STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 November 1997
Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr David Johnson /
Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,
projet de loi 160, M. David Johnson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
Tuesday 18 November 1997 Mardi 18 novembre 1997
The committee met at 1559 in committee room 1.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and members of the committee. Before we proceed, if I may, I might make a statement.
The standing committee on the administration of justice is called to order. We are considering Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. We meet this afternoon to continue clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Before we resume, I would remind all members that by order of the House dated Monday, October 6, 1997, at 5 o'clock today, those amendments which have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair is then required to interrupt the proceedings, regardless of where we are with the amendments. At that time there will no be further amendment or debate. The Chair will put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period, if requested, pursuant to standing order 127(a).
That is a synopsis, as I understand and as the clerk understands, of the standing order under which we sit here today. There will be a vote in the House and we might be dealing with that later also.
We were dealing --
Interruption.
The Chair: You are totally out of order. Please sit down or I'll have you removed. We are adjourned for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1601 to 1605.
The Chair: The committee is reconvened. I remind the audience that the rules of this House do not permit demonstrations of any kind by the audience. I will enforce those rules and I will have you removed. If you all persist, I will empty the gallery and proceed as the Speaker did yesterday in the House.
We are now using the time of the opposition because, come 5 o'clock, there is no more debate. Mr Wildman, I do believe you had --
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In light of your previous statement, I would like to move a motion.
In light of the slow progress we made yesterday, reaching only the 49th of 217 amendments to Bill 160, I move that the standing committee on the administration of justice request the House to pass a new time allocation motion to give the committee more time to complete clause-by-clause debate and debate on the amendments properly.
Interruption.
The Chair: That's warning number two.
That is a properly moved motion. Debate is permitted on the motion.
Mr Wildman: Chair, in light of the time, I don't want to use up a lot of time debating this. I think it stands for itself. We have 217 amendments to a bill that's over 200 pages in length. We only got to the 49th amendment yesterday, and there wasn't any delay yesterday. We dealt with most of the amendments quite expeditiously. It's obvious that we can't get 217 amendments dealt with properly by 5 o'clock this afternoon. We won't be able to debate them. We need more time, and that's the reason for the motion to request the House to give the committee more time to do its job properly.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chairman, I recognize that the motion is likely not to be supported. I recognize that this committee is required to report to the House regardless of the fact that we will have only considered a handful of the amendments proposed even by the government. Even if we were to set aside all of the opposition amendments and just take some time to look at the changes this government believes are needed to its own bill, we would not have time to consider their amendments before 5 o'clock comes.
I'm wondering if there is some way, recognizing that there is no longer an urgency -- I understand that it is not the intention of the government to call this bill for third reading until next week and perhaps even the week after that, so clearly there should be some time for the committee to consider the amendments, at least those amendments proposed by the government, but I believe amendments put forward by all parties.
It's become obvious in the last few days, and particularly yesterday as we began to ask questions about some of the government amendments, that the implications of the amendments, the way in which they will actually work, are not fully understood by the ministry or -- I say this based on today's question period -- by the minister himself. I wonder if there is not some way in which there could be some suspension of what we are about to do in this committee so there that there can be least some explanation and review of the government's own amendments.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Obviously, there's some merit to the suggestion. On the other hand, I think of the time that's been wasted at this committee with the motions we discussed prior to commencing hearing the delegations. I'm wondering how much time the mover is contemplating.
Mr Wildman: If I could answer, Chair, yesterday we dealt with 49 amendments with approximately four and a half hours. There wasn't any real delay on any of those amendments in the debate. There wasn't lengthy debate. We have a total of 217 amendments, most of which are government amendments. If we reach 5 o'clock and have only dealt with a few, then we are faced with the prospect of having to just read the amendment into the record. The parliamentary assistant won't even be able to explain the reason for the government amendments and we'll have to vote immediately, as per the time allocation motion. I would think we would need a couple of days at least. Even then, it would be rushed, but I think we would need a couple of days for the committee to do the job properly.
Mr Guzzo: Mr Speaker, if I could continue, I'm of two minds.
The Chair: I'm a chairman.
Mr Guzzo: Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Guzzo: I have an amendment which I would very much like to have debated, particularly in view of the fact that it's based on the private member's bill that was introduced by the member for Ottawa South --
Mrs McLeod: Chair, if may interject on a point of personal privilege at this committee hearing, I would love to have the chance to discuss Mr Guzzo's cheap political trick. Unfortunately, if you enforce the 5 o'clock rule, which you may be bound to do, I won't get that much-desired opportunity, but I'm not prepared to give the floor to Mr Guzzo without an opportunity for fair debate.
The Chair: Well, there's no discretion on my part. At 5 o'clock, I follow the order of the House. That is my direction. Mr Wildman has made a motion that requests -- it does not in any way bind -- the House to give more time to this committee. That's all that's before us.
Mr Wildman: I would call the question, in light of the time, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Fine. All those in favour of Mr Wildman's motion? All those against? The motion fails.
We are at present dealing with item 49. We have had discussions from Mrs McLeod, Mr Wildman and Mr Crozier. Mrs McLeod, is there any further discussion in regard to item 49, which is a motion by Mr Smith to amend section 81 of the bill?
Mrs McLeod: My only further contribution to the discussion -- we had quite an intensive discussion last night -- is to express my real regret, having asked the Minister of Education and Training in the House just within the last hour what guarantee there would be that there would be lower class sizes as a result of the status quo being enshrined in this legislation. Quite clearly, the government is trying to create the perception that this will lead to lower class sizes. It cannot be done. It particularly cannot be done when you enshrine the status quo and particularly not if you take $700 million out. We will clearly be voting against both the amendment and this entire section.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion, I'll put the question. All those in favour of Mr Smith's motion? All those against? The motion is carried.
We are proceeding to item 50. Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I move that section 81 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Education Act:
"Teaching time
"170.2(1) In this section,
"'classroom teacher' means a teacher who is assigned in a regular timetable to provide instruction to pupils, but does not include a principal, vice-principal, any teacher who is appointed to direct, supervise or assist in directing or supervising an organizational unit, or any teacher appointed to supervise or coordinate subjects or programs or to act as a consultant for the teachers of the subjects or programs.
