L035b - Tue 5 Dec 1995 / Mar 5 Déc 1995
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Report continued from volume A.
SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION
Mr Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the members take their seats, please.
The Chair recognizes this as grave disorder and I declare a 10-minute recess.
The House recessed from 1753 to 1803.
The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Oriole on a point of order.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask that you hear my point of order before you rule. As I started to say, when Bill 26 was tabled, as Health critic I was locked up, as other members were, and I know you ruled on that part of it. However, earlier today the government House leader said that in accordance with the procedures the critics all received copies of Bill 26, that they were tabled.
I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, today we have the Minister of Health leading off on Bill 26, which I have been saying very clearly has enormous implications and in fact is a health bill.
Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Where is the point of order, Elinor?
Mrs Caplan: The point of order and the point of privilege is, I never received my copy or a copy or any copy of Bill 26 at the time that it was tabled, while I was in the lockup. According to procedures of the House, the critics should receive the bill. I did not receive the bill --
Interjection: It's a budget bill; what are you doing here?
Mrs Caplan: This is far more than a budget bill, where only the Finance critic and the leader of the official opposition should receive this bill.
The fact that the Minister of Health is leading off the debate for the government says that this is not just a budget bill, and I should have received, as Health critic, a copy of this bill and all of the bills that were affected by this. I feel not only have my privileges as a member been breached by my inability to fully speak to this bill on first reading, to have the copy of Bill 26 promptly as is my due, I also believe that it is a significant point of order that the government House leader and the ministers of the crown are not providing the critics who have responsibility for the significant components of this bill. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule on that point of order.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have two points of order that I would like to raise with you. They both deal with issues that took place immediately before the last recess, when I realize you weren't in the chair. Both points of order, I think, are relevant to the issue of what we proceed with in this House for this evening, and I would ask that you listen to the two points of order and I will be requesting that you recess to rule on these points of order.
The first point of order, if I can just relay the history on this: There was a motion by the member for York Mills to move to orders of the day. There was a division on that motion and a 30-minute bell. When the members returned from that, we resumed the vote. The Chair, at the time, gave an indication that in fact he had made an error in recognizing members in rotation. For your edification, before the vote, I had been recognized in delivering a petition; the member for Parkdale had been recognized. The Chair then changed his position and asked the member for Parkdale to sit down and recognized the member for York Mills, who moved the motion to move to orders of the day.
When we returned, he was about to call the vote and he gave an explanation at that point in time in terms of what had happened; in a sense, an apology. The member for Parkdale rose at that point in time on a point of privilege and was not recognized. The Deputy Speaker proceeded with the vote at that point in time. At the conclusion of the vote -- and this is the point that is, I believe, relevant -- the member for Parkdale and a number of other members on this side of the House rose on points of privilege and points of order. The Minister of Health also rose in order to move to orders of the day and to move the motion to introduce Bill 26 on second reading.
Flowing from the Deputy Speaker's comments, which I think were potentially out of order in themselves in the middle of a vote, but irrespective of that, there were points of privilege which should have been recognized immediately, if not the points of order. I understand your earlier ruling about the Chair having discretion on when to recognize points of order. Points of privilege directly related to that were on the floor. The Chair heard, looked, ignored and moved over to recognize the Minister of Health to introduce Bill 26 for second reading.
I believe that this bill has not been properly introduced, that in fact the actions of the Deputy Speaker were out of order. We've already had one or two apologies from him already on the way in which he has conducted business. I understand that he's learning, but I believe profoundly that this bill has not yet been properly introduced, and I think that it is critical for us to know that before we are able to proceed with orders of the day and the rest of the debate this afternoon.
The second point of order is with respect to a point of order from our House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, and this point was not ruled on by the Deputy Speaker. It is true, during the course of the member for Windsor-Riverside's comments, he used unparliamentary language. He was asked to withdraw. He did withdraw and the Speaker went on to other business and neglected at that point to give any ruling on the point of order that had been raised or on in fact to suggest that it was or wasn't a point of order.
The point that had been raised goes back to when you were in the chair this afternoon, and you will remember, in terms of your ruling and through points during question period, that you, in fact, said you were without the tools to deal with the complaints and the legitimate grievances of the opposition parties here with respect to how this omnibus bill is being proceeded with, with respect to Bill 26 and the government's intentions.
