Votes and Proceedings 1996-Mar-20 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

No. 44 N^o 44

Votes and

Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly

of Ontario

Assemblée législative

de l'Ontario

1st Session,

36th Parliament

1^re session,

36^e législature

Wednesday,

March 20, 1996

Mercredi

20 mars 1996

PRAYERS

1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES

13 H 30

The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

The events of Monday, March 18 in and around the legislative precincts were extremely disturbing to me and should be to all members of this House. The actions on all sides that I viewed on the news and indeed outside my window have troubled me greatly.

If I might beg the indulgence of the House for a few moments, I would like to respond to security concerns raised yesterday. I would ask that the members bear with me since I find it necessary to first outline the sequence of events, make certain observations and conclude with my own recommendations. This makes for a rather lengthy statement.

On Monday, March 18, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) raised a point of privilege with respect to the actions of the police in and around the Parliamentary Precincts earlier in the day. Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) rose on a point of order on the same matter. The members for Durham West (Mrs Ecker); Sudbury (Mr Bartolucci); Algoma (Mr Wildman); Ottawa West (Mr Chiarelli); Etobicoke West (Mr Stockwell); Hamilton East (Mr Agostino); Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos); Yorkview (Mr Sergio); Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) and St Catharines (Mr Bradley) also spoke to the point raised.

Let me begin by clarifying the procedural issues. The issues raised with respect to the actions of the police on Monday cannot be considered to be points of order since those must deal with the procedure that is followed inside this chamber and in the legislative committees. Neither can I find that a prima facie case of privilege has been established. In his ruling of October 23, 1991, Speaker Warner summarized the intent of privilege as follows:

"(Parliamentary privileges of the members of the Assembly) were intended to give members and others certain special rights and immunities considered essential for the operation of the Assembly. These rights and immunities allow the Assembly to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role. They also permit members to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities, and permit others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities."

The actions of the police in and around the Legislative precincts on Monday do not by definition, constitute a breach of any collective or individual privilege. While it may be argued that the restriction or denial of access of the members of this House could be considered a contempt of Parliament, this is not precisely the issue we are dealing with today.

However, while a prima facie case of privilege has not been established, this does not end the matter.

Many members will know that I have had a longstanding preoccupation with the security of the Legislative precincts. I have on previous occasions shared these concerns with members of this House and in an effort to resolve them, I requested that the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly conduct a security review. I have met with that committee, and I anticipate a report from it soon. It is my hope that we can set in place a permanent consultative process whereby the Speaker can seek advice and share information on security issues.

The security review and report of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly will be of a great deal of assistance to me and to future Speakers. However, the Committee has not yet completed its deliberations and security decisions had to be made in anticipation of the attendance of significant numbers of demonstrators at the Legislative precincts on Monday. I believe that it would have been negligent not to have considered security arrangements in preparation for that. As a result, the usual steps were followed and precautions taken in accordance with the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly.

As the member for Ottawa West correctly indicated yesterday, under the terms of that Memorandum of Understanding, the Ministry of the Solicitor General may recommend that a special event or situation requires a greater than normal level of security and that a security plan is prepared by the Legislative Security Service, that is to say, the Ontario Provincial Police. The plan is then reviewed by the Sergeant-at-Arms, after which it is presented to the Speaker. From the time the Memorandum of Understanding came in to being, this has constituted "notice to the assembly".Assuming the Speaker is in agreement, the plan is signed by the Sergeant-at-Arms and released to the O.P.P. and the Ontario Government Protective Service for implementation.

Since 1993 there have been approximately 15 such plans. In the case at hand, the plan was one prepared for the event of the strike as a whole by O.P.S.E.U. and made reference to varying degrees of threat. In general, it can be said that the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Speaker are guided by the advice they receive from the O.P.P.

Before the signing of the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding, such plans were prepared, however, they were never discussed with either the Speaker or the Sergeant-at-Arms.

This procedure was followed in advance of Monday's demonstration. I am sure that the members will understand that this is not a document that should be distributed widely before an event takes place, however, it seems to me that if the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly were to create a security sub-committee or some other consultative body, the plan could be shared with them in the advance of its being signed.

I have received a report from the Legislative Security Service in response to concerns raised by the member for Welland-Thorold the contents of which I will make available to the Legislative Assembly Committee.

I would now like to briefly discuss the matter of the Court Order. Prior to the commencement of the strike action taken by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, my primary concern was and continues to be that the members of this House and those staff necessary to its operation are assured access to these precincts. For that reason, acting on behalf of the members of this Assembly, I sought legal advice and took steps to prepare an application for a Court Injunction. Let me be clear that it was never my intent to prevent lawful pickets from occurring on the grounds of the precincts. It was my intent however to ensure that the House would not be prevented from meeting.

In my opinion, on Monday, March 18 there were attempts to restrict, delay and in some cases obstruct access to this place. I found this sufficient cause to proceed with the application for an injunction. As has been reported in the press, the injunction was granted by The Honourable Mr Justice Winkler. I intend to table a copy of that court order. The order reads as follows: This Court orders that Defendants, and any one having notice of this Order, shall not impede, obstruct, restrict or delay free access or egress into or from the East Door of the Main Legislative Building and the North Door of the Whitney Building, of Members of the Provincial Parliament and essential staff of the Legislative Assembly.

I might add here that the decision of the court on this matter has made the issue of access to the Legislative Precincts a matter not just of privilege but of common law.

