LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO
Thursday 12 December 2002 Jeudi 12 décembre 2002
TILBURY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL ACT
(WILLIAM J. MILLER TRUST), 2002
COLLISION REPAIR
STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002
SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION
EN CAS DE COLLISION
Thursday 12 December 2002 Jeudi 12 décembre 2002
The House met at 1845.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT
(CABINET MINISTERS AND
OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION
DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES
(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI
DE L'OPPOSITION)
Resuming the debate adjourned on December 9, 2002, on the motion for second reading of Bill 216, An Act respecting access to information, the review of expenses and the accountability of Cabinet ministers, Opposition leaders and certain other persons / Projet de loi 216, Loi concernant l'accès à l'information ainsi que l'examen des dépenses et l'obligation de rendre compte des ministres, des chefs d'un parti de l'opposition et de certaines autres personnes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 10, 2002, I am now required to put the question.
On December 3, 2002, Mr Wilson moved second reading of Bill 216. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 10, 2002, the bill is ordered for third reading.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT
(CABINET MINISTERS AND
OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION
DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES
(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI
DE L'OPPOSITION)
Mr Tsubouchi moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 216, An Act respecting access to information, the review of expenses and the accountability of Cabinet ministers, Opposition leaders and certain other persons / Projet de loi 216, Loi concernant l'accès à l'information ainsi que l'examen des dépenses et l'obligation de rendre compte des ministres, des chefs d'un parti de l'opposition et de certaines autres personnes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 10, 2002, I am now required to put the question.
Is it the pleasure of House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe I have consent to move second and third reading of Bill Pr1.
The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.
TILBURY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL ACT
(WILLIAM J. MILLER TRUST), 2002
Mr Hoy moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Tilbury Area Public School and the William J. Miller Trust.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Hoy moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Tilbury Area Public School and the William J. Miller Trust.
The Acting Speaker: Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe I have unanimous consent to move second and third reading of Bill Pr17.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the request be agreed? Agreed.
REENA FOUNDATION ACT, 2002
Mr Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Reena Foundation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Arnott moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Reena Foundation.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
COLLISION REPAIR
STANDARDS ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002
SUR LES NORMES DE RÉPARATION
EN CAS DE COLLISION
Resuming the debate adjourned on December 11, 2002, on the motion for third reading of Bill 186, An Act to further highway safety and establish consumer protection through the regulation of the collision repair industry, and to make a complementary amendment to the Insurance Act / Projet de loi 186, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité sur les voies publiques et à protéger les consommateurs en réglementant le secteur de la réparation en cas de collision et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la Loi sur les assurances.
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Christopherson): The floor is now open for debate.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I've had the occasion to look at this bill and to participate somewhat in committee in regard to the bill. I want to say at the outset that we generally support where this bill is going. We think it brings some long-due consumer protection to consumers across Ontario when it comes to collision repairs. We know there have been some issues, that consumers have felt they have been wrong done by. What this bill purports to do is to give consumers a little bit of added protection when it comes to their vehicles that are involved --
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: I'm coming in a minute.
As I said, the bill gives an opportunity for the consumer to get some protection under when it comes to an accident. Basically, it will give the opportunity for the consumer, when there is an accident, first of all, to make sure that those who are in the business are certified, registered etc, and at the same time give the consumer the ability to choose their own certified repair person to work on their car.
Before we go any further, I want to make sure we have the complete attention of the House. I'd like to move adjournment of the House at this point.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nays."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members; this will be a 30-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1852 to 1922.
The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Bisson's motion will please rise and remain standing. Thank you.
Those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The nays are 63; the ayes are 0.
The Acting Speaker: I with some confidence declare the motion lost.
Mr Bisson: That was a very close vote indeed. I'm heartened by the support I got against that motion.
I had the opportunity to go through this entire bill and I just want to put on the record a couple of things. First of all, as I said originally, we're going to support this bill. We think it provides a certain degree of consumer protection to people who come into contact with the auto repair industry. We do believe, however, there are some changes that could have been made to strengthen the bill. But at this late stage of the game you can't have everything that you want when it comes to a bill. I certainly support the direction it goes in, but I just want to speak very quickly to a couple of issues.
