|
No. 32 |
No 32 |
|
|
Votes and Proceedings |
Procès-verbaux |
|
|
Legislative Assembly |
Assemblée législative |
|
|
Tuesday |
Mardi |
|
|
2nd Session, |
2e session |
|
|
Prayers |
Prières |
|
The Speaker delivered the following ruling:- On June 13, 2001, the Member for Chatham-Kent Essex raised a point of privilege concerning purported activities of the Minister of Transportation related to the possible forthcoming passage of Bill 65, An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs. The Member asserted that a draft letter -- a copy of which he provided me -- was apparently recently sent by a Regional Director in the Ministry of Transportation to some staff of the Ministry who would be affected by Bill 65 if the Bill is passed by this House. The letter describes options and decisions these staff will be required to make for themselves regarding their employment with the Ministry of Transportation, and the Member is of the view that this improperly anticipates a future legislative outcome. The Member for Chatham-Kent Essex asserts that the issue he raises is different from ones ruled upon by Speaker Edighoffer on December 20, 1989 and by myself last November 27th, in which the validity was confirmed of plans being made in the public service to prepare for the possible passage of legislation. I respectfully beg to differ with the Member on this point. In my view this matter is identical thematically with those other times. I can in no way come to the conclusion that providing Ministry employees with advance information about their employment status, if Bill 65 passes, infringes the rights or privileges of Members of this House. In my view the letter from the Ministry of Transportation not only does not improperly assume the outcome of this House's deliberations on Bill 65, the letter in many passages goes to some lengths to indicate how conditional these changes are upon the passage of Bill 65. As well, the template form that accompanied the letter contains blank spaces where dates will be required, clearly indicating the prospective nature of the document. These documents explicitly and thoroughly acknowledge the prior and superior role of the Legislature in this matter; such an approach has been repeatedly called for in numerous Speaker's rulings and I applaud the Ministry of Transportation for heeding those calls. I therefore cannot agree with the Member's view that the Ministry's actions constitute a case of contempt and would further note my view that the employment relationship between the Ministry of Transportation and its civil servants is a matter of law and beyond the competence of the Speaker to address. |
|
|
Reports by Committees |
Rapports des Comités |
|
Mr. Gilchrist from the Standing Committee on General Government presented the Committee's report as follows and moved its adoption:- |
M. Gilchrist du Comité permanent des affaires gouvernementales présente le rapport du comité et propose l'adoption comme suit:- |
|
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 25, An Act to amend the Public Service Act and Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993. |
Projet de loi 25, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la fonction publique et la Loi de 1993 sur la négociation collective des employés de la Couronne. |
|
The motion having been put, was carried on the following division:- |
La motion, mise aux voix, est adoptée par le vote suivant:- |
AYES / POUR - 37
|
Arnott Baird Barrett Clark Coburn Cunningham DeFaria Dunlop |
Elliott Flaherty Gilchrist Hodgson Hudak Johns Johnson Martiniuk |
Maves Mazzilli Miller Molinari Munro Mushinski Newman |
Ouellette Sampson Snobelen Stewart Stockwell Tascona Tilson |
Tsubouchi Turnbull Wettlaufer Wilson Witmer Wood Young |
NAYS / CONTRE - 36
|
Agostino Bisson Bountrogianni Boyer Bradley Bryant Caplan Christopherson |
Churley Cleary Colle Conway Cordiano Crozier Curling |
Di Cocco Dombrowsky Duncan Gerretsen Gravelle Hampton Hoy |
Kormos Kwinter Lankin Levac Martel Martin McLeod |
McMeekin Parsons Peters Phillips Pupatello Ramsay Ruprecht |
||
|
Pursuant to the Order of the House of May 30, 2001, the Bill is Ordered for Third Reading. |
Conformément à l'ordre adopté par l'Assemblée le 30 mai 2001, ce projet de loi est ordonné pour la troisième lecture. |
|||||
|
Mr. Gilchrist from the Standing Committee on General Government presented the Committee's report which was read as follows and adopted:- |
M. Gilchrist 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 as amended:- |
Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant avec des amendements:- |
|||||
|
Bill 33, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit persons from riding on the outside of a motor vehicle. Ordered for Third Reading. |
Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour interdire à des personnes de circuler à l'extérieur d'un véhicule automobile. Ordonné pour la troisième lecture. |
|||||
|
The Speaker delivered the following ruling:- On June 13, 2001, the Member for Niagara Centre (Mr. Kormos) and the Member for Elgin-Middlesex-London (Mr. Peters) rose on separate but related questions of privilege concerning the 2000 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is an Officer of the Legislature. The Commissioner's Report expressed concerns about some aspects of the government's management process on Freedom of Information requests made by journalists, special interest groups, and politicians for information on politically sensitive issues. The Member for Niagara Centre and the Member for Elgin-Middlesex-London were particularly concerned about the part of the Report that indicated that there were inappropriate delays in complying with such requests, and they gave specific examples of where they and other Members had encountered such delays. |