1810
You have indicated that you are unable to do that, that it is a matter between House leaders, and I believe by your comments you encouraged House leaders to meet and to resolve this issue.
Mr Speaker, as a result of that, and as a result of actions taken in the House and questions and whatever that transpired this afternoon, the government House leader gave a commitment -- and I believe you were in the chair at the time -- that he would not in fact --
Hon Mr Harnick: Where is the point of order?
Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, my point of order is with respect to the member's comments. I have to relate them to you. You weren't here at the time. He gave a commitment, in fact said he wouldn't negotiate in public, that he was going to meet directly with the House leaders, and I believe you are aware of what has transpired: Two minutes before we came in for a vote, a letter was delivered to the press, to the opposition House leaders; in fact, the negotiations in public -- not even negotiations, an ultimatum, a fiat.
Mr Speaker, we do not have access to resolving this issue. The House just very recently recessed as a result of grave disorder. We require assistance to bring resolution to this very serious matter facing this House and the rights and privileges of members and, more importantly, the rights and privileges of people of Ontario with respect to having a democratic say and input on a major piece of legislation.
Mr Speaker, I request of you, I plead with you, to recess this House and to call a meeting of the three House leaders to facilitate that discussion. I have asked you to recess on the first point of order. It is necessary for us to know your ruling on that before we know whether the bill has properly been introduced and we can proceed at this point in time to debate on that order of the day, and during that I ask you to review my request to please, please bring the House leaders together. There are many of us in this House who want to proceed with doing business, and we have to have your assistance.
Hon Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: With respect to the member for Beaches-Woodbine's second point of order, discussions between House leaders are not anything that involve the standing orders, and that is not a proper point of order. There is no standing order that deals with negotiations between House leaders. That is not a proper point of order.
With respect to the other point of order, following question period we moved into petitions. The opposition House leader stood up and moved, when the rotation came to him, adjournment of the House. We then returned and that motion was defeated. The Speaker then recognized the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who put in her petition. And after we went there, we went here, and the member for York Mills was recognized. The member for York Mills moved that we move to orders of the day and that motion was duly carried, and we are now at orders of the day. That is what's happened, Mr Speaker, and that's been the --
The Speaker: Order. I don't know whether members have the rules of order of this House at their desks, but we have been continually debating the rules of order, continually debating my ruling, and I don't believe we want to continue with that.
New point of order, the member for Parkdale.
Mr Ruprecht: I don't think the Attorney General's got this straight at all. I'm really surprised at his statement.
Mr Speaker, my point of order is simply this: I was recognized. As you know, you have to consult the record. Have a look at Hansard and see what it says so that you have a straight account, not what the Attorney General tells you, because he's got this wrong 100%. There's no question about that whatsoever, and I can't see how he can stand up in his place and tell us that account. It simply is not correct.
My point is this: I was recognized and consequently I had the floor. Suddenly the Speaker shifts and recognizes the government House leader. Consequently, how can Bill 26 be officially introduced when you have one other member recognized on a point of order? I would therefore submit to you, Mr Speaker, that you should consider adjourning the House to look at the record so we can get on with the business of the House.
The Speaker: When there is a mistake made in rotation -- and it has been made this afternoon, as you indicate -- it was corrected. It is a matter for the House leaders to resolve the dispute that's going on.
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I agree with your ruling that when there is a mistake in the rotation it can be corrected. But what I think you haven't taken into consideration is that once a member has the floor, he has the floor. When he is finished, then you can correct the mistake by rearranging the order, but I don't think you can rearrange the order while the member has the floor. He has the floor and I don't think there's a provision where you can take that away from him to give it to someone else. I would appreciate your ruling on that.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I hope to convince you that the government House leader this afternoon disobeyed what I thought were your instructions to the House.
It was very clear, in listening to your ruling today, that you regard this bill as large, comprehensive, far-ranging, containing many aspects that will affect virtually everybody in this province. I sensed in your remarks that you had sympathy for the opposition in that we are unable to get a reasoned public debate around this extremely comprehensive bill. I would say to the people of Ontario that it will touch every single person.
We rely on you, the people of Ontario rely on you to provide us in the opposition with some fairness and some legitimate debate. What you said today was that unfortunately your hands were tied, and you instructed the government House leader to meet and to resolve this issue with the other House leaders.
