No. 35 No 35
|
Votes and Proceedings |
Procès-verbaux |
|
Legislative Assembly of Ontario |
Assemblée législative de l'Ontario |
|
1st Session, 36th Parliament |
1re session, 36e législature |
|
Tuesday, December 5, 1995 |
Mardi 5 décembre 1995 |
|
PRAYERS 1:30 P.M. |
PRIÈRES 13 H 30 |
The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-
Last Thursday, several members rose on questions of privilege and questions of order relating to Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda and the circumstances surrounding its introduction for first reading on the previous day. The following members made submissions on that occasion: the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mrs McLeod), the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke), the member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway), the member for York South (Mr Rae), the member for St. Catharines (Mr Bradley), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin), and the Government House Leader (Mr Eves).
The facts giving rise to their submissions are as follows. On Tuesday, November 28, the House passed the following order:
That, on Wednesday, November 29th the House shall recess immediately after Routine Proceedings; and, that the House shall reconvene at 4:00 p.m. for an Economic Statement by the Minister of Finance; and, that the House shall adjourn immediately following the Minister of Finance's statement that day; and, that on Thursday, November 30th and Monday, December 4th under Orders of the Day, the House shall consider replies to the Economic Statement.
On the Wednesday indicated in this order -- a day on which there was a media lock-up until 4 o'clock with respect to the Economic Statement mentioned in the order -- the government introduced Bill 26 for first reading in the course of the item of Routine Proceedings known as "Introduction of Bills". On division, the House gave first reading to the bill, after which the House recessed until 4 o'clock pursuant to the previous day's order. When the House resumed meeting at 4 o'clock, the Minister of Finance (Mr Eves) read the Economic Statement, after which the House adjourned pursuant to that same order.
That is what transpired from a procedural point of view. I have carefully reviewed the arguments and concerns raised; these include: the ability of members to raise points of order or privilege at certain proceedings of this House, the introduction of Bill 26 without notice, the fact that some members were in the financial statement lock-up at the time of introduction and at the start of the presentation of the statement, the contents of the compendium on Bill 26 and the admissibility of Bill 26 because of its omnibus nature. I want to deal with each of these points, and I ask the indulgence of the House as the number of issues raised and the importance of them have made for a lengthy ruling.
First, let me deal with the right of members to raise points of order and privilege and in particular the fact that I declined to hear points of order at the time Bill 26 was introduced and again following the Financial Statement. Let me begin by referring to the Twenty First edition of Erskine May, at page 396, where it states and I quote;
"Speakers have exercised discretion over the taking of points of order and have indicated at what point in the proceedings they are prepared to hear them."
In this House, we have precedents which confirm the Speaker's discretion in this regard and specifically discretion to decline to hear a point of order during certain proceedings. I want to advise all members that it is not the intention of the Chair to prevent any member from raising points of order or privilege as long as these matters are raised at the proper time in the proceedings. At first reading of a bill, the Speaker is required to put the question without amendment or debate. That is what I did on Wednesday last. Also that day, the House was operating under a motion which stated that the House would recess immediately following Routine Proceedings until 4:00 p.m. that same day to hear the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance. This was done. The motion went on to state that the House was to adjourn immediately following the Economic Statement until the next day. This was done. I would submit to you that for your Speaker to have proceeded otherwise would have been out of order.
I would also like to take this opportunity to explain that points of privilege differ from points of order both in form and process. It is not necessary to bring a matter of privilege to the attention of the Speaker immediately upon its occurrence or to have it decided upon immediately. The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) referred to Standing Order 21(b) which provides that "whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." In response, I would explain that Standing Order 21(b) refers to immediate consideration once a prima facie case of privilege has been found by the Speaker. At that point, a motion may be moved and would have to be taken into consideration immediately.