There was a suggestion made yesterday that I should have somehow delayed the commencement of the meeting of the House on Monday pending the court decision. In response I say firstly that the Speaker does not have the power to alter the commencement time of the House even if the House Leaders had first been consulted and had agreed. In addition, by delaying or preventing the House from meeting even for only a day would have been to do the very thing I was trying to prevent. The members were here, necessary staff was here, there was no reason for the House not to proceed and to continue to meet regardless of the outcome of the court decision.

Several members indicated yesterday that they believe that a public inquiry should be ordered to investigate the police action of Monday March 18. I am certain that the members know that the Speaker has no authority to order a public inquiry. A public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act can only be ordered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I find though that the events of Monday were of such a grave nature that I as Speaker must take whatever action is within my authority. In this regard, in the strongest terms possible, I urge that the matters raised yesterday be fully investigated by this Legislature. I have heard arguments that suggest that there are members who do not believe that a Legislative Committee is the appropriate investigative body for this matter. To them I would say that Legislative Committees are the means that we as legislators have at hand and the only means that I as Speaker have authority to consider. I therefore urgently recommend that the House Leaders meet and come to an agreement for an order of reference to be formally referred by motion of the House to a standing committee of this legislature. I further recommend that such an order of reference allow for a full investigation including public hearings and I am confident that the Committee in question will ensure that they hear representation from all parties involved. In addition, since it is my belief that consideration of this issue cannot be delayed and will require some time to complete, I recommend that the House Leaders allow the Committee additional time to meet over and above its regularly scheduled meeting times.

Finally, while it is absolutely within the authority of the House Leaders to determine which committee should consider this matter, I would recommend that it be referred to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. My reasons for this are threefold. First, it has traditionally been the responsibility of this committee to consider matters of this nature and should continue to be. Second, the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, is less likely than some others to be interrupted by a referral of legislation. Third, and to my mind most importantly, this committee has already embarked on a general security review and this background would be helpful to its deliberations.

I want to reiterate that I find this issue to be of utmost importance and urgency and I cannot convey strongly enough to the three House Leaders my fervent wish that they meet immediately to draft an order of reference.

MOTIONS

On motion by Mr Eves,

Sur la motion de M. Eves,

Ordered, That Mr Bartolucci and Mr Sergio exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petitions relating to Opposing the Sale of Ontario Housing Units to the Private Sector (Sessional Paper No. P-11) (Tabled March 20, 1996) Mrs M. Boyd and Mr M. Gravelle.

Petitions relating to Postponing Tax Cuts (Sessional Paper No. P-33) (Tabled March 20, 1996) Mr G. Leadston and Mr R. Patten.

Petition relating to the Resignation of Mike Harris (Sessional Paper No. P-43) (Tabled March 20, 1996) Mr B. Wildman.

Petition relating to Transition House in Chatham (Sessional Paper No. P-59) (Tabled March 20, 1996) Mr P. Hoy.

Petition relating to Independent Public Inquiry into Use of Force by O.P.P. on March 18, 1996 (Sessional Paper No. P-61) (Tabled March 20, 1996) Mrs M. Boyd.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS

Mr Martin from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies presented the Committee's Fifth Report (Sessional Paper No. 104) (Tabled March 20, 1996).

M. Martin du Comité permanent des organismes gouvernementaux présente le cinquième rapport du comité (document parlementaire n^o 104) (déposé le 20 mars 1996).

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(g)(11), the Report was deemed to be adopted by the House.

Conformément à l'article 106(g)(11), le rapport est réputé avoir été adopté par l'Assemblée.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DÉPOT DES PROJETS DE LOI

The following Bill was introduced, read the first time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills:-

Le projet de loi suivant est présenté, lu une première fois et déféré au Comité permanent des règlements et des projets de loi privés:-

Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa. Mr G. Guzzo

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Debate was resumed on the Orders for Concurrence in Supply and, after some time,

Supply was concurred in as follows:-

Le débat reprend sur les ordres d'adoption des budgets des dépenses et après quelque temps,

Budget des dépenses adopté comme suit:-

Ministry of Education and Training (including supplementaries).

Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Ministry of Housing.

Ministry of Transportation (including supplementaries).

Ministry of Health (including supplementaries).

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

ministère de l'Éducation et de la Formation (supplémentaires inclus).

ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires.

ministère du Logement.

ministère des Transports (supplémentaires inclus).

ministère de la Santé (supplémentaires inclus).

ministère du Développement économique et du Commerce.

A debate arose on the motion for Third Reading of Bill 19, An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters.

Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant troisième lecture du projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried.

Après quelque temps, conformément à l'article 9(a) du Règlement, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée.

The House then adjourned

at 6:00 p.m.

À 18 h, 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:-

Questions Answered (see Sessional Paper No. 5):-

Final Answers to Question Numbers: 28-41, 52-79 and 125.

Responses to Petitions:-

Réponses aux Pétitions:-

Petition relating to Stabilizing High Quality Child Care/Pétition ayant rapport à la remise en place des soins de garderie de haute qualité (Sessional Paper No. P-40):

(Tabled November 28, 1995) Mr J.-M. Lalonde.

Petition relating to Bill 26, Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995 (Sessional Paper No. P-52): (Tabled January 29, 1996) Mr A. Curling.

Petition relating to Reconsideration of the Government's Welfare Cuts and Promised Tax Rebate (Sessional Paper No. P-55):

(Tabled December 14, 1995) Mr J. Gerretsen.