Legislative Assembly of Ontario

No. 261 N^o 261

Votes and Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1st Session, 36th Parliament

1re session, 36e législature

Monday, December 15, 1997

Lundi 15 décembre 1997

On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and concurrence of the Executive Council, orders that,

Mr Speaker be advised that pursuant to Standing Order Number 10(a) of the Legislative Assembly it is deemed that the public interest requires the Assembly to reconvene at an earlier time during the adjournment than March 23, 1998 and that,

Therefore, Mr Speaker be requested to give notice accordingly to reconvene the 1st Session of the 36th Parliament of the Province of Ontario at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, the 15th day of December, 1997.

Recommended Ernie Eves,

Concurred Ernie Eves,

Approved and Ordered, December 11, 1997. Hilary M. Weston,

PRAYERS 1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES 13 H 30

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS

Mr O'Toole from the Standing Committee on General Government presented the Committee's Report which was read as follows and adopted:-	M. O'Toole du Comité permanent des affaires gouvernementales présente le rapport du comité qui est lu comme suit et adopté:-
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 166, An Act to protect Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical or First Aid Services. Ordered for Third Reading.

Projet de loi 166, Loi visant à exonérer les personnes de la responsabilité concernant des services médicaux ou des premiers soins fournis bénévolement en cas d'urgence. Ordonné pour la troisième lecture.

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 139, An Act to promote the conservation of fish and wildlife through the revision of the Game and Fish Act. Ordered for Third Reading.

Projet de loi 139, Loi visant à promouvoir la protection du poisson et de la faune en révisant la Loi sur la chasse et la pêche. Ordonné pour la troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DÉPÔT DES PROJETS DE LOI

The following Bills were introduced and read the first time:-

Les projets de loi suivants sont présentés et lus une première fois:-

Bill 174, An Act to provide choice and flexibility to Northern Residents in the establishment of service delivery mechanisms that recognize the unique circumstances of Northern Ontario and to allow increased efficiency and accountability in Area-wide Service Delivery. Hon. C. Hodgson.

Projet de loi 174, Loi visant à offrir aux résidents du Nord plus de choix et de souplesse dans la mise en place de mécanismes de prestation des services qui tiennent compte de la situation unique du Nord de l'Ontario et à permettre l'accroissement de l'efficience et de la responsabilité en ce qui concerne la prestation des services à l'échelle régionale. L'hon. C. Hodgson.

Bill 175, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1998. Hon. E. Eves.

Projet de loi 175, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1998. L'hon. E. Eves.

Bill 176, An Act to provide for the protection of the marine environment of Lake Ontario in the area of Metropolitan Toronto. Mr J. Brown (Scarborough West).

Projet de loi 176, Loi visant à protéger l'environnement marin du lac Ontario dans le re_ion de l'agglomération urbaine de Toronto. M. J. Brown (Scarborough-Ouest).

MOTIONS

MOTIONS

On motion by Mr Sterling,

Sur la motion de M. Sterling,

Ordered, That Standing Order 86 respecting notice of Committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr94, Pr95, and Pr96 by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills on Wednesday, 17 December 1997.

DEFERRED VOTES

VOTES DIFFÉRÉS

The deferred vote on Government Notice of Motion Number 55 was carried on the following division:-

L'avis de motion numéro 55 émanant du gouvernement, mise aux voix sur le vote différé, est adoptée par le vote suivant:-

Agostino Galt Ouellette

Arnott Gerretsen Palladini

Baird Gilchrist Parker

Barrett Gravelle Pettit

Bassett Grimmett Phillips

Beaubien Guzzo Preston

Boushy Hardeman Ramsay

Bradley Harnick Rollins

Brown Hastings Ross

(Algoma-Manitoulin) Hodgson Runciman

Brown Hoy Ruprecht

(Scarborough West) Hudak Saunderson

Caplan Jackson Sergio

Carr Johns Shea

Carroll Johnson Sheehan

Chudleigh (Brantford) Smith

Cleary Johnson Snobelen

Clement (Don Mills) Spina

Colle Johnson Sterling

Cordiano (Perth) Stewart

Crozier Kells Tascona

Cullen Kwinter Tilson

Cunningham Lalonde Tsubouchi

Curling Leach Turnbull

Danford Leadston Vankoughnet

Duncan Marland Villeneuve

Ecker Maves Wettlaufer

Elliott McGuinty Wilson

Eves McLean Witmer

Fisher McLeod Wood

Flaherty Munro (London South)

Ford Mushinski Young

Fox Newman

Froese O'Toole

Bisson Kormos Pouliot

Boyd Lessard Silipo

Christopherson Marchese Wildman

Churley Martin

Hampton North

And it was,

Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 6(a); the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, December 15, 1997 until Thursday, December 18, 1997;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on December 15 and 16, 1997; and

That, pursuant to Standing Order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight on December 17, and 18, 1997 for the purpose of conducting government business, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next Sessional day.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to Support for all current forms of black bear hunting (Sessional Paper No. P-275) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr T. Hudak.

Petitions relating to Bill 160, Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 (Sessional Paper No. P-321) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr T. Barrett, Mr G. Bisson and Mr A. Cullen.

Petition relating to Workers Clinics and Workers Health and Safety Centre (Sessional Paper No. P-326) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr D. Christopherson.

Petition relating to Chiropractic health care (Sessional Paper No. P-327) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr B. Wildman.