I will deal now with the issues raised concerning the introduction of Bill 26 without notice and prior to the presentation of the related financial statement. While it is true that there are several parliamentary jurisdictions, most notably the House of Commons, where notice is required before bills may be introduced, we have no such requirement in this House. Quite the contrary, Standing Order 38(a) says:
Every bill shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill, no notice being required.
Likewise, there is nothing in our rules that compels a Minister to deliver a statement in advance of introducing a bill. Any agreement members have to the contrary is not one to which the Speaker is a party and therefore cannot be taken into consideration on this matter. There have been instances of legislation, even budget legislation introduced without any prior statement having been presented. On April 25, 1988 for example, the budget bills were introduced before the budget speech was given.
On the point raised that the compendium of background information did not contain all of the relevant material required I would refer members to the 21st Edition of Erskine May at page 383 where it states in part:
"It is the responsibility of the Government and not of the Chair to see that documents which may be relevant to debates are laid before the House and are available to Members. It is not for the Chair to decide what documents are relevant. Only when the Speaker himself has control of a document can he be involved in making it available to the House or a Committee."
In 1979, Speaker Stokes made a ruling on this very matter. In it, he stated and I quote:
"...I fail to see how I can be expected to know what was, or what was not, the background information considered by a Minister and his staff when preparing legislation. The minister tables what he considers to be the compendium required by the standing order, and there is no way that I can look behind his decision."
Subsequent rulings on this question have been consistent with Speaker Stokes.
As to the concerns raised with respect to the fact that many members were in the financial statement lock-up and were therefore unable to attend the House for Introduction of Bills and subsequently for the beginning of the Financial Statement. I must point out to the members who were involved that the rules and guidelines for this event are the prerogative of the government and any person who enters the lock-up must be governed by those rules. Members are not, nor should they be, forced to enter a lock up. It is not a question of privilege since I must assume that the members agreed to attend the lock-up even though they were aware that it would cover at least a portion of the time that the House would be sitting.
However, I do have grave concerns if the allegations that some members were allowed to leave the lock-up before others are correct, though I am not in a position to determine if they are. If one set of rules governed the caucus of the government and another set of rules governed the caucus of the two opposition parties with respect to the lock-up, I would find that to be offensive. All members of this House should be treated equally in this regard and no one group should have an advantage that the other group does not enjoy.
Finally, I will turn to the arguments put forward last Thursday respecting the omnibus nature of Bill 26 and a request on the part of some that I intervene either by ruling Bill 26 out of order or by splitting it into several parts. It is this issue which has caused me the greatest concern.
In addition to reviewing the arguments set out by the members of this House, I have examined our precedents with respect to omnibus legislation and I have sought information on the experiences of other jurisdictions. I have also reviewed the relevant Parliamentary authorities. I will say at the outset that, while I am sympathetic to the complaints many members have outlined over this type of legislation, my role is limited to consideration of the procedural issues before us.
In reviewing the precedents of this House, it is clear that we have dealt with omnibus legislation on several occasions. Often, the introduction of such legislation gave rise to points of order on its admissibility. The arguments put forward on those occasions were not unlike those we heard here last Thursday. In each case, the Speaker ruled that the legislation was in order and that it was not within the Speaker's authority to find otherwise. On at least one occasion, presumably after some discussion among the House Leaders, legislation was in fact split. This split however was effected by agreement of the House and not by a decision of the Speaker. This was referred to in a ruling by the Deputy Speaker on October 31, 1994, when he said and I quote:
"...in the past when omnibus legislation has been split, it always has been as a result of an agreement between the House Leaders."
The experiences of the House of Commons in Ottawa seem to be most helpful to the consideration of the orderliness of omnibus legislation. In a 1971 ruling, cited by several members of this House in the course of their arguments on this matter, Speaker Lamoureux reflected that there may be a point at which an omnibus bill might go too far and not be accepted from a procedural standpoint. The difficulty which Speaker Lamoureux had in 1971 and which Speakers since that time have had is that there are no clear procedural guidelines which define what is or is not acceptable.
