Legislative Assembly of Ontario

No. 178 N^o 178

Votes and Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1st Session, 36th Parliament

1re session, 36e législature

Tuesday, April 22, 1997

Mardi 22 avril 1997

PRAYERS 1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES 13 H 30

The Speaker addressed the House as follows:-

I beg to inform the House, I have today laid upon the table the 1996 Annual Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (Sessional Paper No. 391) (Tabled April 22, 1997).

The Speaker further informed the House that, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor had been pleased to assent to the following Bill in her office on Monday, April 21, 1997:-	De plus, le Président avise l'Assemblée qu'au nom de Sa Majesté la Reine, Son Honneur la lieutenante-gouverneure a eu le plaisir de sanctionner le projet de loi suivant dans son cabinet le lundi 21 avril 1997:-
Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto.	Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to North York Branson Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-15) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr M. Kwinter.

Petition relating to Bill C-68 (Sessional Paper No. P-140) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr J. Ouellette.

Petitions relating to Bill 104, Fewer School Boards Act, 1997 (Sessional Paper No. P-227) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Ms M. Churley and Mr B. Wildman.

Petitions relating to Restructuring the provincial-municipal relationship (Sessional Paper No. P-228) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr B. Grimmett, Mrs L. McLeod and Mr L. Wood (Cochrane North).

Pétition ayant rapport à l'Hôpital Montfort (Sessional Paper No. P-235) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr G. Morin.

Petition relating to Outsourcing or privatization of professional support staff services of the educational system under Bill 104 (Sessional Paper No. P-240) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mrs M. Boyd.

Pétition ayant rapport à la structure des relations entre la province et les municipalités (Sessional Paper No. P-241) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr J.-M. Lalonde.

Petition relating to Catch and release methods of sport fishing in Eastern Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-242) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr J. Cleary.

Petition relating to the Opposition of a charity permanent casino and video lottery terminals in Barrie (Sessional Paper No. P-243) (Tabled April 22, 1997) Mr J. Tascona.

Petition relating to the Gasoline Sales Tax (Sessional Paper No. P-244) (Tabled April 22, 1997)

Mrs B. Fisher.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS

Mr Chudleigh from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs presented the Committee's Report on Pre-Budget Consultation 1997, and moved the adoption of its recommendations (Sessional Paper No. 392) (Tabled April 22, 1997).

On motion by Mr Chudleigh,

Ordered, That the debate be adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DÉPÔT DES PROJETS DE LOI

The following Bill was introduced and read the first time:- Bill 126, An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991. Mr M. Kwinter.

Le projet de loi suivant est présenté et lu une première fois:- Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins. M. M. Kwinter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Mr Johnson (Don Mills) moved,

M. Johnson (Don Mills) propose,

That, pursuant to Standing Order 46 and notwithstanding any other Standing Order or the Order of the House dated February 6, 1997 relating to Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Order for Committee of the Whole House be discharged and that the bill be Ordered for Third Reading;

And that one sessional day be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

In the case of any divisions relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to Standing Order 28(g) shall be permitted.

On a point of order raised by the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the Speaker recessed the House for 20 minutes.

On his return, the Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

I thank all members for their submissions on this point of order.

I want to begin by dealing with the argument that the motion is out of order because it denies members the ability to make amendments to Bill 104 at Committee of the Whole House. In reviewing precedents on this matter, I have found many instances of similar time allocation motions. There were in fact no less than 13 time allocation motions during the 1993/94 Session of this House in which no provision was made for any Committee of the Whole House consideration. Indeed, on July 21, 1992 Speaker Warner ruled in order, a time allocation motion which allowed for no third reading debate. My point is this, time allocation motions by their very nature, sometimes impose severe restrictions on the various stages of the consideration of legislation. Sometimes those restrictions include the elimination of a legislative stage altogether. While this may be regarded as extreme by some, it does not make such a motion out of order. As stated in the 21^st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice,

"[Time allocation motions] may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

I cannot find then, that the time allocation motion moved by the Government House Leader today is out of order on the basis that it does not provide for any time in Committee of the Whole House. As I said, this is consistent with many similar motions this House has passed previously.

