|
Monday |
Lundi |
|
|
Prayers 1:30 P.M. |
Prières 13 H 30 |
|
|
The Speaker delivered the following ruling: |
||
|
On Monday, October 25, 1999, the member for Windsor-St. Clair (Mr. Duncan) rose on a point of privilege on a matter respecting the non-passage of a Supply bill for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, and the passage of an Order-in-Council authorizing the payment of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the same fiscal year. I thank the House for its patience while I took the time to carefully consider this matter. In his point of privilege, the member for Windsor-St. Clair referred to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act. Section 14 of that Act provides as follows: Despite anything in this Act, whenever the Assembly has concurred in the report of the Committee of Supply recommending the passing of any estimates, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the payment of any items of expenditure so concurred in. The member then referred to Order-in-Council 626/99, which invoked this provision in circumstances where Supply had been concurred in, but the Supply bill itself had not passed. The intent of this March 24, 1999 Order-in-Council was "to appropriate the expenditures approved by the Assembly to the votes and items of the estimates and supplementary estimates concurred in by the Assembly...." According to the member, the Order-in-Council had no legal validity because section 14 of the Act, in referring to a "Committee of Supply" which no longer exists, was no longer operative. I have had an opportunity to review the member's submissions, the submissions of the Government House Leader, our parliamentary precedents, and various parliamentary authorities. My response to the member's submissions begins with a consideration of a January 22, 1997 ruling by Speaker Stockwell. In that ruling, as the member for Windsor-St. Clair noted, the Speaker found that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out in circumstances where a ministry pamphlet undermined respect for the parliamentary process. In the case at hand, the member states that the Order-in-Council similarly undermines respect for the parliamentary process. With great respect, however, there are important differences between the circumstances in 1997 and those now before me. First, unlike in 1997, the impugned action in the case at hand is the passage of an Order-in-Council pursuant to a provision in an Act of this Legislature. The second difference is that, unlike in 1997, the Speaker is in effect being asked to consider and decide on legal and constitutional issues that, according to our own precedents and various parliamentary authorities, are better left to courts and litigants. Let me refer to some of these precedents and authorities. On April 23, 1990, Speaker Edighoffer ruled (at page 692 of the Hansard for that day) as follows: Speakers in this Parliament and other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth have consistently held the view that the Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question or decide a question of law. For other precedents and authorities to the same effect, I refer members to page 6538 of our Hansard for January 28, 1997, pages 7227 and 7228 of our Hansard for February 26, 1997, and citation 168(5) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne. Whether the fact that a "Committee of Supply" no longer exists works to invalidate Section 14 of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act, is clearly a legal question, not a procedural one. The precedents and authorities therefore being clear and consistent on this point, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out. |
||
|
My only other observation about the member's submissions deals with their timeliness. The House met on twelve sessional days over seven calendar days after the passage of the impugned Order-in-Council, and before the dissolution of the 36th Parliament. Not only has a considerable amount of time passed since Order-in-Council 626/99 was made, but we are now in an entirely new Parliament. It is important that members not delay raising a point of privilege lest it be ruled out of order due to the passage of time. A point of privilege should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity - and in the Parliament to which it relates. In this regard, I refer members to citation 115 of Beauchesne. |
||
|
Introduction of Bills |
Dépôt des Projets de Loi |
|
|
The following Bill was introduced and read the first time:- |
Le projet de loi suivant est présenté et lu une première fois:- |
|
|
Bill 13, An Act to preserve Ontario's marine heritage and promote tourism by protecting heritage wrecks and artifacts. Mr. Barrett. |
Projet de loi 13, Loi visant à préserver le patrimoine marin de l'Ontario et à promouvoir le tourisme en protégeant les épaves et les artefacts à valeur patrimoniale. M. Barrett. |
|
|
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 Pr13, An Act respecting Pembridge Insurance Company. Mr. Wood. |
||
|
Motions |
Motions |
|
|
On motion by Mr. Sterling, |
Sur la motion de M. Sterling, |
|
|
Ordered, That, pursuant to Standing Order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on November 15, 16, and 17, 1999 for the purpose of considering government business. |
||
|
With unanimous consent, the following motion was moved without notice:- |
Avec le consentement unanime, la motion suivante est proposée sans préavis:- |
|
|
On motion by Mr. Tsubouchi, |
Sur la motion de M. Tsubouchi, |
|
|
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure of public funds on the memorial being erected on the south side of the Whitney Block here at Queen's Park is a fitting, appropriate and worthwhile commemoration of those many brave men and women who, as members of Ontario's police forces, have been killed in the line of duty, while protecting our homes and communities, having made the ultimate sacrifice while dedicating their lives to helping the citizens of Ontario feel safe and secure. |
||
|
Petitions |
Pétitions |
|
|
Petition relating to the Northern Health Travel Grant program (Sessional Paper No. P-1). Mrs. McLeod. Petition relating to Effluents coming from Commercial Alcohols Inc. in Chatham-Kent (Sessional Paper No. P-6). Mr. Hoy. Petition relating to Upgrading Highway 401 and investing federal gasoline tax revenue in Ontario road improvements (Sessional Paper No. P-9). Mr. Peters, Mr. Young, and Mr. Tilson. Petition relating to Reinstating the Lord's Prayer or some type of religious reading in schools (Sessional Paper No. P-11). Mr. Young. |
||
|
Petition relating to Establishing a Northeastern Ontario bone marrow donor centre (Sessional Paper No. P-18). Mr. Bartolucci. Petition relating to Preventing exposure of minors to pornography in retail establishments (Sessional Paper No. P-19). Mr. Newman. Petition relating to Increasing billing caps in Lambton County and throughout Ontario to ensure proper eye care (Sessional Paper No. P-20). Ms. Di Cocco. |
|
|
Orders of the Day |
Ordre du Jour |
|
A debate arose on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 8, An Act to promote safety in Ontario by prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain activities on roadways. |
Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 8, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité en Ontario en interdisant la sollicitation agressive, la sollicitation de personnes dans certains lieux et le rejet de choses dangereuses dans certains lieux, et modifiant le Code de la route afin de réglementer certaines activités sur la chaussée. |
|
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. |
|
6:45 P.M. |
18 H 45 |
|
Orders of the Day |
Ordre du Jour |
|
Debate was resumed on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 7, An Act to protect taxpayers against tax increases, to establish a process requiring voter approval for proposed tax increases and to ensure that the Provincial Budget is a balanced budget. |
Le débat reprend sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 7, Loi protégeant les contribuables des augmentations d'impôt, établissant un processus d'approbation des projets d'augmentation d'impôt par les électeurs et garantissant l'équilibre du budget provincial. |
|
After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the motion for 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 9:30 p.m. |
À 21 h 30, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux. |
|
le président GARY CARR Speaker |
|
|
Sessional Papers Presented Pursuant To Standing Order 39(A):- |
Documents Parlementaires Déposés Conformément À L'article 39(A) Du Règlement |
|
Part-time appointments re intended Order-in-Council dated November 3, 1999 (No. 24) (Tabled November 4, 1999). |
|