One of them is that the standards and requirements will help prevent operators with a licence who fail to pay their taxes and refuse to pay their workers' compensation premiums from operating. As New Democrats, we think that's important because we believe that, first of all, every operator should be respectful of the laws of Ontario when it comes to workers' compensation and health and safety, and of course everybody should pay their taxes. If you have somebody who's not doing that, that would be a violation of the act and it would basically put the operator in a position of having lost their licence.
The second part is that this particular bill will protect consumers from the high-pressure tactics that are often played by insurance companies when it comes to being forced to go to a particular shop, and we call that the preferred garage list or the preferred auto repair list. That is quite frustrating, because people often know -- sometimes you'll be in a community where you've been dealing with a particular auto shop for some time and, for whatever reason, the insurance company decides that particular shop you've been dealing with is not on the list and you're barred as the insured person from being able to go to the shop of your choice. We think it's important that consumers do have choice when it comes to selecting their shop, and this is one part of the bill we agree with and think is not a bad idea.
Where I have a bit of concern is in the enforcement of the bill, and that's why I think it's important we have to have this debate tonight, because who knows, anything can happen in the Legislature. We could agree by way of unanimous consent at one point to put a few amendments to give the bill a few more teeth, because one of the concerns that I have is that we're going to be creating a board that basically is going to have the ability to hear complaints from consumers if they feel that they've not been done right by by the auto repair shop they've gone to. That consumer is going to be able to go to the board to raise that complaint, but what happens once the board has ruled I think is where the weakness is. We think there should be a little bit more toughness when it comes to the power that is given to the boards themselves.
I also think it's important that people understand why we're having this debate tonight.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Why?
Mr Bisson: That's what I'm saying: I think it's important because we find ourselves here tonight debating a bill that, although we have some difficulty with it, at the end we're going to pass. We think debate is important in order to provide for an opportunity to hopefully get the government to accept a few late amendments by way of unanimous consent, but we find ourselves here because last night we had an opportunity as New Democrats, with the support of the Liberals, to put some pressure on the government, by way of tactics that we sometimes use in this House, to have a number of private members' bills passed. It's quite unfortunate, because I think, as I think most members do, private members' bills are an important component of what we do here in the Legislature. There are members of the Liberal caucus who have private members' bills, like Mr Colle, who has the puppy mill, and other members who have bills in this House in the Liberal caucus. I have a private member's bill, my good friend Marilyn Churley has the adoption bill, and a bunch of Conservative members have private bills as well.
As the opposition, being led by New Democrats, we were finally in a position to say, "We can exert some pressure on the government to try to force them into some kind of deal to allow some of the other private members' bills to pass." Unfortunately, because both the whip and the House leader of the Liberal Party decided to feather their own nests by making their own deals, we found ourselves in a position of having lost the floor last night when it came to the possibility of holding it up.
I think one of the unfortunate victims in this is Mr Colle, because Mr Colle has a bill that deals with puppy mills. I quite frankly would have been a lot happier to support Mr Colle's bill, because I think his bill went a lot further than the bill that we voted on here earlier this afternoon, and that's the reason I voted against the bill. I think it's rather unfortunate for Mr Colle to be put in that position. Because Mr Bartolucci, as the whip for the Liberals, decided to cook a deal to be able to pass his own private member's bill, he left Mr Colle to hang, who I think had a bill that was strong and that most members of the House would have supported. Certainly I have to believe that if we supported Mrs Munro's bill on the issue of puppy mills, we would have gotten support for Mr Colle's bill, which was even stronger, because this House has pronounced itself by a majority in supporting the concept of dealing with the issue of puppy mills. So it's rather unfortunate that the Liberal whip cooked a side deal and left his own caucus members out to dry when it comes to being able to deal with bills, and I think that's pretty terrible.
1930
The other thing I find a little bit awful is that we found ourselves in a position where, when this whole deal was coming down and pressure was being put on by the Conservative House leader to have the Liberals vote a certain way by not allowing the bells to be rung, the Liberals basically caved. I know in the process we had yesterday -- and Mr Bradley was the go-between, I imagine, between the Liberal leader's office and what was happening in the House when Mr Caplan had the floor -- there was a message sent back that they should succumb to the pressures that were put forward by the Conservative Party. It's unfortunate, because I distinctly heard in this House yesterday, Mr Speaker, as you well know, that the government House leader threatened to slash the Liberal caucus budget if they rang bells in order to prolong debate last night, and I think that's rather unfortunate.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): You're disgusting.
Mr Bisson: I think what's disgusting is what your House leader did last night, but that's another story.
