The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

On Monday, October 16, 2000, the Member for Brant (Mr. Levac) rose on a point of privilege to indicate that his rights as a Member were infringed because he was denied entry to the Genest Detention Centre for Youth on October 5, 2000. The Member for Niagara Centre (Mr. Kormos) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Baird) also made submissions.

The Member for Brant referred to section 103(1)(b)(iv) of the Child and Family Services Act, which reads as follows:

A child in care has a right ... to speak in private with and receive visits from ... a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or of the Parliament of Canada.

In response to this point, let me say that the statutory provision does not state that a Member has a right to speak to and visit with a "child in care"; it states that a "child in care" has a right to speak with and receive visits from a Member. In short, the right belongs to the "child in care", not the Member. Further, the jurisdiction for interpreting the right of a "child in care" belongs to courts of law, not to the Speaker.

The Member for Brant also referred to section 59 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, which reads as follows:

Every member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is entitled to enter and inspect any correctional institution, community resource centre or other facility established or designated under this Act for any purpose related to the member's duties and responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly, unless the Minister determines that the institution, community resource centre or facility is insecure or an emergency condition exists in it.

The Member for Brant, and subsequently the Member for Niagara Centre, suggested that the Speaker should extend the rationale of section 59 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (which deals with adult correctional facilities) to find that a Member has a similar right to visit the young offender facilities covered by the Child and Family Services Act.

Again, were I to do as the Member suggests, I would have to interpret the law - something that our precedents and parliamentary authorities indicate the Speaker should avoid doing. As has been confirmed by my predecessors in this Chair, and Speakers in many parliaments elsewhere, interpretations of law should be left to the courts.

I also must point out that the matter raised by the Member for Brant relates to activities that occurred away from this Chamber and were unconnected with the Member's parliamentary duties. The procedural authorities and a multitude of precedents make it clear that privilege attaches only to a Member's parliamentary duties, and not to subsidiary duties away from Parliament.

Therefore, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

Petitions relating to the Northern Health Travel Grant program / Programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-1) Mr. Bartolucci, Mr. Bisson, Mr. Gravelle, Ms. Martel, Mrs. McLeod and Mr. Ramsay.

Petition relating to Farm Fare Program (Sessional Paper No. P-78) Mr. Christopherson.

Petition relating to Banning hunting in Wilderness Provincial Parks (Sessional Paper No. P-82) Mr. Gravelle.

Petition relating to a One-time adjustment to enable the transfer of pension assets (Sessional Paper No. P-108) Mr. Hoy.

Petition relating to Permits to take water (Sessional Paper No. P-126) Mrs. Dombrowsky.

Petition relating to Bill 112, McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act (Sessional Paper No. P-139) Mr. Marchese.

Petition relating to the Environmental Bill of Rights within the Ministry of Education (Sessional Paper No. 158) Mr. Gravelle.

That this House recognizes this government has abandoned responsibility for protecting our water by: ignoring repeated warnings about water safety from the Provincial Auditor and Environment Commissioner; drastically slashing funding and firing staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources who play a key role in protecting our water; and

That this House demands that the government take action on this serious problem by:

· Finally keeping their long-standing promise to deliver a comprehensive groundwater protection strategy;

· Beginning to restore the 45% cut to the budget of the Ministry of the Environment;

· Beginning to rehire the 1/3 of Ministry of the Environment staff that the government has laid off; and

· Immediately passing a comprehensive Clean Drinking Water Act.

Responses to Petitions Tabled October 20, 2000