No. 169 N^o 169

Votes and Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1st Session, 36th Parliament

1re session, 36e législature

Wednesday, February 26, 1997

Mercredi 26 février 1997

PRAYERS 1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES 13 H 30

The Speaker delivered the following rulings:-

On Thursday, February 20, 1997 the member for Nepean (Mr Baird) rose on a point of privilege concerning the wording of a pamphlet produced by NDP Caucus Services.

The member was concerned about a specific statement in the pamphlet which states that "The Harris Conservatives have downloaded more than five hundred million dollars in costs for services onto Metro. As a result, we will see services cut and property taxes rise dramatically."

I have to say to the member for Nepean, that I cannot find a relationship between that statement, and any particular Parliamentary proceeding currently before this House. While the member has made an argument that the statement is somehow related to Bill 103, as far as I can determine, it deals with matters that are in fact not contained in that particular piece of legislation.

It is even impossible for me to know whether the policies referred to in this statement would be done through legislation or regulation.

The member himself stated that in his judgment the House has not debated one single bill with respect to the statement in question. In contrast, the subject of my ruling of January 22, clearly related to a proceeding of this House.

Therefore, I find that there is no prima facie case of privilege or contempt.

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to advise all members of the House to reflect carefully on the wording used in such documents and to suggest that the Board of Internal Economy may wish to review its policy with respect to publications paid for by caucus services.

Yesterday the member for Oakwood (Mr Colle) raised a point of privilege relating to a recent court decision on Bill 103; the member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo) and Leader of the Third Party (Mr Hampton) raised similar points.

Before I deal with the specifics of the points raised, I want to address the issue of the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

It must be understood that as Speaker, I am restricted to ruling on matters of a parliamentary or procedural nature and not on questions of legality or constitutionality.

This is a view held by previous Speakers in this House and in other Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. It is a view shared by the Parliamentary authorities.

Citation 168(5) at page 49 of Beauchesne reads as follows:

In full awareness of these restrictions, let me now deal with the concerns raised.

Members contended that the stance of the agent of the Attorney General in the court case respecting Bill 103 may be seen as contemptuous of this House by claiming Royal Prerogative and thereby diminishing the role of this House.

This is not the first time in the History of this House that members have objected to a submission that an Attorney General had made in a court of law. However, I have not found anything in my research that stands as an authority for the proposition that such submissions can raise a matter of order or privilege in this House.

The Attorney General is the Chief Law Officer of the province and is empowered under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, an act duly passed by this Legislature, and it is not for the Speaker to define the limitations to be placed on the Attorney General's authority.

It would be unusual...to say the least...for a Speaker to in effect pass judgment on such submissions that form part of the core function of the Attorney General.

Now, as to the assertion of some members that the appointment and actions of the Trustees were carried out before passage of Bill 103 and therefore constitute contempt, I will remind members of my January 28 ruling on this issue at which time I stated that "there is a legal issue involved in this course of action, however, and the Speaker cannot rule on the legality of the provisions contained in legislation or the actions of a government. These would be matters for the courts to decide". I think that events have unfolded which have borne that decision out. It does not now, by virtue of a legal decision somehow become a procedural issue.

The member for Dovercourt in his submission yesterday, argued that the Speaker should take certain actions in light of the court decision. I want to respond by saying to the member that his comments might more properly be directed to the Government.

. . . . .

Also yesterday, the member for Fort William (Mrs McLeod) raised a point of order asserting that certain provisions in Bill 104 are similar to the provisions in Bill 103 that were the subject of the recent court ruling and suggesting that the Speaker should therefore take some action. The member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo), the member for Oriole (Mrs Caplan), the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) and the Minister of Education all made submissions on this point.

I am going to begin by reiterating what I said yesterday. It is not within the authority of the Speaker to decide on a legal issue. I am not a judge and this is not a courtroom. Regardless of how close a parallel you see between the two pieces of legislation, the question of the legality of Bill 104 is a determination that rests with the courts and the courts alone.

In this regard I want to refer the member to a decision rendered in the House of Commons Canada.

On May 2, 1989 Speaker Fraser delivered a ruling following arguments that provisions of the Financial Administration Act were unconstitutional, and therefore the Bill should be ruled out of order. Arguments that I found to be similar to those raised by the member for Fort William. Speaker Fraser stated the following:

Speaker Fraser concluded by stating that "the Government has respected all of the procedures required by the House".

The same can be said in the case of Bill 104, the procedures of the House have been followed, there is nothing out of order.

MOTIONS

MOTIONS

On motion by Mr Johnson (Don Mills),

Sur la motion de M. Johnson (Don Mills),

Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 96(d), Mrs Pupatello and Mr Doyle exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

On motion by Mr Johnson (Don Mills),

Sur la motion de M. Johnson (Don Mills),

Ordered, That the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:-

Standing Committee on Administration of Justice

Mr Kormos for Mr Wildman

Mr Christopherson for Mrs Boyd

Standing Committee on Estimates

Ms Lankin for Mr Kormos

Standing Committee on Social Development

Mrs Boyd for Ms Lankin

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to North York Branson Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-15) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr M. Kwinter.

Petition relating to Health Care Funding (Sessional Paper No. P-25) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr B. Crozier.

Petition relating to Amalgamating the six municipalities within Toronto (Sessional Paper No. P-179) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr M. Sergio.

Petitions relating to Bill 84, Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996 (Sessional Paper No. P-197) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr D. Christopherson, Ms M. Churley, Ms S. Martel, Mr T. Martin and Mr R. Patten.

Petitions relating to Cuts to base funding for hospitals and the removal of hospital services (Sessional Paper No. P-214) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr A. McLean, Mr B. Murdoch and Mrs S. Pupatello.

Petition relating to the Mail-in referendum for the City of Scarborough (Sessional Paper No. P-219) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr D. Newman.

Pétition ayant rapport à la Route 17 (Sessional Paper No. P-220) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr J.-M. Lalonde.

Petition relating to Restoring equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex County (Sessional Paper No. P-226) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mrs S. Pupatello.

Petitions relating to Restructuring the provincial-municipal relationship (Sessional Paper No. P-228) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr F. Miclash and Mr L. Wood (Cochrane North).

Petition relating to the Mail-in referendum for the Borough of East York (Sessional Paper No. P-229) (Tabled February 26, 1997) Mr J. Parker.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS

Mr Barrett from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills presented the Committee's Report which was read as follows and adopted:-	M. Barrett du Comité permanent des règlements et des projets de loi privés présente le rapport du comité qui est lu comme suit et adopté:-
Your Committee begs to report the following Bill as amended:-	Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant avec des amendements:-

Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, Montreal Trust Company of Canada and Montreal Trust Company.

Your Committee begs to report the following Bill without amendment:-

Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant sans amendement:-

Bill Pr73, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

A debate arose on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level.	Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.
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.

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):-

Responses to Petitions:-

Réponses aux Pétitions:-

Petition relating to the Child Care System (Sessional Paper No. P-27):

Petition relating to Transition House in Chatham (Sessional Paper No. P-59):

Petitions relating to Rent Control Legislation (Sessional Paper No. P-64):

Petitions relating to Amalgamating the six municipalities within Toronto (Sessional Paper No. P-179):

Petition relating to Catholic education (Sessional Paper No. P-185):

Petition relating to Bill 103, City of Toronto Act, 1996 (Sessional Paper No. P-217):