"Minimum teaching time
"(2) Every board shall ensure that its classroom teachers in elementary schools are assigned at least 1300 minutes of instructional time for each period of five instructional days consisting of not more than 1500 minutes, which maximum shall not be increased.
"Same
"(3) Every board shall ensure that its classroom teachers in secondary schools are assigned to provide no more than 1200 minutes of instructional time for each period of five instructional days consisting of not more than 1600 minutes, which maximum shall not be increased.
"Allocation
"(4) All additional instructional time resulting from this statutory amendment shall be allocated equally across all existing classes.
"Part-time
"(5) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the instructional time for part-time teachers shall be prorated in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective agreement."
This is put forward as an alternative to the government's position on teaching time. I believe that it has more realistic time frames and ensures equal distribution of time and ensures that there will be proper preparation time for teachers so that they can prepare for classrooms, prepare for students, do marking, consult with parents and other teachers and carry on special assistance to students who need extra help and so on, the kinds of things that we expect teachers to do in order to properly serve our students. It also defines a classroom teacher.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): In part, I believe the previous government motion that we dealt with and voted on addressed this particular issue. The government's desire and indication with respect to how to address that issue was clearly indicated in that amendment. I am speaking in opposition to this particular motion. I think as well we should be mindful that the previous amendment does allow some flexibility for principals with respect to the allocation of instructional time. There is a relationship to the previous amendment, one which obviously was a government amendment, and I'm speaking in opposition to this particular amendment.
Mrs McLeod: I'm well aware of the previous amendment, which we debated last night. I want to again put on record the fact that the government's amendment, which they passed last night, will ensure the loss of literally thousands of teachers. It will ensure that small schools are so understaffed that they may not be able to continue to offer a full range of programs and in fact in some areas small schools may not be able to operate at all. Their amendment is of particular concern to schools operated by French-language boards, which will find it very, very difficult to offer secondary school programs at all because of the shortage of staff that their secondary schools will have, and it will absolutely gut extra-curricular programs. None of these concerns the government has chosen to address.
Mr Wildman's motion, I believe, had it been accepted by the government, would have been much preferable. I would support it, certainly, although I must also say I truly believe the issue of preparation time can be effectively dealt with at the local collective-bargaining table and should not be in legislation at all.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, Mr Wildman's motion is to amend section 81 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
The next item, item 51, I believe, Mr Wildman, is out of order, in that it attempts to remove a complete section of the act. That is my understanding. Do we wish to debate it?
Mr Wildman: No. I won't debate it. What we were attempting to do was leave the questions of class size, teaching time and preparation time to be matters be of collective bargaining, but if you rule that out of order, I guess we can't proceed with that.
The Chair: It is out of order. The proper method is to vote against it.
Mr Wildman: Well, I'll certainly do that.
The Chair: The next one, I believe, is not in the form of a motion. Item 52.
Mrs McLeod: We were advised that Mr Wildman's motion would not be in order so we withdrew a similar motion and will be voting against the section.
The Chair: We are now dealing, therefore, with section 81, as amended by one government motion. Any further discussion? All those in favour of section 81, as amended? All those against? Section 81, as amended, carries.
We are moving to section 82, item 53. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that subsections 82(6) and (7) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(6) Subsection 171(2) of the act and subsection 171(3) of the act as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1991, chapter 10, section 9, are repealed and the following substituted:
"Powers of boards re: days of work
"(2) A board may require teachers to work during some or all of the five working days preceding the start of the school year.
"Same
"(3) A board may authorize the principal of a school to make determinations respecting the work to be done by teachers of the school during the working days referred to in subsection (2) and the principal shall exercise that discretion subject to the authority of the appropriate supervisory officer.
"Same
"(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), a working day is a day other than Saturday, Sunday or a holiday as defined in subsection 29(1) of the Interpretation Act.
"Same
"(5) Work that may be required under subsections (2) and (3) includes but is not limited to participation in professional development activities."
Effectively, this particular motion deals with powers of boards with respect to days of work. In particular this amendment is companion to the motion regarding subsection 7(3) of the bill and subsections 11(5), (6) and (6.1) of the Education Act. It allows flexibility to boards with respect to meeting professional development needs.
Mr Wildman: This essentially seems to reintroduce the section on days of work that was removed earlier. Is that correct?
Mr Smith: There's a reference back to the motion on section 7(3) of the bill, so we've previously dealt with it.
1620
Mr Wildman: While you're looking, it's my understanding this is to deal with professional development days. It also will make it possible to require teachers to begin working in the schools five days before Labour Day, which is already the practice. Most teachers do this anyway. Initially the government's intention was to require students to be in the schools five days in advance, but the government has backed off on that, so at least it's an improvement there. But does it refer to 7(3)?
Mr Smith: The relevant section is 7(3). Effectively what happened with that was that we removed the original proposed regulatory power and through this amendment --
Mr Wildman: So we're putting this in the legislation.
Mr Smith: Entrenched in legislation, granting the flexibility to the boards.
Mr Wildman: My view is that this still should be determined at the local level by boards and teachers and parent councils. We prefer it to be in legislation rather than in regulation, but the preferable approach would be to decide these matters at the local level.
Mrs McLeod: I find it as objectionable a clause as I did when it was first presented in an earlier part of the bill.
This all began because the previous Minister of Education decided that students were going to spend more days in school and have more instructional days, so he was going to bring them back in the summer. He found, somewhat to his surprise, that that was not a popular idea with a great many parents as well as students.
I guess the real goal of the minister at that point in time was to somehow create this impression that teachers were overpaid and underworked because, after all, most of this is an attack on teachers. You had to leave something in the bill that would make teachers work harder, so we have a legislative requirement that a board may require teachers to work during some or all of the five working days preceding the start of the school year. You know very well that teachers are coming in in those five days anyway.
When you did the firefighters' bill, you took away their right to strike, a right they had not exercised in 50 years. It was an offensive, gratuitous slap in the face, and so is this to teachers.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion? If not, we have Mr Smith's motion to amend section 82(6) and (7). All those in favour of that amendment? All those against? The amendment carries.