In fact, the government House leader said in the House that he would arrange that meeting, yet we've found he arranged no such meeting. The government is anxious to begin debate on the bill with that meeting never having taken place. We had no meeting with the government House leader, as he promised, and --
The Speaker: Order. You indicated that I instructed somebody to do something. I didn't instruct anybody to do anything. I said I would encourage the House leaders to get together to resolve their differences. There is a difference between instructing and encouraging.
Mr Phillips: With all due respect, Mr Speaker, if I could finish my point of privilege, we had no meeting. He issued a directive, an ultimatum to us. He said: "Take it or leave it. No meeting."
Mr Speaker, you have some obligation to us. We need your help. The government House leader sends out an ultimatum, says, "This is it," and you want to begin debate now on this bill, without that meeting ever having taken place?
I took from your ruling today that you were instructing the government House leader to meet. No such meeting took place, and you say your hands are tied. In my opinion, the direction you gave was not fulfilled and I think my privileges have been breached. There is no opportunity for legitimate debate on this bill, and in my opinion the government House leader has not carried out your instructions. I see no reason why you shouldn't now take the matter into your hands and instruct them to meet to work out a reasonable solution on this, Mr Speaker.
1820
The Speaker: The member for York South, same point of order?
Mr Bob Rae (York South): Mr Speaker, under standing order 13 you have an obligation to preserve order and decorum and to decide questions of privilege and points of order. I would say to you, with the deepest of respect, that if you don't take note here of what has been happening over the last several days and understand that this House is on the edge of a very serious collapse in terms of its capacity to make decisions and in terms of coming to order, then, sir, you and I are living in a different universe and you and I are living in a different House.
This government is introducing legislation --
Interjections.
Mr Rae: I say with great respect to the members who are heckling me, you don't have a clue what's in the bill. You don't know what you're doing and you don't have any understanding of what's at stake here. You probably haven't even read it.
Interjections.
Mr Rae: I say with respect to the members who are heckling now, whose municipalities are about to be restructured --
Hon Mr Harnick: If you feel that strongly, start debating it.
The Speaker: The member for Willowdale is out of order.
Mr Rae: -- we've been told, without so much as due process of any kind whatsoever.
Mr Speaker, you have heard us state very clearly and categorically that if you are not prepared to make the rulings which we asked you to make last week -- you then came into the House and said you can't make the rulings because you didn't feel you have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the content of the omnibus bill.
I'm saying to you in response to that, we had a clear statement from the government House leader, we had a clear statement from the leader of the official opposition, we had a clear statement from the House leader for the official opposition and from the House leader for our own party that people were prepared to meet to discuss this question.
There was no such meeting. There was an ultimatum from the House leader. He was in the House here being conciliatory and being open and saying all the things he was going to do. He then walks out of this place and he has somebody type out a letter, and the letter is then given to the press gallery that very instant, given to the public, and then given to members of the opposition. It is not a serious position with respect to negotiations.
You can take note of the fact that there are no negotiations and no discussions. There is nothing going on which brings us back from the brink of disorder with respect to this particular piece of legislation. You should take note, sir, of the fact that there cannot be order and decorum in this House so long as this government refuses to discuss with the members of the opposition how we are going to deal with a bill which gives such dictatorial powers.
Mr Speaker, history will record. Every revolution in history has ended in a dictatorship. The Common Sense Revolution is ending in a Common Sense Dictatorship. That's exactly what we've got.
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As someone who had family who were victims of dictatorships, I resent the honourable member's remarks. On the point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I as an honourable member have rights and obligations as well. According to the standing orders, there should not be any needless repetition. According to the standing orders, there should not be abusive language. I have an obligation to my constituents, we all have obligations to our constituents, to carry out honest debate, which is being stymied by the honourable member and by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
I request that you, Mr Speaker, on my point of privilege, rule that there has been endless repetition and that there has been abusive language, and we should carry on with what the people of Ontario elected this government to do.
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When you came into this position as Speaker of the Legislature, you made a point of saying that you wanted to maintain decorum, wanted this place to operate in a different way than it has for the last several years, and that you were going to provide the leadership to see that would happen.
The standing order my leader has referred to gives you the power to recess the House and call the House leaders together to try to find a solution to this impasse. If you want to show that leadership, you can do that. It would not be a precedent. It has happened.