I think it's rather unfortunate, because bills like Bill 186 are important. Mr Sampson -- and Mr Klees first -- brought forward this particular bill, which I think is a good service to the consumers of Ontario. I respect Mr Sampson and Mr Klees for having brought forward this private member's bill. I think we should be passing more of these bills. I know Mr Klees is an honourable member. I have a lot of respect for him. I've worked with him on a number of things. I've worked with Mr Sampson. I think it's important that members have an ability to pass these bills.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position sometimes, as we have far too often, where the government says, "Because we don't accept the adoption bill of Ms Churley, we're not going to make a deal with the New Democrats." Of course, we can't agree because we're in a Catch-22: if we don't get something as our caucus, how can we allow other bills to go?
What was rather unfortunate last night was that we were finally in a position -- and this is the part that really made me mad last night and why, quite frankly, I went over the top. As I said last night, I apologize for that, because it was quite unbecoming as far as my decorum in the House. I got really mad last night because here we were finally in a position to exert pressure on the government, with both the Liberal caucus and the New Democratic caucus finally coming together to block what was happening in the House so that we could get a deal, so we could pass a private member's bill like Mr Colle's puppy mill bill and other private members' bills like Ms Churley's adoption bill. Because there was a deal cooked by the Liberal whip with the Conservative House leader, all the Liberal backbenchers who had bills got lost in that deal, all the Conservative backbenchers who had private members' bills got lost, and so did we as New Democrats. I had a bill, Mr Martin had a bill, Mr Prue had a bill -- no, his was defeated; it was on rent control, that's right -- and Ms Marilyn Churley of course lost her adoption bill. So it's rather unfortunate that we get into these situations.
I just wanted to put on the record tonight, because it's the only opportunity I have, that I think bills like Bill 186 are a true testament to what this House can do properly. I believe private members' bills are very important. I think they're one of the ways we can do legislation in this House that is a great service to the people of Ontario.
I want to personally thank Mr Klees and Mr Sampson for having brought this bill forward, because I think they're doing not only their constituents but my constituents a favour.
Mr Kormos: A very progressive bill.
Mr Bisson: It's a very progressive move --
Mr Kormos: Left wing.
Mr Bisson: I was going to get to that. It's a very progressive move on the part of this government, because this government originally came in --
Mr Kormos: This government? It was individuals.
Mr Bisson: Individuals, yes, to be fair. The mantra of the government has been, "We don't believe in regulation," and these two members agree that the proper thing is that sometimes we need to regulate industry in order to protect consumers. At least those two members, Mr Klees and Mr Sampson, figured out that it's important to pass some form of regulation to protect small business, to protect the consumer and to make sure you have a regime that is fair for both the business operators and the consumers. I really want to thank Mr Klees and Mr Sampson for having brought that forward because I think our society works better when we're able to do those kinds of things. It's a bit of a departure from where the government is going, because we know the government doesn't believe in regulation, but at least there are a few independent members there who feel it's important enough to do something.
I say again, it was rather unfortunate last night that both the Liberal House leader and the Liberal whip had to cook a deal that killed any possibility of passing any of the other Liberal private members' bills, any of the Tory backbenchers' bills and any of our bills. I think that's rather unfortunate. It's a little bit like the old saying -- what do they say? -- like somebody trying to feather their own nest. I look in the House and I say, oh, where is the Liberal whip tonight?
Mr Kormos: He's sleeping in his feathered nest.
Mr Bisson: Well, maybe the nest is comfortable tonight. I think that's rather unfortunate, because he got what he wanted last night, and he's gone. His colleagues I think would be upset. I know I was certainly upset. That's why I went over the top last night. I was livid on two points. I was livid on the point that it was an injustice to all members that the Liberal whip cooked a side deal to get his own bill, and froze out his Liberal colleagues and his counterparts in other parties. I was really mad about it. I think it's important that we allow bills like that to go forward. That's why I think it's important that the government finally come to its senses in this debate and say, "Listen, we should allow some of the other bills to go forward," rather than just using the government majority to do what they're doing here tonight.
