36e législature, 1re session

No. 11 No 11

Votes and

Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly

of Ontario

Assemblée législative

de l'Ontario

1st Session,

36th Parliament

1re session,

36e législature

Tuesday,

October 17, 1995

Mardi

17 octobre 1995

PRAYERS

1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES

13 H 30

The Speaker informed the House that he has today laid upon the Table the Individual Members' Expenditures for the fiscal year 1994/95 / Relevé des dépenses des députés pour l'exercice 1994-95 (Sessional Paper No. 18) (Tabled October 17, 1995).

The Speaker delivered the following rulings:-

Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) rose on a question of order to seek my advice concerning another member's connection with a lottery that was held in that member's constituency.

If the member for Windsor-Riverside is indicating or has been informed that the situation raises a criminal matter, I have to say that I cannot advise the member as to what course of action he should take. Our precedents indicate that the Speaker is not in a position to render legal advice or an opinion. I refer the member to rulings at page 4,257 of the Hansard for June 13, 1988, page 692 of the Hansard for April 23, 1990, and page 213 of the Hansard for April 22, 1993.

Nevertheless, I thank the member for his concern.

Yesterday, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) rose in the House on a question of privilege before Question Period. The member requested that the Speaker determine whether or not the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Tsubouchi) was "deliberately misleading the members of this House" when he indicated in last Tuesday's Question Period that the government had made no decision on a matter concerning his portfolio. The member also requested that the Speaker determine whether or not "the Premier did counsel the minister to make misleading statements..."

The Leader of the Third Party (Mr Rae), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mrs McLeod), and the Premier (Mr Harris) spoke to the question of privilege.

Later the same day, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin) rose on a question of privilege that was separate from but related to the question of privilege raised by the member for Algoma. The member requested that the Speaker review the record concerning a document that the Minister of Community and Social Services had indicated earlier he would be willing to make available.

I have had an opportunity to review the Hansard, our precedents and the relevant authorities concerning the issues raised in these various submissions.

Let me say several things at the outset. First, because members -- all members -- are presumed to be honourable, no member should suggest otherwise.

Second, it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to determine the veracity of statements that are made in the House. In this regard, let me refer members to 2 precedents. On June 7, 1988 a member rose in this House on a question of privilege concerning an alleged inconsistency in a minister's response to an oral question. The member requested that the matter be referred to a committee "to determine whether the minister intentionally or whether the minister inadvertently lied to the House." Speaker Edighoffer responded by making the following remarks (at page 4,101 of that day's Hansard):

It is not the Speaker's duty to judge the validity of the words used. I cannot make a judgement on whether any member has stated the facts correctly.

In a similar vein, Speaker Warner made the following remarks on November 18, 1993 (at page 4,140 of the Hansard for that day) in response to a member's claim that a minister was misleading the House:

The veracity of statements is not to be tested by the Speaker. Those are matters to be dealt with by members of the House in orderly debate.

Let me now turn to the extract from page 119 of the 21st edition of Erskine May that was mentioned by the member for Algoma. The authority for the proposition in Erskine May that making a deliberately misleading statement in the House may be grounds for contempt is a 1963 resolution of the House of Commons at Westminster. That resolution found a member guilty of a grave contempt for making a personal statement in the House that he later admitted was not true. The circumstances raised by the member for Algoma -- and the similar set of circumstances raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- cannot compare with the very serious circumstances associated with that incident.

That 1963 resolution is the only authority in Erskine May for the proposition that the making of a deliberately misleading statement may be treated as a contempt. The circumstances surrounding that resolution are explained in greater detail at pages 704 and 705 of the 2nd edition of the House of Representatives Practice. This authority indicates that although many claims have been raised -- as a matter of privilege or contempt -- that a member has deliberately misled the House, no Speaker has ever accepted such a claim.

These statistics suggest an obvious point, namely, that it will be a rare situation indeed in which there can be a finding of contempt. The incidents that were brought to my attention yesterday are not suggestive of contempt.

On a separate but related matter, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) rose on question of order concerning the way in which the member for Algoma had framed his question of privilege. My review of Hansard indicates that when the member for Algoma used the words "deliberately misleading" and "misleading", he did so in the context of a request that the Speaker review the circumstances. As the member for Algoma himself indicated, he was not suggesting that the minister had misled members.

I thank the various members who made submissions on the matters addressed in this ruling for their contributions.

On Monday, October 16, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) introduced a bill entitled, "An Act respecting the rounding of the Penny in Cash Transactions". It has been brought to my attention that this bill is in unilingual format only, which is contrary to Section 3(2) of the French Language Services Act, 1986. I must, therefore, advise the House that this bill contravenes Standing Order 38(d) and must be removed from the Order Paper.