I want to turn now to the second argument put forward, which is that the motion is out of order on the basis that it violates Standing Order 51. I perused with interest the precedent that the member for Algoma referred to. I think that this ruling is of questionable precedential importance and I am not convinced that, faced with the same situation, I would make the same ruling. In most cases where a Speaker has ruled a motion out of order on the basis of Standing Order 51 it has been a substantive motion or resolution that expresses an opinion of the House or is legislation. On the other hand, I also found numerous examples of motions that order the business of the House and its Committees which were subsequently superseded by a new motion. As an example, this House often passes motions that set out the days and times of meetings of the Standing Committees. While passage of such motions results in an Order of the House, the House has never felt bound that such an Order is final and unchangeable. It is in the nature of a housekeeping Order relating to the timetabling of House business in the Committees. Notwithstanding the provisions of the original motions, our precedents abound with examples of revisions to the ordering of business at a later date. To cite two such examples, on May 18, 1993 the House, by motion and without unanimous consent, rescinded a previous order and changed the Committee referral; and on April 11, 1994 the House passed a motion which authorized the Standing Committee on Resources Development to meet at times other than those specified in a previous order of the House. The House must surely retain the right to order its business as its sees fit, and indeed these examples illustrate that the House always has.

Standing Order 51 was meant to cover substantive motions that express the opinion of the House, not substantive motions dealing with how the House orders or re-orders its business. Were it otherwise, members can surely appreciate that it would not have been possible for this House to from time to time pass "notwithstanding" motions that change a pre-existing arrangement to the scheduling of House business. To look at it another way: the House adopts its Standing Orders by motion. If such a decision of the House were final and unchangeable, then the House would be powerless to revise its own Standing Orders in the future. I don't believe Standing Order 51 contemplates that the House should bind itself in its own housekeeping decisions. I find then, that the motion is in order.

A debate arose and, after some time, the question having been put was carried on the following division:-

Il s'élève un débat et après quelque temps, la motion est adoptée par le vote suivant:-

Baird Grimmett O'Toole

Barrett Guzzo Ouellette

Bassett Hardeman Parker

Beaubien Harris Pettit

Boushy Hastings Rollins

Brown Hodgson Ross

(Scarborough West) Hudak Runciman

Carroll Johns Sampson

Chudleigh Johnson Shea

Cunningham (Don Mills) Sheehan

Danford Jordan Smith

DeFaria Kells Snobelen

Doyle Klees Stewart

Ecker Leach Tascona

Eves Leadston Tilson

Fisher Marland Turnbull

Ford Martiniuk Villeneuve

Fox Maves Wettlaufer

Froese McLean Wilson

Galt Munro Young

Gilchrist Newman

Bartolucci Duncan McLeod

Boyd Gerretsen Miclash

Bradley Grandmaître Morin

Brown Gravelle Patten

(Algoma-Manitoulin) Hoy Phillips

Chiarelli Kennedy Pouliot

Christopherson Kormos Pupatello

Cleary Kwinter Ramsay

Colle Lalonde Silipo

Conway Laughren Wildman

Crozier Martel Wood

Curling Martin (Cochrane North)

At 6:20 p.m., the question "That this House do now adjourn" was deemed to have been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 34(b).	À 18 h 20, la motion portant «Que la présente Assemblée ajourne les débats maintenant» est réputée avoir été proposée conformément à l'article 34(b) du Règlement.
After one matter was considered, the question was deemed to have been adopted.	Après l'étude d'une question, la motion d'ajournement des débats est réputée avoir été adoptée.

The House then adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

À 18 h 27, 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:-

Responses to Petitions:-

Réponses aux Pétitions:-

Petition relating to Bill 104, Fewer School Boards Act, 1997 (Sessional Paper No. P-227):

Petition relating to Outsourcing or privatization of professional support staff services of the educational system under Bill 104 (Sessional Paper No. P-240):