What we in the opposition are asking you is to simply recess the House, call the three House leaders together and let's try to find a solution. That's your job; that's your responsibility. I can speak for my caucus and for myself as the House leader for my party. If you convene a meeting, I will be there in a sincere attempt to find a solution. If it isn't found, if there isn't an attempt, we've already had grave disorder once; it will happen again.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That's a threat. "My way or the highway."
Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, that was not an accusatory statement, that was not a threat. That is a reality. We are at an impasse in the Legislature. You are the only person who can mediate a solution. I'm asking you to accept your responsibility and take the leadership.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Earlier today my House leader got up in the House and tried to resolve a matter that, as you see, has come to an impasse like this. The House leader on the government side specifically stated that he refused to discuss or negotiate in public to resolve this matter. He's prepared to meet with --
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): What's the point of order? There's no point of order.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Shut up, Norm. Shut up. He's speaking.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
The House recessed from 1827 to 1837.
Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, in order to settle this matter, my leader requested that the government House leader explain to them what procedure we were going to use to debate this bill, and he said he refused to debate this in public and would meet with the three leaders, the other two House leaders, to resolve the matter. While the bell was ringing and what have you, I thought there was an opportunity for those House leaders to meet.
Mr Speaker, I would ask you to assist me in this, because I feel that my privilege was being denied in the fact that while this was happening, the House leader of the government side, Mr Eves, released a letter to the press and stated emphatically what he wants to do without any meeting at all. The last part of the letter states, "I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this matter further," after the press had gotten it.
If you don't regard that my rights and my privileges are being denied -- I'd like you to rule on that matter.
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Speaker, mine is really a point of privilege, and I want to refer you to House rule 1(b), "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or the Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."
I also want to refer you to 21(a): "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."
Mr Speaker, I also want to refer, in terms of usage and custom, to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition. I quote from page 115, dealing with contempt, and I hope you're listening to this, because I think it's a very serious matter:
"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of this offence."
Erskine May, if I may quote further, the second paragraph on page 115:
"Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or a committee will constitute a contempt, which may be committed by strangers, parties or witnesses."
I then want to turn to page 119, and I would ask you to look at the Instant Hansard of today. I believe what the Instant Hansard says is that there was a representation given in this House by the government House leader that the House leaders would meet. That was the undertaking that was given to all the members in this House.
This is what Erskine May says:
"Members deliberately misleading the House
"The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt."
Mr Speaker, an undertaking was given in this House. It is on the record of this House. Then, instead of a meeting taking place, which would show respect for this House and follow up on the undertaking given in this House, a letter was sent to the press. In fact, we have it that the media received this letter before either of the opposition House leaders. There was no meeting that took place.
I've checked and I do not see in our own rules where this type of specific incident may be covered. I would ask you, Speaker, in view of parliamentary practice as at least set down by Erskine May, if we have not had a situation here which obstructs or impedes the House, which obstructs and impedes members of the House in the discharge and which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such results?
I believe we have had a situation which is disorderly, which is disrespectful to the House, which contributes to disorder of this House and which constitutes contempt for this House. I believe that my privileges as a member and the privileges collectively of all these members have been infringed by the conduct which has taken place here today, and the failure of the government House leader to live up to the undertaking that was given in this House and is on the record of this House.
Hon Mr Sterling: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: We are now 33 minutes into the second reading debate on Bill 26.
Interjections: No, we're not.
Hon Mr Sterling: We are.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, are we in second reading on Bill 26? The clock is running. The Minister of Health wants to make his statement with regard to this bill. I believe his privileges are being abrogated by this endless number of points of privilege and points of order.
Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'm going to ask you to rule on the point of order that I raised earlier. With respect, I think that you either did not rule on it or that you misunderstood the point that I made. It is with respect to a grave error made by the Deputy Speaker when he was in the chair, not the minor error which you referred to, which was recognizing members out of rotation, for which he apologized.
I think it is incumbent upon you to recess and review the record, because my point of order goes directly to whether or not we may proceed at this point with orders of the day and whether or not, as the member for Carleton just raised, there has been a second reading introduction of Bill 26.
Upon returning to the House after the motion to move to orders of the day, and after the conducting of the vote, the Deputy Speaker in the chair looked to this side of the House after calls from the member for Parkdale and a number of other members of points of privilege and points of order. I've already spoken to the points of order. I understand that the Chair at that point may determine not to recognize them and/or when to recognize them. The points of privilege must be recognized immediately as they are raised. He looked to the member for Parkdale, who raised the point of privilege, and from other members on the front bench, looked to the members who are here, who are confirming exactly what I said. He then, upon calls from the government side, turned and looked at and recognized the Minister of Health for introduction of the bill.