Citation 626 of Beauchesne referring to the relevancy of the contents of a bill reads in part, and I quote:
"Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill"
It is clear that the long title of a bill could be broad enough to encompass a wide variety of subjects and statutes as is the case at hand, thus allowing wide parameters within the bill itself.
In her 1982 ruling Speaker Sauvé suggested that:
"It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules."
With Speaker Sauvé I concur: it is for the House, not the Speaker to develop clear and definitive guidelines respecting omnibus legislation. Indeed, even Speaker Lamoureux noted that while he feared that the bill before him had gone too far, the government had not contravened any rule or practice and he had no choice but to allow it. To date, as far as I am aware, no Speaker in Canada has found an alternative.
Bill 26 amends several existing acts. It seeks to enact by my count 3 new statutes. There is no doubt that this is a complex and very broad piece of legislation. However, omnibus legislation is accepted in many parliamentary jurisdictions in this country and it is something to which this Assembly is no stranger. I share the concerns raised by many members here and caution that the use of omnibus legislation should be considered carefully and exercised judiciously. I also urge this House to break ground in this area and develop guidelines and policy as to the acceptable form and content of omnibus legislation.
At present there are no rules or precedents in this House or in other jurisdictions that give me the authority to rule Bill 26 out of order or to divide it. I can find no major difference between Bill 26 and omnibus bills that have confronted previous Speakers of the House of Commons or this place and although the House is presently faced with a serious disagreement, I must be guided by what I perceive was the wise direction in my learned predecessors' rulings and encourage the parties to meet and find solutions to the problem of the omnibus nature of this bill.
I want to thank all members who contributed to the discussion of these matters. The arguments put forward were insightful and of a great deal of assistance to me. I also thank all members for their attention during this extended ruling.
|
PETITIONS |
PÉTITIONS |
|
During the presentation of "Petitions", Mr Bradley moved the adjournment of the House, which motion was lost on the following division:- Ayes - 38 Nays - 58 |
Pendant la période réservée à la présentation des «Pétitions», M. Bradley propose l'ajournement des débats de l'Assemblée et cette motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:- Pour - 38 Contre - 58 |
Petition relating to the Establishment of a Committee to review remarks made by the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues (Sessional Paper No. P-29) (Tabled December 5, 1995) Ms F. Lankin.
|
Mr Turnbull then moved that the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day, which motion was carried on the following division:- |
Ensuite, M. Turnbull propose que la présente Assemblée passe à l'ordre du jour maintenant et cette motion est adoptée par le vote suivant:- |
|
Ayes - 59 Nays - 39 |
Pour - 59 Contre - 39 |
|
ORDERS OF THE DAY |
ORDRE DU JOUR |
|
A debate arose on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda. |
Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement. |
During the debate the House was recessed on a number of occasions for grave disorder pursuant to Standing Order 16.
|
After some time, pursuant to the Order of the House of November 23, 1995, the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried. |
Après quelque temps, conformément à l'ordre adopté par l'Assemblée le 23 novembre 1995, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée. |
|
The House then adjourned at 12:00 midnight. |
À minuit, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux. |
le président
Allan K. McLean
Speaker
|
Sessional Papers Presented Pursuant to Standing Order 39(c):- |
Documents Parlementaires Déposés Conformément à l'article 39(c) du Règlement:- |
|
Responses to Petitions:- |
Réponses aux Pétitions:- |
Petition relating to Karla Homolka's Plea Bargain Arrangement (Sessional Paper No. P-6):
(Tabled November 17, 1995) Mr J. Bradley.
Petition relating to the Eglinton Subway Line (Sessional Paper No. P-13):
(Tabled November 16, 1995) Mr J. Gerretsen.
Petitions relating to the Establishment of a Committee to review remarks made by the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues (Sessional Paper No. P-29):
(Tabled November 29, 1995) Mr D. Christopherson.
(Tabled November 29, 1995) Ms M. Churley.