Is there any discussion of section 82, as amended? If not, I'll put the question. All those in favour of section 82, as amended? All those against? Section 82, as amended, is carried.
We're moving to item 54.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 171.1(4) of the Education Act, an set out in subsection 83(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Limitation re joint investment agreements
"(4) No agreement entered into under this section for the joint investment of funds may,
"(a) affect an education development charges account established under an education development charge bylaw to which section 257.103 applies; or
"(b) provide for investment by a board that is not permitted by clause 241(1)(a)."
Effectively, this particular motion replaces reference to an education development charge account, with provisions allowing for continuing to prevent withdrawal from an old EDC account for joint investment purposes. The rationale for this particular amendment is that EDC accounts established under the current Development Charges Act are joint accounts held by coterminous boards and these accounts would be wound down by March 31, 1999.
Mr Wildman: I just have a question. You will recall during the public hearings that the representative of the Urban Development Institute appeared before us to raise questions about changes to the development charges themselves. Does this section in any way relate to that issue or is there another amendment which was improperly filed by the government that doesn't meet the desires of the Urban Development Institute?
Mr Smith: This amendment does not relate to the question at hand, but as you know, Mr Wildman, under motion 57, there's an item that needs to be dealt with with respect to that particular amendment to which you referred. That amendment, if ruled appropriate, would address the concerns identified by UDI.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion on Mr Smith's motion to amend section 83(3), I'll call the question. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
Shall section 83, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
We are now dealing with sections 84, 85 and 86. Is there any discussion or questions in regard to those three sections which have no amendments? If not, I'll put the question. Shall sections 84, 85 and 86 carry? Against? They are carried.
We are now dealing with section 87, item 55.
Mr Smith: I move that subsections 178(4) and (5) of the Education Act, an set out in section 87 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Rights continued
"(4) Where a person has rights under this section in relation to an old board and the old board is amalgamated or merged with a district school board under part II.2, the rights of the person are the same immediately after the amalgamation or merger as they were immediately before the amalgamation or merger and, for the purpose, the district school board stands in the place of the old board."
This particular amendment and motion has been submitted with respect to clarifying the continuation of individuals' rights to participate in the OMERS pension on transfer to a new board. It clarifies that right for some non-professional staff to continue to participate in the OMERS pension after the amalgamation if someone has had rights prior to that amalgamation.
Mr Wildman: Again the government has been most helpful in giving us the wrong amendment drafted, so that we have the note from the people who worked on the amendment. Again, I appreciate that assistance to the opposition. It says here, "This motion should be reviewed by the people developing the merger and transfer processes." My question is simple: Has it been reviewed by the people developing the merger and transfer process, and who are these people?
Mr Smith: I can speak to the amendment. The objective, as I indicated in the amendment, was to protect the rights of those individuals currently in the OMERS pension plan affected by an amalgamation. That is the intent and direction of this particular amendment and motion.
The Chair: We have a motion made by Mr Smith to amend section 87. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Shall section 87, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
There are no amendments to 88. Is there any discussion with regard to section 88? If not, I'll put the question. Shall section 88 carry? All those in favour? Against. Section 88 is carried.
Dealing with sections 89 to 94, inclusive, is there any discussion or questions in regard to sections 89 to 94, inclusive? If not, I'll put the question. Shall sections 89 to 94, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? Against? They are carried.
Now dealing with section 95, item 56, which is a government amendment.
Mr Smith: I move that section 188 of the Education Act, as amended in section 95 of the bill, be further amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(6.1) A regulation under this section may provide that all persons, or one or more classes of persons, appointed under this section shall be deemed to be elected members of the board, for all purposes or for such purposes as are specified in the regulation."
This particular motion amends regulation-making powers regarding the interests of members of bands to allow flexibility to implement Education Improvement Commission recommendations on native trustees.
1630
Mr Wildman: This is a really crucial amendment in regard to the lack of planning in advance that the government had when it brought in Bill 104 creating the new district school boards. They did not work out at that time during the debate on that legislation how first nations would be properly represented on boards. First nations in most cases have tuition agreements with local boards to provide education for their children. Obviously they should have a say on how those tuition funds are spent, so they have one representative appointed to the board. Now that we're amalgamating a lot of boards, so that in our area, for instance, you have very large geographic boards, there may be as many as 10 or 12 different first nations within the jurisdiction of one board. You say you want to allow flexibility, but how are they going to determine who is going to represent the first nations on a board?
We had a presentation in Ottawa from a representative of, I think it was, the Six Nations who indicated that he obviously couldn't speak for the chiefs but he didn't think first nations would be satisfied with the situation where there were 10 or 12 different first nations within the jurisdiction of one of these enormous geographic boards you've established and having only one representative, particularly if they happen to be of different ethnic groups within the first nations.
For instance, we raised with him the possibility that in the area of Six Nations you might have a board that covers some first nations who are Iroquoian, they might be Oneida, for instance, and some who are Ojibway -- different cultures, different languages, different traditions -- and they will not want to have one representative who is an Ojibway representing both the Ojibway First Nation and the Iroquoian.
It's the same in my area, where you could indeed have a situation where you would have some Cree communities and some Ojibway communities and they would be represented by only one person. You might argue that Ojicree peoples are more closely related than Iroquoian and Ojibway -- that's certainly true -- but they still have differences in language and culture.
I want to know, how is this going to be implemented? What does this section mean? How are you going to deal with this? I understand there are three options that the government has put forward: (1) that you could have only one band representative on a board and that would be it; (2) that you could rotate the representation, which I think would probably be a bad idea; (3) that there could be more than one band representative on a board. If so, what is the maximum? Could the parliamentary assistant please enlighten us about how this is going to be implemented and what it will mean for the new district boards.
Mr Smith: I think you raise an important point in terms of the challenges that are currently before us with respect to this particular issue. The objective is that there would be a regulation in place for January 1, 1998, that would maintain the status quo for native trustees as per section 188 of the Education Act.
Mr Wildman: So only one.
Mr Smith: Certainly in the interim, though, the Education Improvement Commission has been charged with the responsibility of specifically addressing the issues you've raised with the native community in an effort to resolve any areas of concern. My understanding is that consultation is in process with the Education Improvement Commission.