But I want to get back to Bill 186 because there are a few points that need to be put on the record. I want to make sure that Mr Klees, at least, and Mr Sampson and other members who believe in this bill, as I and my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus believe, as I said in the beginning, that it is a step in the right direction, progressive, a real left-wing thing to do. I appreciate that, but I think that maybe we didn't go far enough when it came to the enforcement provisions of this bill. I would much rather have had a provision that said if a consumer feels they've been wronged, because either the insurance company fails to comply with this legislation or the auto repair shop for whatever reason didn't do work to the satisfaction of the consumer, or feels the price is a little bit more than they should be paying -- I would have liked to see something in this legislation with a few more teeth when it comes to being able to make sure that there is a deterrent for both the insurance company and the auto repair shop from doing wrong to the consumer.
I want to put on the record that most of the industry is very respectable. Quite frankly, most of the industry probably wouldn't even need this bill. I look at auto repair shops like Timmins Collision and Bouchard Collision and Dan's and others, and they do really good work. They're reputable business people. They care deeply about what they do. They're professionals about their jobs. They want to make sure that they give the best possible work to the consumer for the best possible price. Those people, I know, will do a good job. But every now and then, unfortunately, there are some unscrupulous people, or sometimes it could just be a question of incompetence. I think this bill would be much strengthened if the government would allow it to go into committee -- at this point it would be difficult to get to committee of the whole, because we are in third reading, but if the government would allow a unanimous consent motion to be able to deal with trying to make a few amendments at the last moment. I'm going to be calling on the government to see if they're -- we're going to give them another 30-minute opportunity by way of bells. I want you to understand that my calling later for adjournment of debate is not to be deleterious. I want you, Speaker, to understand that. It's to give the government a 30-minute opportunity to reflect on some of the suggestions I'm making in this debate tonight. Good bill, but let's put a few teeth in it when it comes to the enforcement provisions, when it comes to dealing with what might be an unscrupulous practice on the part of both the auto insurance industry and the auto repair industry.
The other thing is the collision repair advisory board. As far as its makeup, I would have been a little bit happier if we could have found a different way of structuring how that board is to be made up. I'm not going to condemn entirely the way you structured it in the bill. I think, again, it's better than nothing. I want to give Mr Klees and Mr Sampson the credit they deserve, because I know they worked hard on this. If Mr Klees still would have been not in cabinet, he would have advocated a committee. Thank God, he has a good colleague like Mr Sampson, who's prepared to carry this bill, because Mr Sampson has a lot of, I believe, experience in this kind of work. I think you could have picked no one better to help you put this bill forward than Mr Sampson. So I just say again that one of the provisions I would like to see is, when it comes to the makeup of this board, that we'd have a little bit of a discussion, as we're having this 30-minute bell, to be able to deal with how to make sure that board is a little bit more representative. We can talk about that privately because we don't have enough time in debate.
I just want to say again, for the record, that it's rather unfortunate that we find ourselves in a position where the Liberal whip cooked himself a deal, basically froze out all his Liberal counterparts, when it came to being able to get a private member's bill. He feathered his own nest and he got his bill. We gave unanimous consent to that bill. This is the thing that has to be said. We were four members in this House and we agreed that Mr Bartolucci's bill should have passed. But then for him to turn on the New Democrats, who were here, fighting in order to make sure other members got their bills I think was rather unfortunate, because we thought Mr Bartolucci's bill was good. Our party gave unanimous consent. I thought we showed to the Liberal caucus that we were fair in our approach to trying to work out a strategy to exert some pressure on the government, and unfortunately, because Mr Bartolucci and Mr Duncan cooked a deal with the Conservative House leader, all the Liberal members got themselves frozen out when --
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Oh, I was here last night. I think that's unfortunate.
So that we have proper time to have a little bit of discussion while we're still in this debate, I'm going to call for adjournment of the debate so that I'm able to talk to some of the other members about possible amendments to this bill.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1941 to 2011.
The Speaker: Mr Bisson has moved adjournment of the debate.
All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
Clerk of the House: The ayes are 0; the nays are 46.
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost. The member for Timmins-James Bay had the floor.
Mr Bisson: We seem to have lost 15, but that's all right. I just want to indicate to the House that I've had an opportunity to speak to both Mr Klees and Mr Sampson. I have some indication that they're prepared to give us some leeway on regulation in order to address some of the concerns we have with the bill. Again, I want to say that the bill is certainly a step in the right direction. It is going to provide for some consumer protection, and we as New Democrats believe that is an important component of what we need to do here in representing our constituencies. I want to believe that Mr Klees and Mr Sampson are both honourable members and that they will accept the recommendations we're making when we go to regulation. Because of that spirit of co-operation, I would move unanimous consent --
Mr Kormos: Seek.