Pétition ayant rapport à la Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation (Sessional Paper No. P-330) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr J.-M. Lalonde.

Petition relating to Red Cross Homemakers (Sessional Paper No. P-339) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr G. Stewart.

Petitions relating to Opposition to further casinos in Metro Toronto (Sessional Paper No. P-342) (Tabled December 15, 1997) Mr J. Bradley and Mr M. Colle.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Mr Sterling moved,

M. Sterling propose,

That pursuant to Standing Order 46 and notwithstanding any other Standing Order or Special Order of the House relating to Bill 164, An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be authorized to meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 15, 1997 for the purpose of considering the bill;

That, at such time, the Chair shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That, the Committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first Sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That, on such day as the bill is reported, the Order for third reading may be called;

That one Sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 p.m. or 9:15 p.m. as the case may be on such 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; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

On a point of order raised by the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the Deputy Speaker recessed the House for 15 minutes.

On her return, the Deputy Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

In August of this year, the Standing Orders were amended. Among the changes was one that added the purpose clause to Standing Order 1.

This change made explicit what was traditionally an implicitly understood concept, that is, it has always been the case that members have had the democratic rights to submit resolutions, motions and bills for the consideration of the Assembly; to debate, speak to and vote on these same resolutions, motions and bills; to hold the government accountable for its policies and for members, collectively, to decide matters submitted to the Assembly.

The new Standing Order 1(b) sets out the purpose of the Standing Orders; in fact, it ably defines the very purpose of this Chamber itself. All of those activities I have just described are precisely the essence of the legislative process, and are the reason we are all here. Codifying this fact did not make it so; it has always been so.

Creating this new Standing Order did not change established custom and practise, but the fact that the change was made deliberately in the August, 1997 amendments leads me to believe that it was the will of the House that explicit recourse be had to these principles when the Standing Orders are being interpreted.

The issue I must resolve is whether the time allocation motion has the effect of diminishing, or denying to any member, the rights that members have under Standing Order 1(b). Clearly, it does. The fact that members wishing to move amendments may not have the opportunity to do so, offends clause 1(b)(i). The fact that time might not be available to every member who wishes to speak, offends clause 1(b)(ii).

Time allocation motions, though, by their very nature, cause this to be the case. As Erskine May states, 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."

There is clearly a conflict here. Standing Order 1 sets out the rights of members, whereas Standing Order 46 makes provision for a procedure that, in essence, takes Standing Order 1 and throws it out.

To resolve this conflict, I must be guided by our practice and custom. There is nothing new about time allocation motions. Indeed, it is not even new to see a time allocation motion that deals with more than 1 bill at the same time. This House has dealt with these motions many times before. In each instance, the rights of members was impacted upon in a way that limited their ability to participate in the legislative process to the fullest extent possible.

This occurred prior to the August 1997 Standing Order amendments, when the rights set out in Standing Order 1 were the unwritten but received wisdom of this place. It has also occurred many times since then, with the same result: some members may have found themselves, by majority decision of their colleagues, unable to fully assert their rights set out in Standing Order 1.

While pushing procedure to the extreme limit that a time allocation motion represents is undoubtedly not viewed by any of us as desirable, it is nevertheless an accepted practice that this House has used many times before.

While Standing Order 1 may elevate the test that other procedures must pass in order for the rights of members to be affirmed, the time allocation motion, by its very nature, must logically be protected and saved from it. If it were otherwise, then it is plausible to foresee a scenario where a single member, by asserting the protections set out in Standing Order 1, could thwart the House from ever concluding consideration of an item of business that the remainder of the House demonstrably wishes to conclude.

Since the opportunity for such occurrences is rare, they happen rarely. More often it is the case, as Erskine May states, that "(g)overnments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal programme to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority."

The method to deal with this circumstance is the time allocation motion.

By its nature it diminishes the rights of members and, indeed, it will most likely offend the principles set out in Standing Order 1. However, time allocation motions are part of the accepted procedure of this House. As a method of curtailing debate, they essentially suspend the Standing Orders and are, in essence, an exempt class of motion with respect to Standing Order 1. As a result, I find that the time allocation motion is not out of order on the basis of the arguments surrounding the purpose clause in the Standing Orders.

A debate then arose and, after some time, the motion was declared carried.

Ensuite, il s'élève un débat et après quelque temps, la motion est déclarée adoptée.

The House then adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

À 18 h, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.

6:30 P.M.

18 H 30

The House resolved itself into a Committee to consider a certain Bill.	L'Assemblée se constitue en Comité plénier pour étudier un projet de loi.
After some time, the Committee rose and reported progress on the following Bill:-	Après quelque temps, le comité lève la séance et fait rapport de l'état du projet de loi suivant:-
Bill 108, An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration.	Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.
Ordered, That the report be now received and adopted.	Il est ordonné que ce rapport soit maintenant reçu et adopté.

Mr Sterling moved, That the House do now adjourn.	M. Sterling propose que l'Assemblée ajourne les débats maintenant.
The question, having been put on the motion, was declared carried.	Cette motion, mise aux voix, est déclarée adoptée.

The House then adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

À 20 h 45, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.

Sessional Papers Presented Pursuant to Standing Order 39(a):-

Documents Parlementaires Déposés Conformément à l'article 39(a) du Règlement:-

Compendia:

Open Financial Disclosure Report (No. 628) (Tabled December 15, 1997).