The Chair: If there's no further discussion, we have Mr Smith's motion to amend section 95. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I'm aware of the fact that we're into our last 25 minutes for the consideration of amendments. I think it's significant and important for the deliberations of the committee to know that the Minister of Education is next door in the estimates committee and he has just informed the estimates committee that it's the intention of the government to have the tax-setting power given in this legislation to the cabinet used by cabinet only during a transitional period. That statement of the Minister of Education is clearly at odds with the legislation that's before us now.
I think it would be important for us to deal with that issue immediately, perhaps to recess. I don't know whether there can be an extension of time so that there can be some conference with the Minister of Education, because if he is making that statement now, then you need to bring in amendments in some way.
We have an amendment before the committee, number 80, in which we strongly recommend that there be no setting of taxes through the regulatory process, that it be done exclusively by statute. What the minister has said next door is clearly of consequence for this legislation and I believe we must find out what the government's intention is and why that intention is not incorporated in the legislation.
The Chair: I'm a little bewildered. They can deal with it by going to committee of the whole. Our amendments are presently before us. We cannot deal with amendments that have not been filed --
Mr Wildman: He doesn't know whether it is or not.
The Chair: I don't know --
Mr Wildman: The time allocation motion does not allow for committee of the whole debate.
Mrs McLeod: I'm deeply concerned, Mr Chairman. We're trying to go through a process here of dealing with legislation, including government amendments, and we have the Minister of Education, whose bill this is, in a room next door telling us it is not their intention to use this piece of legislation for other than the transitional period. But the power given under the legislation is not limited in that way.
Mr Wildman: Can the parliamentary assistant give us some clarification of this matter?
The Chair: It's not a motion yet. Is that a question of the parliamentary assistant?
Mrs McLeod: It's a point of order. I feel as though the process we're going through had some very serious questions raised on one of the most significant issues that we've not yet reached the amendment process on. I know that we only have 20 minutes left.
Mr Smith: I don't have the benefit of the presentation that the minister is making next door, so for me to comment on that particular item -- other than to suggest that very clearly we've made our indication, the government's made its indication to set property tax mill rates. It's made its indication to freeze those tax rates, and certainly during the transition period it's been indicated that would be done through regulation. If I'm understanding you correctly, you have concerns that this would be moved to statute at a later date. Clearly that's my understanding of what the intention is to do at some point in the future.
Mrs McLeod: Then why is that not in the government's legislation? Why is the legislation not reflective of the government intent?
Mr Smith: I think I answered that. With respect to the transition period that we're moving through, it was decided that we would deal with it through the regulatory powers and in the longer term through statute.
Mrs McLeod: This legislation is full of clauses which apply specifically to the transitional period and limit the powers to that transitional period. Why would that limitation not be put in on the specific and most significant issue of the taxation powers of cabinet? This is one of the most unprecedented aspects of this entire piece of legislation, that the cabinet will have the power to set tax rates.
I know it is a concern for members of the Conservative caucus. We're, first of all, not going to get a chance to deal with it in committee, and at the same time that it's going to be passed without any discussion in this committee, the minister is next door telling us that he is in fact intending to use it in a way which is limited and yet that limitation is not reflected.
I would ask that we invite the Minister of Education to come immediately, in our last 15 minutes, and speak to us in the same way that he's speaking to the estimates committee next door.
Mr Wildman: Can I make the point that this would have been resolved in two manners. One was, if the committee had accepted my amendment that would have split this legislation into three, we could have dealt with these in a more orderly fashion. Second, it is quite out of order and contrary to parliamentary tradition that we are carrying on in committee two debates about a single policy area at the same time, with the minister in one committee and the parliamentary assistant in the other. It is completely against the tradition of this place that this should happen. We asked for unanimous consent to avoid it and the government House leader denied it. It is completely inappropriate and puts the parliamentary assistant in a very difficult position to have to answer for statements being made next door in another committee by the minister which appear to be contrary or contradictory to what the legislation itself, that we are dealing with, says.
The Chair: If I'm dealing with a point of order, I find nothing out of order. We do not yet have a motion to recess, which would be your next step. I'm not advising that.
Mrs McLeod: May I ask for unanimous consent to invite the Minister of Education to speak to us and explain to us what he has presented to the committee next door.
1640
The Chair: Mrs McLeod has asked the committee for unanimous consent to invite the minister to attend this committee. Do I have unanimous consent? I hear some nos. I do not have unanimous consent, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: As long as we are going to get contradictory statements from the minister in one room while we're trying to deal with his legislation and his amendments in this room, then this whole thing is such a farce that I don't know if there's any point in continuing to participate.
The Chair: We are now dealing with a government amendment to section --
Interruption.
The Chair: Order, please. If you cannot control yourselves and show a lack of self-discipline, I'd invite you to leave the room. I'd invite you to leave, ma'am. Would you please leave, ma'am.
Mr Wildman: We're going next door to get an answer.
Interruption.
The Chair: Okay. Please leave. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your cooperation in leaving. Thank you, ma'am. You are disrupting the meeting. We are continuing. I'd ask you to move, ma'am. Please leave. I'd ask you to leave, ma'am. I'd ask her to be removed then, please.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'd ask you to leave too, ma'am. If this is continuing, I'll ask the whole gallery to be cleared. This is my third --
Interruption.
The Chair: Yes, the Speaker did it this afternoon, and I'll do it again. Please leave, ma'am. You're obstructing the meeting, ma'am. Please leave.
Interruption.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Mr Chair, is this how the government deals with something, by --
The Chair: You're not helping things, Mr Kormos.
Interruption.
The Chair: We are dealing with item 56, I believe.
Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think the committee should know we've asked the Minister of Education whether he would come and speak to this committee. He will not. We've asked him whether he would at least repeat the statement that was made to the estimates committee. He says it is a matter of record for Hansard and he will not. In my view, it is completely impossible for us to proceed in a responsible manner to deal with government legislation when the minister will not even attempt to clarify his intention.
The Chair: Thank you for that information. We are dealing with item 56, a motion brought by Mr Smith amending section 95. Is there any further discussion regarding that amendment?