An error was made. That point of privilege should have been recognized. Those points are being continuously dealt with in this House. That bill has not been properly introduced. We cannot proceed at this point in time, with the time on the clock and with orders of the day, until there is a ruling on this. It is my respectful submission that the bill has not yet been introduced. I think this is critical to the opportunity for the House leaders to get together and to be able to resolve this.
The Speaker: The House adjourns for five minutes until I make my decision.
The House recessed from 1848 to 1853.
The Speaker: Will members take their seats, please. I have listened carefully to all points of order raised. I'm aware of what has happened in this House today. I have listened carefully to the various points and I've found that there is nothing out of order. We're in the second reading debate of Bill 26 and the minister, who has been recognized, has the floor.
As to the matter of discussion with the House leaders, that is up to them to pursue. I recognize the Minister of Health.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It should be of interest to the people of Ontario who have watched this debate tonight, or the lack of debate, that it's been almost a year since --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Order. A 10-minute recess.
The House recessed from 1855 to 1905.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I understand that as you returned to the House after the last recess, you made a ruling on a point of order. It's also my understanding that I can ask -- I cannot challenge your ruling, nor would I -- for an explanation.
You came back to this House and you basically said on a very well established point of order by the member for Beaches-Woodbine that you had reviewed all points of order. There was one point of order before you at that time, one point of order on which you recessed the House to give due consideration. You indicated that you had reviewed all points of order and that you found nothing out of order.
Mr Speaker, I think this House deserves an explanation of the ruling you've brought forward. There was a very specific point of order raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. The point of order directly affects whether or not the clock should be ticking, whether or not the debate on second reading of Bill 26 has begun, whether in fact Bill 26 has been introduced.
The member for Parkdale was on his feet with a point of order and was not recognized --
Interjections: A point of privilege.
Mrs McLeod: -- on a point of privilege. The vote was taken and the Speaker in the chair at that time, the Deputy Speaker, went on to recognize the Minister of Health, who then introduced Bill 26 while the Deputy Speaker continued to refuse to recognize the member for Parkdale. Clearly, the Deputy Speaker was somewhat confused because the Deputy Speaker later on asks for assistance as to whether or not he can indeed recognize the member for Parkdale.
You know, Mr Speaker, that under the rules of order of this place not only could he recognize the member for Parkdale, he was obligated to recognize the member for Parkdale.
I know the Deputy Speaker has offered a verbal apology to the member for Parkdale, but an apology is not good enough when this government is taking the kind of action it is taking today to bring in a piece of legislation which it is impossible to debate, when the member for Brampton South says, "Let's get on and have an honest debate so that we can do what the public wants us to do," and I say that there can be no honest debate in this place today, that there is no possibility to do what the public wants us to do, because the public has no idea what's in this bill, nor does any member of the House opposite except for a handful of very select ministers who worked in secret to develop this bill.
Mr Speaker, an apology is not good enough, nor is it good enough for you to return to this House on a duly established point of order which you took as valid, recessed to consider and return to this House only to say you had considered all points of order and there was nothing out of order.
Mr Speaker, we are owed more than an apology and we are owed by you an explanation of exactly why you have ruled in this way.
The Speaker: The member for Parkdale on a point of order.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, you had indicated when you returned that you had looked at all the various points of order and privilege and that there was nothing out of order. I refer you now to the Instant Hansard and I would like to ask you whether you had consulted and looked at the Instant Hansard, because if you had, you would have seen that the Deputy Speaker, Mr Bert Johnson -- it says here in Instant Hansard, it is clear for the table and for the government and for you to see, "The Chair recognizes the member for Parkdale."
Then the member for Parkdale says, "Mr Speaker, I would like to" -- at that point I was interrupted by the Speaker and he then suddenly, for some strange reason, I don't know why, moved to recognize the government House leader.
If that is not a breach of order, it's certainly a breach of privilege. I would look to you that, certainly as a defender of the people of Ontario, you must show or certainly you should exercise some sense of fairness to justify the decision that you're making. We're asking you today not only to be fair, but to look at the point of order that was breached, and I'm asking you directly whether you have looked at Hansard and recognized whether the member for Parkdale was indeed recognized or not.