Mr Bisson: I know what I'm doing -- move unanimous consent for third reading on this bill.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your permission, because I did intend to speak, could I get unanimous consent to just make a remark on this bill?
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. Minister?
Hon Mr Klees: First of all, I want to thank the members of the opposition for agreeing to that unanimous consent, and I want to thank my colleagues who didn't for the privilege.
The reason I wanted to say a couple of things is that this has been a six-year project on the part of many people. First of all, I want to thank my colleague Mr Rob Sampson, the member from Mississauga Centre, for agreeing to step in at a time when I was unable to carry the bill forward due to circumstances. I want to also acknowledge that when I first moved introduction of this bill, I did so at that time in honour of Mr Heinz Fuhrman, who is deceased but who was a stalwart and an advocate for the collision repair industry. At that time his wife, Kris, was in the audience here and she took great pride in the groundwork that her husband laid in preparation for a piece of legislation like this, because he advocated for many years to bring this kind of direction to this industry.
I want to thank all of the other people within the industry who worked with us over the last number of years to bring this legislation to this point, and I want to thank members of this House for supporting us today.
Mr Bob Wood (London West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With this spirit of unanimity breaking out, I seek unanimous consent for immediate second and third reading without debate of Bill 193, An Act to proclaim a day and a month to celebrate Hellenic heritage in Ontario, and for immediate third reading of Bill 113, An Act to honour firefighters who have died in the line of duty.
The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent regarding Bills 193 and 113. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second reading of Bill 222, An Act to proclaim Genocide Memorial Week in Ontario.
The Speaker: Mr Kormos has asked for unanimous consent on second reading of Bill 222. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for second reading and third reading of Bill 35. This is an act to proclaim Irish Heritage Day in Ontario.
The Speaker: Mr O'Toole has asked for unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 35. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent for two minutes in order to conclude the debate on the bill that we just passed. I asked for unanimous consent and I got it, but I would like to have a few minutes to put a couple of things on the record in regard to the bill.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking for unanimous consent once again for third reading and a final vote on Bill 77, An Act --
Interjections.
The Speaker: You can read the title. Sorry.
Ms Churley: Sorry, Mr Speaker; I got distracted. The Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act.
The Speaker: I thank the member. The member has asked for unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 77. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for third reading without debate of Bill 113, An Act to honour firefighters who have died in the line of duty.
The Speaker: We just did that, I'm afraid.
Interjection: There are two of them.
The Speaker: OK. He's asking for third reading of Bill 113. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I move third reading of Bill 117, Congenital Heart Defects Awareness Day Act.
The Speaker: You've asked for consent to move third reading of Bill 117. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like unanimous consent to move third reading of Bill 140, An Act to proclaim Nikkei Heritage Day.
The Speaker: Mr Wettlaufer has asked for unanimous consent for reading of Bill 140. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
2020
M. Bisson: Appel au règlement, monsieur le Président : Je demanderais le consentement unanime pour passer la Loi 145, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services en français pour prévoir que certains rapports sont disponibles simultanément en français et en anglais.
The Speaker: Mr Bisson has requested unanimous consent regarding Bill 145. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
Mr O'Toole: With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move second and third reading of Bill 62, An Act proclaiming Physical Fitness Day.
The Speaker: Mr O'Toole has asked for unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 62. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for every bill that is on the order paper right now.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
The member for Perth-Middlesex.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I want to take this opportunity to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move third reading without debate of Bill 116, An Act to proclaim Archives Awareness Week.
The Speaker: The member has asked for unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 116. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.
The government House leader.
Hon Mr Stockwell: I believe I have consent to move Bill Pr9 for second and third reading.
The Speaker: The minister has asked for consent for Bill Pr9. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
ELLIOTT ACT, 2002
Mr Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr9, An Act respecting The Elliott.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Arnott moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr9, An Act respecting The Elliott.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe I have consent to move second and third reading of Bill Pr11.
The Speaker: Mr Stockwell has requested unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill Pr11. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.
TOWN OF ERIN ACT, 2002
Mr Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Erin.
The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Arnott moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Erin.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, a happy new year and happy holidays.
I move adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Mr Stockwell has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This House stands adjourned until Monday, March 17, 2003, at 1:30 of the clock.
The House adjourned at 2024.