I'm sorry, we're dealing with section 95, as amended. I've already carried item 56.
Shall section 95, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
We are now dealing with sections 96 to 100, inclusive. Is there any discussion or questions in regard to sections 96 to 100, inclusive? If not, all those in favour? All those against? They are carried.
We're now dealing with section 101, item 57. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 195 of the Education Act, as amended in section 95 of the bill, be further amended by adding the following subsections:
"Regulations re land reserved for use as a school site
"(7) The minister may make regulations
"(a) respecting the length of the extension under subsection 51(25.2);
"(b) prescribing conditions for the purposes of subsection 51(25.3) of the Planning Act.
"Same
"(8) Without limiting the generality of clause (7)(b), regulations made under that clause may prescribe conditions that include a requirement that the board make a non-refundable deposit.
"Same
"(9) Subsections 194(3.5) and (3.6) apply to regulations made under subsection (7)."
The Chair: Any discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
I now put the question. Shall section 101, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Interruption.
The Chair: Ma'am, if you cannot control yourself, please leave. Please leave, ma'am. You're not entitled to ask questions here because you don't represent anybody except yourself. The people in this room each represent 100,000 people. Simple answer: Please leave or be quiet.
Sections 102 to 106: All those in favour? Carried.
We're now dealing with an amendment to section 107, item 58. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 208.1 of the Education Act, as set out in section 107 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Same
"(3) A regulation under subsection (1) may provide for participation through electronic means by members of the board, pupil representatives and members of the public.
"Same
"(4) In a regulation under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for any matter by authorizing a board to develop and implement a policy with respect to the matter.
"Same
"(5) The minimum requirements specified in section 230 for physical presence in the meeting room of a board shall not be interpreted to prevent a higher minimum being provided for under this section."
1650
The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? It is carried.
Shall section 107, as amended, carry? All those in favour? It is carried.
I put the question: Shall sections 108 to 111, inclusive, carry? All those in favour?
Interruption.
The Chair: Carried. Again, ma'am, if you cannot control yourself, if you have such a lack of self-discipline, I'd ask you to remove yourself from the room. It's a simple request.
Interruption.
The Chair: Section 112. I'll have you removed if you don't.
Interruption.
The Chair: I'd ask for the lady to be removed. She cannot control herself. That's unfortunate.
Interruption.
The Chair: No, you'll be removed, ma'am.
Section 112.
Mr Smith: I move that section 220 of the Education Act, as set out in section 112 of the bill, be struck out.
Interruption.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
We're now dealing with item 59, Mr Wildman. A motion has been made amending section 112. Is there any discussion? If not, shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Item 60, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that section 222 of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 112 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Notice re clause (1)(b)
"(3.1) Where clause (1)(b) applies, the secretary of the board shall promptly send to the clerk of the appropriate municipality a notice that clause (1)(b) applies and the notice shall be deemed to be a resolution indicating a by-election is required for the purposes of section 65 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996."
The Chair: Is there any discussion or questions in regard to Mr Smith's amendment? All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is carried.
I now put the question. Shall section 112, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Section 113, page 61.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 231(6) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 113(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Reserve fund money
"(6) Subject to section 241, the money held in a reserve fund by a board shall not be expended, pledged or applied to any purpose other than that for which the fund was established without the approval of the minister.
"Same
"(6.1)Subsections 163(2.2), (2.3) and (4) of the Municipal Act do not apply with respect to the money.
"Same
"(6.2) The money allocated to a reserve fund shall be paid into a special account.
"Same
"(6.3) Instead of keeping a separate account for each reserve fund, a board may keep a consolidated account in which there may be deposited the money allocated to all reserve funds established by the board.
"Same
"(6.4) The consolidated account shall be kept in a way that permits the true state of each reserve fund to be determined."
The Chair: Are there any questions? If not, all those in favour? Carried.
Page 62, Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 233(1) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 113(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Reserve following strike, lockout
"(1) Where, in any fiscal year, any money that was provided in the estimates of a board for payment of salaries and wages of teachers and other employees in relation to employment in that year is not paid by reason of a strike by or lockout of the teachers and other employees, or any of them, an amount of money calculated in accordance with the regulations shall in that fiscal year be placed in a reserve.
"Same
"(1.1) The amount in the reserve at the end of the fiscal year shall be brought into the general revenues of the board for that fiscal year."
The Chair: If there are no questions, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 63.
Mr Smith: I move that section 234 of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 113(1) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(11.1) Despite subsection (11), where special circumstances exist in respect of one or more boards, a regulation may be made under subsection (10) in respect of the board or boards until August 31, 2003."
The Chair: Any questions? If not, I'll put the question. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? The amendment is carried.
Page 64.
Mr Smith: I move that subsection 237(13) of the Education Act, as set out in subsection 113(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Application of ss (9), (10), (11), (14), (15) and (16)
"(13) Subsections (9), (10), (11), (14), (15) and (16) apply with necessary modifications to a notice given under subsection (12)."
The Chair: According to my watch, and that's what we started with, there are four minutes of debate before the magic hour of 5 pm. Are there any questions or matters you wish to raise at this time?
Mr Wildman: Then the parliamentary assistant turns into a pumpkin.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman.
Mrs McLeod: I think we're all aware that there were some errors made by the government in tabling its amendments. I'm not sure what three of the errors were. It may not be important enough for the government to seek consent to introduce the amendments that could not be considered by committee. We've had no representation, at least from the government, Mr Smith, to consider amendments which we've not seen, but there is one which we've been made aware of not by the government but by concerned representatives, that would require, I believe, the unanimous consent of the committee. I'm wondering whether or not that has to be done before the hour of 5 o'clock.
Mr Wildman: I don't think we can do it after 5.
The Chair: I don't think you can do it any time, can you?
Mr Wildman: I don't think we can do it under the time allocation motion.
The Chair: After 5, no, and I would have to see the amendment to determine whether it's appropriate or not.
Mrs McLeod: I'm really surprised at this. I thought the government was seeking this, that they were, to say the least, embarrassed by the fact that it was erroneously omitted. I know this is an amendment which has the support of both separate school boards and public school boards, as well as the Urban Development Institute. I had assumed there was all-party agreement to consider a friendly amendment to allow this to go forward, but obviously the government was not party to that.