||||||
|
Both Members were of the view that the Government or unnamed government officials were in contempt of the House for obstructing not only the Commissioner, but also Members of the House. The Government House Leader (Mrs. Ecker) also made submissions. |
||||||
|
I have had an opportunity to review the Hansard for that day, the Information and Privacy Commissioner's 2000 Annual Report, the written submissions of the Member for Niagara Centre and the Member for Elgin-Middlesex-London, and the relevant authorities and precedents. Both Members recited the general authorities on contempt in the course of their submissions, so let me proceed to apply them to the case at hand. Dealing first with the concern that an Officer of the Legislature was being obstructed, there was no mention in the Commissioner's Report that the Commissioner was being hindered or obstructed. The Report was simply expressing serious reservations about the impact of the Government's policy, and it was requesting a change in that policy. Unlike the situation that was the occasion of my May 18, 2000 ruling respecting the Commissioner's Special Report on Disclosure of Personal Information by the Province of Ontario Savings Office, Ministry of Finance, this report does not specifically state, in very clear terms, that the Government was deliberately obstructing her investigation of a specific file. Indeed, at page 6 of the current report, the Commissioner indicates that, "[w]e recognize that the Ontario Cabinet's contentious issues management process was designed so as to not interfere with the administration of access requests within the time limits specified in the Act." Turning to the concern that Members were being obstructed, there can be no question that Members of this House have special rights that non-Members do not have. For example, they have entitlements under the Standing Orders -- such as being able to request information from the Government pursuant to those Standing Orders. However, when it comes to requesting information from the Government under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Members of this House stand in the same position as non-Members. In this regard, I refer to rulings dated June 7, 1988 (at page 219 of the Journals) and October 6, 1992 (at page 2458 of Hansard). I understand that the Member for Niagara Centre and the Member for Elgin-Middlesex-London contended that their effectiveness as Members of Provincial Parliament was being compromised by delays in receiving information that they had requested from the Government. However, it is very clear to me that the Government's management process on contentious issues did not obstruct the Members in their strictly parliamentary duties in this Chamber. For these reasons, a prima facie case of contempt has not been established. I thank the Member for Niagara Centre and the Member for Elgin-Middlesex-London for their submissions. |
|
|
Introduction of Bills |
Dépôt des Projets de Loi |
|
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 d'intérêt privé:- |
|
Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the City of Toronto. Mrs. Mushinski. |
|
|
Petitions |
Pétitions |
|
Petition relating to the Leasing arrangement between the Toronto District School Board and Beatrice House (No. P-22) Mr. Ruprecht. Petitions relating to Passing the Budget Bill giving tax credits to parents whose children attend independent schools (Sessional Paper No. P-62) Mrs. Mushinski, Mr. Wettlaufer and Mr. Wood. Petitions relating to Voucher plans for private schools (Sessional Paper No. P-64) Mr. Bisson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Kormos and Mr. Levac. |
|
|
Petition relating to Rising prices for Home Care services purchased by Community Care Access Centres (Sessional Paper No. P-72) Mr. Brown. Petition relating to the Applications by General Environmental Group Inc. (Sessional Paper No. P-77) Mr. Wettlaufer. Petition relating to the Province of Ontario Savings Office (Sessional Paper No. P-78) Mr. Christopherson. |
|
|
Orders of the Day |
Ordre du Jour |
|
Debate was resumed on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm's length process to determine members' compensation. |
Le débat reprend sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative pour établir un processus sans lien de dépendance permettant de fixer la rétribution des députés. |
|
After some time, Mrs. Witmer moved the adjournment of the debate, which motion was declared carried. |
Après quelque temps, Mme Witmer propose l'ajournement du débat et cette motion est déclarée adoptée. |
|
Mrs. Witmer then moved, That the House do now adjourn. |
Ensuite, Mme Witmer 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 5:55 p.m. |
À 17 h 55, 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 80, An Act to promote a stable learning environment and support teacher excellence. |
Le débat reprend sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 80, Loi favorisant la stabilité du milieu de l'enseignement et soutenant l'excellence des enseignants. |
|
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 |
|
Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario / Commission des alcools et des jeux de l'Ontario, Annual Report 1999-2000 (No. 64). Technical Standards and Safety Authority, 1999-2000 Annual Report (No. 63). |
|
|
Responses to Petitions |
Réponses aux Pétitions |
|
Petitions relating to Quinte Healthcare Corporation (No. P-9): (Tabled April 23 and May 1, 2001) Mr. Parsons. (Tabled May 1, 2001) Mr. Galt. Petition relating to Home Care Program for the elderly and special cases (Sessional Paper No. P-51): (Tabled May 8, 2001) Mr. Cleary. |
|