No. 202 N^o 202

Votes and Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1st Session, 36th Parliament

1re session, 36e législature

Tuesday, June 10, 1997

Mardi 10 juin 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 1996-97 Annual Report of the Ombudsman of Ontario (No. 509) (Tabled June 10, 1997).

The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

On Thursday, June 5, the Member for Beaches-Woodbine raised a point of order with respect to the orderliness of Bill 136, An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. The Government House Leader and the member for Algoma also made submissions.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that issues of orderliness surrounding omnibus legislation have been raised in this House on a number of occasions. Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act and, more recently, Bill 47 the Tax Cut and Economic Growth Act, were the subject of Speakers' rulings in 1995 and 1996. These rulings enunciated certain principles relating to omnibus bills.

First, as with any ruling, in considering action with respect to an omnibus bill, the speaker must first determine the bounds of his or her authority. To date, I know of no Speaker in any jurisdiction who has, on his or her own initiative, either caused a bill to be split or who has ruled a bill out of order because of its omnibus nature. That is not to say, as Speaker Lamoureux did, that a Speaker may not one day be faced with a piece of legislation that goes beyond what has been procedurally acceptable.

Second, the Speaker must determine whether or not the contents of a bill fall within the umbrella of a theme of relevancy. Beauchesne defines relevancy in this context, in part, as follows:

"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."

I agree with Beauchesne's definition to a point. However as the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Algoma argued, a bill cannot necessarily be saved by its title, no matter how long or all-encompassing it purports to be. For example, I would be hard pressed to accept a bill that encompasses an entire legislative agenda simply because it was entitled "An Act to implement the provisions of the Speech from the Throne." A theme of relevancy is not achieved simply by virtue of what a bill's title says the bill does, or by the number of ministries a bill touches upon. A theme of relevancy is achieved when all the parts of the bill are linked in a tangible way.

While it is therefore possible to envision a circumstance where a Speaker might be faced with no option but to break with tradition and rule an omnibus bill out of order, a Speaker would have to determine without doubt that a theme of relevancy did not exist.

Having reviewed Bill 136 carefully, and considering omnibus bills that in the past have been ruled in order, I do not find that the parts of this bill are so disparate as to have no connection to each other and therefore find the bill to be in order.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to North York Branson Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-15) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr M. Kwinter.

Petition relating to Banning the Spring Bear Hunt (Sessional Paper No. P-84) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mrs M. Boyd.

Petitions relating to the Removal of induced abortion from medically insured services (Sessional Paper No. P-103) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr D. Galt and Mr J. O'Toole.

Petitions relating to TVOntario (Sessional Paper No. P-117) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr B. Crozier and Mr M. Gravelle.

Pétition ayant rapport aux Bibliothèques Publiques (Sessional Paper No. P-223) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr J.-M. Lalonde.

Petition relating to Post-secondary education cost increases due to economic and technological changes (Sessional Paper No. P-250) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr M. Gravelle.

Petition relating to Northern Vehicle Registration Tax (Sessional Paper No. P-259) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr R. Bartolucci.

Petition relating to Establishing a Dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall (Sessional Paper No. P-266) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr J. Cleary.

Petition relating to Opposing hospital closures (Sessional Paper No. P-268) (Tabled June 10, 1997)

Mr M. Colle.

Petition relating to Brockville Psychiatric Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-271) (Tabled June 10, 1997) Mr L. Jordan.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DÉPÔT DES PROJETS DE LOI

The following Bills were introduced and read the first time:- Bill 140, An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes. Hon. E. Eves. Bill 141, An Act to amend the Municipal Act. Mr G. Guzzo.

Les projets de loi suivants sont présentés et lus une première fois:- Projet de loi 140, Loi créant la Commission des services financiers de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres loi. L'hon. E. Eves. Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités. M. G. Guzzo.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Opposition Day

Jour de l'opposition

Mr Sergio moved,

M. Sergio propose,

Whereas Mike Harris promised Ontarians in the last election that there would be "no new user fees for health care"; and

Whereas the government broke this promise on July 15, 1996 by imposing $225 million per year in user fees on prescription drugs for seniors, people with disabilities and the poor; and

Whereas Mike Harris forced seniors earning over $16,075 to pay a $100 "annual" user fee and all subsequent dispensing fees while charging poorer seniors a $2 user fee for every prescription filled; and

Whereas Mike Harris added insult to injury when he forced seniors to pay another "annual" $100 fee on April 1, 1997, only eight and a half months after the last so-called "annual" fee; and

Whereas this double-charging amounts to a $30 million rip-off; and

Whereas these new user fees are causing undue hardship for Ontario seniors, many of whom must now choose between paying the rent, buying food or filling necessary prescriptions; and

Whereas we have a special responsibility to ensure seniors are treated with dignity and respect;

Therefore, this House calls on Mike Harris to admit that he broke a key election promise, to review the impact these new user fees have had on seniors' lives, to keep his election promise by scrapping these user fees and, at the very least, to correct his blatant rip-off by giving seniors a three and a half month credit on this unfair user fee. Minister Responsible for Seniors' Issues.

A debate arising, after some time, the motion was lost on the following division:-

Un débat s'ensuit et après quelque temps, la motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-

Agostino Curling Martin

Bartolucci Duncan McGuinty

Boyd Gerretsen McLeod

Bradley Grandmaître Patten

Brown Gravelle Phillips

(Algoma-Manitoulin) Hoy Pouliot

Christopherson Kennedy Ramsay

Churley Kormos Sergio

Cleary Kwinter Wildman

Colle Lalonde Wood

Conway Marchese (Cochrane North)

Crozier Martel

Arnott Guzzo Ross

Baird Harnick Runciman

Barrett Hodgson Sampson

Brown Hudak Shea

(Scarborough West) Jackson Sheehan

Carroll Johnson Smith

Chudleigh (Don Mills) Spina

Clement Jordan Sterling

Danford Kells Stewart

DeFaria Klees Tascona

Doyle Leach Tilson

Ecker Leadston Turnbull

Elliott Martiniuk Vankoughnet

Fisher McLean Villeneuve

Flaherty Newman Wettlaufer

Fox O'Toole Wilson

Galt Ouellette Wood

Gilchrist Pettit (London South)

Grimmett Rollins

The House then adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

À 18 h 10, 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:-

Compendia:

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

Responses to Petitions:-

Réponses aux Pétitions:-

Petitions relating to TVOntario (Sessional Paper No. P-117):

Petition relating to the Opposition to fingerprinting Ontario Citizens (Sessional Paper No. P-261):

Pétitions ayant rapport à TVOntario (Sessional Paper No. P-264):