Mr Smith: This, if I may, Mr Chair, relates to a motion contained on page 196. If there's all-party agreement, we can certainly address that issue at this point in time.
Mrs McLeod: Was it not the government's intention to seek all-party agreement on this?
Mr Smith: It was. My understanding was we were going to deal with the item contained on 57 and deal with the matter when we approached the motion contained on page 196, but apparently there's some difficulty with that, which is procedurally contrary to what I was advised.
Mrs McLeod: Does that mean you're picking it up in time?
Mr Smith: Thank you, Mrs McLeod.
Interjections.
The Chair: We were dealing with it. It matters not whether it's before or after 5 pm. The request was for the Chair to consider whether by unanimous consent this committee could in fact amend the order of the House, which states very clearly that amendments have to be filed by a certain date and time, that time and date having long since lapsed. This committee, in my opinion, has no authority to amend an order of the House and I cannot even put the unanimous consent motion, whether it's 5 o'clock or not.
1700
Mrs McLeod: So there can't even be a friendly motion? I thought if we did it before 5 o'clock, there could be a friendly amendment to the amendment.
The Chair: My understanding, after consulting with the clerk, is that we do not have the power to overrule an order of the House. We are merely a committee, a creature of the House. So we can deal with that later or now, but that will be the ruling.
Mr Wildman: So if the government House leader had agreed to our proposal to extend the deadline for amendments by a new time allocation motion, thus setting a new order of the House, we could have resolved this matter.
The Chair: Yes, and the time is now 5 o'clock. I am to proceed, pursuant to the orders, in putting questions presently before us. They are deemed to have been read, and I believe we're dealing with 64.
I put the question: Shall the amendment contained on page 64, an amendment to 113(1) of the act, carry? It is carried.
Shall the motion contained on page 66, being an amendment to 113(1), carry? Carried.
Shall the amendment contained on page 67 carry? Carried.
Shall the amendment contained on page 68 carry? Carried.
Shall the amendment contained on page 69 carry?
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: I understand the problem you have, but wouldn't it be in order at least to read the amendments into the record so that we know properly what we're voting on? I'm not trying to make it difficult for you.
The Chair: I did consider that this afternoon. If you'll recall our earlier discussion, we were talking about whether we could deem as a committee that we read them into the record, and as a committee we could not. However, the provision of the order, as I understand it -- and we discussed that this afternoon; the clerk sought instructions -- is that all amendments have been deemed to have been made and therefore do not have to be read into the record. I'll slow down. I think that's fair, but that's about all I can do.
Mr Wildman: I appreciate it. It makes it a bit of a farce this way.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, one of the questions that one of the people in the audience had asked me to raise earlier was to ask you to explain the process of democracy that's at work here. I don't know whether it has become apparent now, but I think it should be explained, the process that we're in and the way in which the time allocation motion has forced us to stop any further consideration, even the reading of these amendments.
The Chair: That's why I read the statement at the beginning. Perhaps people did not understand. However, this committee is presently operating under the order of the Legislature of Ontario, and that order provides that in the event that the committee did not finish its debate and the amendments and the sections by 5 o'clock this afternoon, I as the Chair was instructed to proceed without any further debate and merely refer the matter for a vote without any further comment. That is the method. We're proceeding at this time.
Mr Wildman: I'd appreciate it if you'd go a little bit slower. I know it's a difficult role that you're playing here.
The Chair: I want to accommodate the committee. Just tell me when I'm going too fast or too slow.
We're dealing with page 70, an amendment to subsection 113(1): All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 71, an amendment to subsection 113(1) of the bill: All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 72, an amendment to subsection 113(1) of the bill: All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 73, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 74, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 75, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 76, a motion of the third party, the NDP: All those in favour?
Mr Wildman: It's to get rid of another Henry VIII clause.
The Chair: That amendment on page 76 is carried.
Mr Wildman: Hallelujah.
The Chair: Page 77, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 78: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 79, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 80, a motion by the loyal opposition: All those in favour? All those against? It's lost.
We're dealing with page 81, a government motion to amend subsection 113(2). All those in favour?
Interjection.
The Chair: We're dealing with page 81?
Mr Smith: That's correct.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Call "Those opposed."
The Chair: All those against? Defeated.
Interjections.
Mr Wildman: The government is voting against its own motion.
The Chair: Sometimes I wish I could attend briefing meetings, and I might know what's going on; I can't.
Page 82, a government motion: All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 83, a government motion amending subsection 113(2): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 84, a government motion amending subsection 113(2): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 85, a government motion amending subsection 113(2): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 86, a government motion amending subsection 113(2): All those in favour?
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: I understand we're under an order of the House here, but do you have the right to rule on whether a motion is in order under this order of the House? It seems to me that this is out of order.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, in order to be helpful, this is one where the ministry's own briefing note says, "This may be ruled out of order, though a good argument could be made that it is in order," but since we can't debate, we cannot hear the argument that would make it in order.
Mr Wildman: We can't make those arguments, but surely the Chair has the right to rule on whether or not it's in order.
The Chair: Shortly, it is in order, after consulting both with legislative counsel and our clerk.
Mr Wildman: It would have been such a good argument.
1710
The Chair: We are dealing with page 86, a government motion. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 87, a government motion amending subsection 113(2): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 88, a government motion amending subsection 113(4) -- I'm sorry. It's a motion of the loyal opposition, a Liberal motion amending subsection 113(4). All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 89 is an opposition motion amending subsection 113(4). All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 90, a motion deemed to be Mr Wildman's: All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 91, another NDP motion: All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Mr Wildman: This next one is another Henry VIII clause.
The Chair: Page 92, an NDP amendment to subsection 113(4): All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Mr Wildman: I'd like to hear why you voted for one and not the other.
The Chair: Page 93, a government motion amending subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 94, a government motion amending subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 95, a government amendment to subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 96, a government motion amending subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 97, a government motion amending subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 98, a government motion amending subsection 113(5): All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Page 99, an NDP motion to amend 113(5): All those in favour? It is carried.