My question to you then is, have you seen this? Have you looked at it and have you consulted with the Chair about this?
The Speaker: The member for Burlington South on a point of personal privilege.
Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Workers' Compensation Board]): If I may, on a point of personal privilege, I want to set aside the cut and thrust of the debate that is occurring at the moment and only make reference to the question that when my colleague from Brampton South rose to make reference to his ancestry and some of his concerns and convictions about the procedures, the member for Hamilton East made an offensive reference and I ask the member opposite if he would withdraw the comment.
I gave the member ample opportunity. There is a long series of rulings in this House that the reference to that word is unparliamentary and it is a personal effrontery to someone who has Jewish ancestry in this House, and I would ask the member if he would please do the decent thing and withdraw that reference.
The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin: I need your guidance, Mr Speaker. I realize you ruled earlier that there was nothing out of order and I do not wish to appeal that. I'm asking for clarification --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Ms Lankin: I'm asking for clarification and an explanation because --
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Some of the stuff -- you have the nerve to --
The Speaker: Order. The member for St Catharines is out of order.
Mr Bradley: You've got a bloody lot of nerve.
The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.
Interjections.
Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, the reason I feel compelled to arise and very briefly try one more time to explain my point is because I believe others who have contributed to the debate have in fact confused my point of order or misinterpreted it and have not been of assistance in getting a clear ruling from you.
Mr Speaker, in the Instant Hansard, if I can refer to the events that took place in this House when we returned from the division bells on the motion to move to orders of the day, the Deputy Speaker, as we resumed and were about to vote, in an unusual move interrupted the vote and said:
"By way of a short explanation, we were on the business of petitions and the member for St Catharines -- they go in rotation from the official opposition to the third party to the government. I properly recognized the member, but unceremoniously" -- and I understand -- "went to the member for Beaches-Woodbine and I apologize to the member for Parkdale."
Now that wasn't very clear, but at that point in time the member for Parkdale rose on a point of privilege and the Deputy Speaker conducted himself to go on with the vote which he felt shouldn't be interrupted and he said:
"On the vote on the motion by the member for York Mills, all those in favour please stand and stay standing.
"All those opposed please stand and stay standing."
Mr Speaker, at that point in time the Clerk of the House reported out the vote, "The ayes are 59; the nays are 39." The Deputy Speaker said, "I declare the motion carried."
Mr Speaker, here is the point that I need to know that you understood when you made your ruling and/or to rule on. At the point the Deputy Speaker said, "I declare the motion carried," the member for Parkdale and other members of this Legislature were on their feet on points of privilege and personal privilege and some others on points of order. Put the points of order aside.
The points that were being raised by members on points of privilege and personal privilege, just as you did with the member opposite who just rose on a point of personal privilege when you were about to recognize me, and you took that as precedence because the standing orders say that privilege and personal privilege will be dealt with immediately, the Deputy Speaker -- you must understand that, Mr Speaker -- looked, understood that points of personal privilege were being raised, looked to the other members, looked to the calls that were coming over there, and looked to the table, said, "Orders of the day," and then in confusion as this was going on and as the minister was then recognized to introduce the bill, said very clearly, showing that he was in fact confused at the time, "Can I address this point of order" -- referring to the point of personal privilege that was being called by the member for Parkdale -- "The Chair recognizes the member for Parkdale on a point of order," although the member was calling a point of privilege. Then the Deputy Speaker says: "Can I address this point of order? The Chair recognizes the member for Parkdale on a point of order." There was obviously confusion in the Deputy Speaker's mind.
But Mr Speaker, I'm telling you, from the point of view of all of the members in the front benches here who are participating in that, we saw the Deputy Speaker look, understand that points of privilege were being raised, respond to calls from the government side, respond to looking at the table to recognize then the minister and the introduction of the bill.
My point is that the point of personal privilege had to be recognized and therefore this bill has not been properly introduced and it is not in order and it is not on the floor at this time.
The Speaker: Order. I have ruled that what has gone on in this House today, and I've listened carefully to various points --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order. The House is recessed for 10 minutes.
The House recessed from 1918 to 1925.
The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, Minister of Health.
Hon Mr Wilson: The health care reform provisions of Bill 26 are designed to provide efficiency and quality in health care to make the system sustainable and affordable for generations of Ontarians to follow.
