it should have been accepted by both parties without the alternative of going to the OMB. In this instance, it is almost as if, learning from the Brantford experience, we are going to have people at the local scene who are not arbitrators at all but who are facilitators.

My own feeling is that even in the Brantford area, the same provisions prevail. The city had to pay certain amounts for the loss of assessment. Obviously, there was a section that permitted the minister to contribute money because he made an offer and, in fact, did contribute money to ease the tax changes over a period of five to seven years, or whatever it was; I do not recall.

My warning from the Brantford experience is that the minister, I believe, was selling it a bit short. I think he was prepared to allow too much pressure to come on the local participants. I would simply say the luxury of this sort of legislation is going to cost the government some money. While the government does not want to pay more than is proper, I would certainly assure members that whoever is doing the negotiations with both sides might as well face it. If Vespra is satisfied, Barrie is going to think it is paying too much and maybe quite a bit too much. If the city is satisfied, then Vespra is going to feel it has been robbed of certain of its facilities without proper payment.

To send it to the OMB might put off that final solution for another year or 18 months. With all the ancillary additional costs, in the long run some really tough head-to-head, hard bargaining sitting around somebody's kitchen table is what the government is going to have to do, and I simply advise it to take its cheque book.

Mr. Rotenberg: I appreciate the member's remarks. I have to indicate there is no really right answer or right way to do this. But I would point out that this was part of the bill which was before the committee and was discussed before committee. None of the three sides -- because the county is somewhat involved -- to my recollection really put forward any other possible way this should be done. To my recollection, there was an objection to the overall philosophy of the bill, but there was no objection to this way of having the bill put forward. If somebody had had a better idea, we would have listened to it, but we did not find a better idea.

I would agree with the member that any way one goes through an arbitration, this kind of thing is fraught with some danger. We are aware of it and we hope we have found, not the ideal solution -- there is not one -- but the better way to do it.

The Deputy Chairman: Are members ready now for section 3?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, it says here, "The city shall not apply for the annexation of any further lands in the township of Vespra before the first day of January, 2012, unless the township agrees to such annexation."

What is to guarantee the township any protection in the future? The government, by its majority, has inflicted some evils on the township now, contrary to what it wanted and contrary to legislation. The government came in here and brought forth legislation to take away 2,000 acres. This kind of commitment here by Ontario is probably as good as the paper it is written on and no better, because the province at any particular time can come in here and bring in new legislation to change it.

I am sure the parliamentary assistant can confirm that the province can do it and might do it at any time. The Premier promised this province 13 years ago it would be almost over his dead body that he would give any support to separate schools. Members know that only one week ago he did a flip-flop. One could hear the shudders across the province as a number of people turned over in their graves when the Premier made that announcement in the Legislature.

When the commitment is made in this bill that nothing will be annexed without the consent of the township of Vespra, we can only rely on that promise to the same extent that other people have relied on the promise of the Premier and the government.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant what further commitment he can make to the people of Vespra with respect to annexation. Second, why the magic figure of 2012 as opposed to 2011 or 2032 1/2? What was so magic about 2012?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure I understand the first part of the question about what other commitment will be made to the people of Vespra. To the best of my knowledge, as far as future annexation is concerned, there is no other commitment except the commitment in this bill that there will be no annexations by Barrie from Vespra until the year 2012 without Vespra's consent. That is a very simple commitment.

Why the year 2012? When the Barrie-Innisfil one, which is on the other side of Barrie, was negotiated, this was the clause they wanted. The year 2012, which I believe was 30 years from the time that went through in 1982, was placed in that bill by mutual consent between Barrie and Innisfil. It could have been 2011 or 2013. We picked the number 2012 to keep it the same as Barrie-Innisfil so that the legislation affecting Barrie and possible future annexations would be the same on Barrie's northern and southern borders. We picked 2012 to be consistent with the Barrie-Innisfil agreement.

Mr. Epp: I am not arguing about the date, but to try to group this together with the Innisfil situation seems somewhat ludicrous because there are no parallels. This is a bill in which the government is taking away 2,000 acres. We did not need any bill for Innisfil. Second, the government is bringing in the guillotine in order to pass the legislation, which is charting a new course. It is a new example of how they are treating a small municipality. Innisfil negotiated its agreement. To try to group this together with Innisfil and try to imply, at worst, that this is a parallel situation is something I do not understand.

Mr. Wiseman: What date would you like?

Mr. Epp: I am not suggesting a date, but why say it is a similar situation and that is the reason it was picked? Why did the government not pick 2014? That would have been more logical than 2012.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 4 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 4 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 5 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 5 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think you are very partial. The least you could do is give us the benefit of the doubt some time because they are pretty quiet over there.

The Deputy Chairman: I did three years ago.

Mr. Epp: Is that when you lost your hair?

The Deputy Chairman: It sure is.

Shall section 7 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 7 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 8 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Schedule agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Norton, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there to be a debate?

Mr. Nixon: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: The debate will then be at eight o'clock.

The House recessed at 5:21 p.m.

26 juin 1984