Page 100, a Liberal motion amending 113(6): All those in favour? All those against? It fails.
I believe the next one is the same and therefore is out of order; that is, page 101 is out of order.
We are proceeding to page 102, an NDP motion amending 113(6) -- excuse me. I am advised that the NDP motion contained on page 102 is out of order. It is contrary to the standing orders.
Mr Wildman: I wish I hadn't raised this question before.
The Chair: That is out of order. We do not deal with it.
I now put the question. Shall section 113, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 113, as amended, carries.
Section 114: Our first amendment is an NDP amendment contained on page 103 to section 114 of the bill. Shall the NDP motion carry? Against? The motion is lost.
Page 104, a government motion amending section 114: Shall it carry? Against? It carries.
I now put the question. Shall section 114, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Against? It carries.
Shall section 115 carry? All those in favour? It is carried.
Mrs McLeod: Did you leave out "against"?
The Chair: I'm sorry. You're quite right, Mrs McLeod. Those against? It is carried.
You're going to have to bear with me for a moment.
Mrs McLeod: That's quite all right.
The Chair: I stand corrected at any time and I thank you --
Mrs McLeod: There are minimal democratic rights we're going to hang on to.
The Chair: You're quite right.
We are now dealing with page 105, a government motion amending subsection 116(6). All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
We now have, on page 106, an NDP motion amending 116(7). All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
I now put the question. Shall section 116, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
We're now dealing with page 107. That is an NDP motion amending section 117 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
I now put the question. Shall section 117 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
Mr Smith: No, it's lost.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I put the question, "Shall section 117" --
Mr Smith: What was called, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I called firstly for page 107, which was an amendment by Mr Wildman, and that was lost. I then called for section 117, and I thought that passed. Let's do it again.
Shall section 117 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It was carried.
Mr Wildman: You'd better slow down.
The Chair: I shall slow down. We are now dealing with a government motion contained on page 108, and I understand that is not a motion.
Mrs McLeod: It's a recommendation.
The Chair: It's a recommendation, it's not a motion. It's not in order.
We then have 109, which again is not a motion and is not in order.
We are therefore dealing with section 118, not amended in any manner whatsoever. Shall it carry? All those against? It fails. We've lost section 118.
We are now dealing with sections 119 and 120. Shall they carry? All those for? All those against? Sections 119 and 120 carry.
We then have a new section on page 110 which is created by a Liberal motion. Shall the new section 120.1 carry? Against? It is lost.
On page 111, we have a motion which is not a motion and is out of order.
I would then put the question. Shall section 121 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
1720
We then have an NDP motion to amend section 122, contained on page 112. All those in favour of the NDP motion to amend? All those against? The motion is lost.
We're proceeding to page 113, an NDP motion amending subsection 122(2). All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Shall section 122 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
We're now on page 114, a government motion amending section 123. Shall it carry? Against? It carries.
On page 115 there is a Liberal motion and on page 116 an NDP motion which are identical to the motion we just passed. Are they both withdrawn? Thank you very much.
We are then proceeding to page 117, a Liberal motion amending section 123. Shall it carry? Against? The motion is lost.
Page 118, an NDP motion to amend section 123. Shall it carry? Against? It is lost.
Page 119 is a government motion amending section 123. Shall it carry? Against? The amendment carries.
Page 120 is a government motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
Page 121 is a government motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
Mr Wildman: Just as a matter of interest, Chair, I would perhaps have been able to vote for this if I'd known what it meant, but because of this procedure, we can't ask any questions and we can't get any answers.
The Chair: Page 122 is a government motion amending section 123. Shall it carry? All those against? It carries.
Page 123 is a Liberal motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Mr Wildman: The next one is the same. I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Okay. Page 124, an NDP motion, is withdrawn.
Page 125 is a Liberal motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 126 is --
Mr Wildman: It's the same as the previous one. I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: It is withdrawn. Thank you, Mr Wildman.
Page 127 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 128 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 129a is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 130a is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
Page 131 is a Liberal motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 132 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 133 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against?
Mr Wildman: I'm intrigued. All three amendments are the same. They're the same. I don't understand this.
The Chair: We're dealing with page 133, a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It carries.
Page 134 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 135 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 136 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 137 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 138 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 139 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.
Page 140 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Pages 141a and b are a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.
Page 142 is a motion made by Mr Guzzo amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against?
Mr Guzzo: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Okay. We are dealing with page 142, which is a motion. Mr Guzzo, if you ask for a recorded vote, we're going to have to defer it to the end of the evening. You could, but I'm --
Mr Guzzo: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay, 142 is deferred until we have dealt with all matters pursuant to the House order. Let me make a note, Mr Guzzo, so I don't forget.
We are now proceeding to page 143. It is a government amendment to section 123. All those in favour? All those against?
Mr Wildman: Again I couldn't vote on this because I don't know the implications and we have no possibility of debate under this process.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Page 144 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 145 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried
Page 146 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
1730
Page 147 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour --
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: The copy that I have is illegible.
The Chair: Is that corrected, Mr Wildman?
Mr Wildman: Yes, thank you very much.
The Chair: We are dealing with page 147, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 148, an NDP motion to amend section 123 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 149, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 160 is a Liberal motion to amend --
Mr Wildman: Page 150. You said "page 160."
The Chair: Did I? I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. I apologize. We are dealing with page 150, a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 151, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 152 is a Liberal motion amending section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Mr Wildman: I'll withdraw the next one because it's identical to the one we just defeated.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. He is withdrawing page 153.
We are now dealing with page 154, an amendment by Mr Guzzo to section 123. Is it your wish to have a recorded vote on this one also, Mr Guzzo?
Mr Guzzo: Please.
The Chair: That will be deferred until the end of the evening. That's page 154.
We are proceeding to page 155a and b, a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 156 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 157, a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 158 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 159, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 160, a Liberal motion to amend section 123 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
We are dealing with page 161, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 162 --
Mr Wildman: Are we eligible for compensation under "repetitive strain?"
The Chair: Use your left hand, Mr Wildman.