MOTIONS

MOTIONS

With unanimous consent, the following motion was moved without notice:-

Avec le consentement unanime, la motion suivante est proposée sans préavis:-

On motion by Mr Sterling,

Sur la motion de M. Sterling,

Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 110(a) and for the duration of the 36th Parliament, no standing or select committee shall consist of more than 14 members.

With unanimous consent, the following motion was moved without notice:-

Avec le consentement unanime, la motion suivante est proposée sans préavis:-

Mr Sterling moved,

M. Sterling propose,

That the membership of the standing committees for this Session be as follows:

Standing Committee on Administration of Justice:-

Mrs Boyd

Mr Chiarelli

Mr Conway

Mr Doyle

Mr Guzzo

Mr Hampton

Mr Hudak

Mr Johnson (Brantford)

Mr Klees

Mr Leadston

Mr Martiniuk

Mr Parker

Mr Ramsay

Mr Tilson

Standing Committee on Estimates:-

Mr Barrett

Mr Bisson

Mr Brown (Algoma Manitoulin)

Mr Brown (Scarborough West)

Mr Cleary

Mr Clement

Mr Curling

Mr Cordiano

Mr Kells

Mr Martin

Mr Rollins

Mrs Ross

Mr Sheehan

Mr Wettlaufer

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs:-

Mr Arnott

Mr Brown (Scarborough West)

Ms Castrilli

Mr Chudleigh

Mr Ford

Mr Hudak

Ms Lankin

Mr Kwinter

Mr Martiniuk

Mr Phillips

Mr Sampson

Mr Silipo

Mr Spina

Mr Wettlaufer

Standing Committee on General Government:-

Mr Carroll

Mr Danford

Mr Flaherty

Mr Grandmaître

Mr Hardeman

Mr Kells

Mr Marchese

Mr Maves

Ms Pupatello

Mr Sergio

Mr Stewart

Mr Tascona

Mr Wood (Cochrane North)

Mr Young

Standing Committee on Government Agencies:-

Mr Bartolucci

Mr Crozier

Mr Ford

Mr Fox

Mr Gravelle

Mr Johnson (Perth)

Mr Kormos

Mr Laughren

Mr Leadston

Mr Martin

Mr Newman

Mr Preston

Mrs Ross

Mr Wood (London South)

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly:-

Mr Arnott

Mr Bartolucci

Mr Boushy

Mr Cooke

Mr DeFaria

Mr Froese

Mr Hastings

Mr Grimmett

Mr Johnson (Brantford)

Mr Miclash

Mr Morin

Mr O'Toole

Mr Silipo

Mr Stewart

Standing Committee on the Ombudsman:-

Mrs Caplan

Mr DeFaria

Mr Doyle

Mrs Fisher

Mr Froese

Mr Galt

Mr Hoy

Mr Jordon

Mr Lalonde

Mr Marchese

Mr Parker

Mr Stockwell

Mr Vankoughnet

Mr Wood (Cochrane North)

Standing Committee on Public Accounts:-

Mr Agostino

Mr Beaubien

Mr Boushy

Mr Carr

Mr Colle

Mr Crozier

Mr Fox

Mr Gilchrist

Mr Hastings

Ms Martel

Mr McGuinty

Mr Pouliot

Mr Skarica

Mr Vankoughnet

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills:-

Mr Barrett

Mr Bisson

Mr Boushy

Mr Hastings

Mr O'Toole

Mr Pettit

Mr Pouliot

Ms Pupatello

Mr Rollins

Mr Ruprecht

Mr Sergio

Mr Shea

Mr Sheehan

Mr Smith

Standing Committee on Resources Development:-

Mr Baird

Mr Carroll

Mr Christopherson

Mr Chudleigh

Ms Churley

Mr Duncan

Mrs Fisher

Mr Gilchrist

Mr Hoy

Mr Lalonde

Mr Maves

Mr Murdoch

Mr Ouellette

Mr Tascona

Standing Committee on Social Development:-

Mr Agostino

Mrs Ecker

Mr Gerretsen

Mr Gravelle

Mrs Johns

Mr Jordon

Mr Laughren

Mrs Munro

Mr Newman

Mr Patten

Mr Pettit

Mr Preston

Mr Smith

Mr Wildman

And a debate having ensued, it was,

Un débat s'ensuit et

On motion by Mr Rae,

Sur la motion de M. Rae,

Ordered, That the debate be adjourned.