Our reform initiatives are premised on five major principles: system restructuring, highest quality and best price, patient focus, accountability and sustainability.
We are committed to maintaining health care funding at $17.4 billion. Implicit in this commitment is the need to make changes in the way we deliver health care services in the province of Ontario.
Bill 26 facilitates the restructuring of the health care system by bolstering community hospital restructuring.
Bill 26 creates and empowers the Health Services Restructuring Commission to assist communities to find efficiencies in the way they deliver hospital services.
While 60 Ontario communities are engaged in hospital restructuring studies, these studies do not indicate how communities will actually implement the recommendations.
Interjections.
The Speaker: There will be a 10-minute recess.
End of Part Page. The House recessed from 1930 to 1940.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs McLeod: On a new point of order, Mr Speaker: I am still anticipating an explanation of your ruling on the previous points of order which were made. You indicated that simply there was nothing out of order. We believe we had a legitimate point of order and I will await your explanation.
While I await your explanation of why the previous point of order was not seen to be in effect, I want to draw to your attention from the Instant Hansard a further proceeding following the failure to recognize the member for Parkdale, the member for Beaches-Woodbine or indeed myself, all of us having been on our feet to make a point of order before the Minister of Health introduced the seventh order.
I draw to your attention that I suppose because the Speaker who was in the chair at the time was confused, and indeed the record shows how confused he was, or since he was at least distracted by the fact that there were a number of members on their feet to make points of order, he neglected to recognize the Minister of Health.
I draw your attention clearly to this record, the record of the Instant Hansard, in which the Deputy Speaker carries out the motion, the vote is carried out, the ayes and the nays are read, the Deputy Speaker declared that motion carried, and called orders of the day. There were interjections, interjections that arose because members were on their feet asking to be recognized to make points of order. Mr Speaker, I recognize that you too are being distracted by the Minister of Health, who would like to get on with this.
But I again draw your attention to the fact that in the Instant Hansard record of the proceedings of the day, with the Minister of Health in the midst of the interjections, because the Deputy Speaker was distracted by those of us who wanted him to recognize us for points of order, which he later did, he failed to recognize the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health, in his haste to move to the orders of the day, which is quite appropriate given this government's haste to bring in this bill and to ram it through, called for the seventh order without having been recognized.
I think it is quite clear that since the Chair did not recognize the Minister of Health it was out of order to call for the seventh order, and we should revert back to that point in the day's proceedings.
Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order, and on the point of order that you have ruled on earlier, I can't understand how, and I don't believe it's happened in the time I've been here, you can come into the House -- I believe it's covered by our standing orders that there's an expectation that you're not only going to rule but you're going to give the reasons for your ruling, and when you don't give reasons for your ruling we're entitled to ask for those reasons for your ruling.
I also want to support the point of order that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Instant Hansard is absolutely clear: The Minister of Health was not recognized for the purposes of calling the order. You simply made the reference that you were prepared to call for orders of the day. You didn't recognize anybody at all, and all of a sudden there is a recognition of the Minister of Health and he proceeds.
In the eighteen and a half years I've been here, there has never been an evening in this place like there has been tonight. There is something seriously wrong. You've got to recognize that. You said when you became the Speaker that you wanted to preserve decorum in this place. There has never been an evening that has been so out of control as tonight. We're looking to you for direction, we're looking to you for leadership, we're looking to you to resolve this very difficult situation.
I am shocked that a few moments ago, when a number of members were on their feet, you would not recognize anyone for a point of privilege or a point of order. Then, again for the first time I've ever been here to see this happen, the Speaker had to be practically stormed in order to get any attention at all. I want to know what's going on.
I am, and I'm saying this from the bottom of my heart, losing confidence not only in this place, but in the way you're behaving tonight. Mr Speaker, you've got to be fair starting now.
The Speaker: I would like to recess this House for an hour, and what I want to do is to ask the House leaders to get together for an hour to try and solve this.
The House recessed from 1946 to 2047.
The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I am pleased to report that the House leaders have been meeting. In fact, they request more time and would suggest, with your agreement, that there be a further recess until the call of the Chair, with a five-minute bell.
The Speaker: Your request will be granted. We will recess until we have a further report. It will be at the call of the Chair.
The House recessed from 2048 to 2400.
The Deputy Speaker: It being after 12 o'clock midnight, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2401.