We are dealing with page 162, a Liberal amendment to section 123 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 163 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 164 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 165 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 166 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is lost.
Page 167 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
We are dealing with page 168, which an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 169, a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 170, an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 171, a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
Page 172 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 173 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 174 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123 of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 175 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 176 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 177 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 178 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 179 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried.
Page 180 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 181 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 182 is a government motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.
Page 183 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 184 is an NDP motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 185 is a Liberal motion to amend section 123. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Shall section 123 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 123, as amended, carries.
Shall sections 124 to 126, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 124 to 126, inclusive, carry.
Shall section 127 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 127 carries.
1740
Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm lost. What numbered amendment are we on?
The Chair: We're on section 127.
Mrs McLeod: Yes, but which numbered amendment are we about to proceed to?
The Chair: Oh, 186a.
Mrs McLeod: Is that not affecting section 127 of the bill?
The Chair: No, it's a new section. It's 127.1, so they treat it as an addition, as I understand it.
Mrs McLeod: All right, thank you.
The Chair: We have passed section 127 and we are now proceeding to page 186a, which is a government motion which creates a new section 127.1. All those in favour? All those against? Section 127.1 carries.
I'll lump the next group. Shall sections 128 to 132, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 128 to 132, inclusive, carry.
Shall sections 133 to 137, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 133 to 137, inclusive, carry.
We're now dealing with a Liberal amendment on page 187, amending section 138(1). Shall the Liberal amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 188 is a government motion to amend section 138(1). All those in favour? All those against? The motion of amendment carries.
On page 189 is a Liberal motion to amend section 138(2) of the bill. Shall the Liberal motion carry? All those against? The motion fails.
Page 190 is a Liberal motion amending section 138(3). Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 138, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 138 carries.
I'll put the question. Shall sections 139 and 140 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 139 and 140 carry.
On page 191 is a Liberal motion to amend section 141. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
On page 192 is a government motion to amend section 141. All those in favour? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Page 193 is a government motion to amend section 141. All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
I'll now put the question. Shall section 141, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 141, as amended, carries.
On page 194 there is a government motion which amends the bill to create a new section 141.1. Shall that amendment carry? All those in favour? Against? That amendment carries.
Shall sections 142 to 145 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 142 to 145 carry.
Shall sections 146 to 149 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 146 to 149, inclusive, carry.
We are now dealing with page 195 of your brief. That is a government amendment to section 150 of the bill. All those in favour of the amendment? All those against? The amendment is carried.
Pursuant to the standing orders, I temporarily suspend this committee hearing so we can vote and return immediately after the vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 1747 to 1800.
The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. We had just completed passing a government amendment contained on page 195. I'll now put the question. Shall section 150 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 150, as amended, carries.
Shall section 151 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Carried.
Shall sections 152 to 158, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? Against? They are carried.
Shall sections 159 to 162, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? They carry.
We are now dealing with page 196, which was a government motion. It was ruled out of order and is withdrawn.
Shall section 163 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 163 carries.
Shall section 164 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 164 carries.
Proceeding to page 197, a government motion to amend section 165. Shall the amendment carry? Against? The amendment carries.
Shall section 165, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 165, as amended, carries.
Proceeding to page 198, that is a government amendment to subsection 166(1.1). Shall the government amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The government amendment carries.
Page 199 is a government amendment to subsection 166(2). Shall the amendment carry? Against? The amendment carries.
Page 200 is a government amendment to subsection 166(4). Shall the amendment carry? Against? The amendment carries.
Page 201 is a government amendment to subsection 166(4). All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
Page 202 is a government amendment to subsection 166(9). All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
Page 203 is a government amendment to subsection 166(9). All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.
Page 204 is a government motion to amend subsection 166(9). All those in favour? All those against? The motion carries.
Shall section 166, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 166, as amended, carries.
We are now dealing with the amendment contained on page 205. This is a government amendment to section 167 of the bill. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
Shall section 167, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 167, as amended, carries.
Shall sections 168 and 169 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 168 and 169 carry.
Shall sections 170 to 175, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Sections 170 to 175, inclusive, are carried.
We are now dealing with page 206. That is not a motion and I'm ruling it out of order. Mrs McLeod?
Mrs McLeod: Simply a recommendation to vote against the section.
The Chair: I didn't say it was incorrect; I said it was out of order.
We are dealing with section 176. Shall section 176 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 176 carries.
Shall section 177 carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 177 carries.
We're now dealing with an amendment on page 207, which is a government amendment to section 178. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
Shall section 178, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? Section 178, as amended, carries.
We are now dealing with a government motion on page 208 amending subsections 179(2) and (3). Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those against? The amendment carries.
Page 209 is an NDP motion amending subsection 179(2). All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 210 is an NDP motion amending subsections 179(2), (4), (5) and (6). All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 211 is a Liberal motion amending subsections 179(4) and (5) of the bill. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 212 is a Liberal motion amending subsection 179(6). All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Shall section 179, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
We are now on page 213. This is a Liberal motion to amend subsection 180(1). All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
We're dealing with page 214. It is an NDP motion to amend subsection 180(1). All those in favour of the NDP motion? All those against? The motion is lost.
Page 215 is a government motion to amend subsection 180(2). All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Page 216 is a Liberal motion to amend subsection 180(3). All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Shall section 180, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
We're not going to deal with page 217 just yet, as that deals with the title. We have to go back to two deferred matters, and then we will come back to page 217.
We are dealing, then, with two amendments. Let's deal with them one at a time. On page 142 was an amendment made by Mr Guzzo, which was deferred for a recorded vote. I'll put the question. Shall the amendment proposed by Mr Guzzo and contained on page 142 carry?
Ayes
Carroll, Guzzo.
Nays
Boushy, Rollins, Smith, Wildman.
The Chair: The amendment fails.
Now referring to page 154, which again is a motion brought by Mr Guzzo.
Mr Guzzo: I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: You're withdrawing? We are then proceeding to page 217. This is an NDP motion to amend the short title contained in section 181. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is lost.
Shall section 181 carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Shall Bill 160, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those against? It is carried.
Shall Bill 160, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? Against? Carried.
Members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much for your cooperation here today.
The committee adjourned at 1813.