Il est ordonné que le débat soit ajourné.

On motion by Mr Sterling,

Sur la motion de M. Sterling,

Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 8(a), the House shall meet at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 19, 1995.

On motion by Mr Sterling,

Sur la motion de M. Sterling,

Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 96, private members' public business not be considered until Thursday, October 26, 1995 and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 to 4 inclusive.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to Karla Homolka's Plea Bargain Arrangement (Sessional Paper No. P-6) (Tabled October 17, 1995) Mr J. Gerretsen.

Petition relating to Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act (Sessional Paper No. P-7) (Tabled October 17, 1995) Mrs M. Marland.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DÉPOT DES PROJETS DE LOI

The following Bill was introduced and read the first time:-

Le projet de loi suivant est présenté et lu une première fois:-

Bill 10, An Act respecting the Price of Motor Vehicle Fuel and protecting Whistleblowers in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Industry. Mr R. Chiarelli.

Projet de loi 10, Loi concernant le prix du carburant pour véhicules automobiles et visant à protéger les dénonciateurs dans l'industrie du carburant pour véhicules automobiles. M. R. Chiarelli.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Opposition Day

Jour de l'opposition

Mr Rae moved,

M. Rae propose,

Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that "our obligation to those in need is even greater in the case of our children"; and

Whereas the Common Sense Revolution also notes that "children living in poverty suffer from significantly higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancies and tend to receive poor nutrition and education"; and

Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who live on welfare through cuts in welfare benefits, because 41% of the people living on welfare are children; and

Whereas the 22% cut in welfare benefits hurts children most of all - children who will have to do without the food, clothing or adequate housing they need, children who have no way to fight back against the cuts; and

Whereas, Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who need day care by cutting the funding for day care provided through jobsOntario Training, so parents can't look for work or take job training; and

Whereas, this punishes families trying to help themselves and makes safe and dependable day care for their kids less accessible; and

Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who need extra help - abused children, children with disabilities, children from troubled homes - by cutting the budget for services like Children's Aid Societies, children's mental health centres and second-stage housing for women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence and abuse; and

Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids and their families by eliminating jobs, by making it harder for them to make ends meet and harder to get training to get back to work; and

Whereas Mike Harris's government is cancelling early childhood education pilot projects and making junior kindergarten less accessible for children across the province, despite a generation's evidence that education supports in the early years pay huge positive dividends later in children's lives;

Therefore, this House calls on the Mike Harris government to stop hurting Ontario's children, primarily by restoring the benefits it has seized by means of welfare rate cuts, but also by restoring the funding cuts it has made to child care provision, to training, and to social service agencies.

A debate arising, after some time, the motion was lost on the following division:-

Un débat s'ensuit et après quelque temps, la motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-

AYES / POUR - 33

Agostino Duncan Morin

Bartolucci Gerretsen Patten

Bisson Gravelle Phillips

Brown Hoy Pouliot

(Algoma-Manitoulin) Kwinter Pupatello

Castrilli Lankin Ramsay

Churley Marchese Sergio

Cleary Martel Silipo

Cooke Martin Wildman

Cordiano McGuinty Wood

Crozier McLeod (Cochrane North)

Curling Miclash

NAYS / CONTRE - 67

Arnott Guzzo Parker

Baird Hardeman Pettit

Barrett Harnick Preston

Bassett Hastings Rollins

Beaubien Hodgson Ross

Boushy Hudak Runciman

Brown Jackson Sampson

(Scarborough West) Johns Saunderson

Carroll Johnson Shea

Chudleigh (Brantford) Sheehan

Clement Johnson Skarica

Danford (Don Mills) Smith

DeFaria Johnson Snobelen

Doyle (Perth) Sterling

Ecker Jordan Tascona

Elliott Kells Tilson

Fisher Leadston Tsubouchi

Flaherty Marland Turnbull

Ford Martiniuk Vankoughnet

Fox Maves Villeneuve

Froese Murdoch Wettlaufer

Galt Newman Wilson

Gilchrist O'Toole Wood

Grimmett Ouellette (London South)

At 6:00 p.m., the question "That this House do now adjourn" was deemed to have been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 34(b).

À 18 heures, la motion portant «Que la présente Assemblée ajourne les débats maintenant» est réputée avoir été proposée conformément à l'article 34(b) du Règlement.

After one matter was considered, the question was deemed to have been adopted.

Après l'étude d'une question, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été adoptée.

The House then adjourned

at 6:10 p.m.

À 18 h, 10 la chambre a ensuite

ajourné ses travaux.

le président

Allan McLean

Speaker