Procès-verbaux 2002-juin-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

PDF

Procès-verbaux 2002-juin-04 (PDF)



No. 14	N^o 14

Votes and Proceedings	Procès-verbaux
Legislative Assembly of Ontario	Assemblée législative de l'Ontario
Tuesday June 4, 2002 Daytime Meeting - Sessional Day 20 Evening Meeting - Sessional Day 21	Mardi 4 juin 2002 Séance de l'après-midi - jour de session 20 Séance du soir - jour de session 21
3rd Session, 37th Parliament	3^e session 37^e législature


PRAYERS 1:30 P.M.			PRIÈRES 13 H 30
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES			RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS
Mr. Gilchrist from the Standing Committee on General Government presented the Committee's report as follows and moved its adoption:-			M. Gilchrist du Comité permanent des affaires gouvernementales présente le rapport du comité et propose l'adoption comme suit:-
Your Committee begs to report the following Bill without amendment:-			Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant sans amendements:-
Bill 81, An Act to provide standards with respect to the management of materials containing nutrients used on lands, to provide for the making of regulations with respect to farm animals and lands to which nutrients are applied, and to make related amendments to other Acts.			Projet de loi 81, Loi prévoyant des normes à l'égard de la gestion des matières contenant des éléments nutritifs utilisées sur les biens-fonds, prévoyant la prise de règlements à l'égard des animaux d'élevage et des biens-fonds sur lesquels des éléments nutritifs sont épandus et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.
The motion having been put, was carried on the following division:-			La motion, mise aux voix, est adoptée par le vote suivant:-
AYES / POUR - 51
Arnott Baird Barrett Beaubien Chudleigh Clark Clement Coburn Cunningham DeFaria Dunlop	Ecker Elliott Eves Galt Gilchrist Gill Hardeman Hodgson Hudak Jackson	Johns Johnson Klees Marland Martiniuk Maves Mazzilli McDonald Miller Molinari		Munro Mushinski Newman O'Toole Ouellette Runciman Sampson Snobelen Spina Sterling	Stewart Stockwell Tascona Tsubouchi Turnbull Wettlaufer Wilson Witmer Wood Young
NAYS / CONTRE - 39
Agostino Bartolucci Bisson Bountrogianni Boyer Bradley Brown Bryant	Christopherson Cleary Colle Conway Cordiano Crozier Curling Di Cocco	Dombrowsky Duncan Gerretsen Gravelle Hampton Hoy Kormos Lalonde		Levac Marchese Martel McLeod McMeekin Parsons Patten Peters	Phillips Prue Pupatello Ramsay Ruprecht Sergio Sorbara
And the Bill was accordingly Ordered for Third Reading.			En conséquence, le projet de loi est ordonné pour la troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS			DÉPÔT DES PROJETS DE LOI
The following Bills were introduced and read the first time:-			Les projets de loi suivants sont présentés et lus une première fois:-
Bill 80, An Act respecting directors and officers of Hydro One Inc. and its subsidiaries. Hon. Mr. Stockwell.			Projet de loi 80, Loi concernant les administrateurs et les dirigeants de Hydro One Inc. et de ses filiales. L'hon. M. Stockwell.
Bill 82, An Act respecting the compensation of Hydro One Inc. executives and sponsorships and political contributions by Hydro One Inc. and other entities. Mr. Hampton.			Projet de loi 82, Loi traitant de la rétribution des cadres de Hydro One Inc. ainsi que des activités de parrainage et des contributions politiques de Hydro One Inc. et d'autres entités. M. Hampton.

With unanimous consent, the House observed a moment of silence in respect of the tragic deaths of Constable Terry Ryan from Durham Police Service and Detective-Sergeant Steve McAteer from Toronto Police Service.

At 4:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(b), the Speaker interrupted the proceedings and called Orders of the Day.			À 16 heures, conformément à l'article 30(b) du Règlement, le Président interrompt les délibérations et passe à l'ordre du jour.

PETITIONS			PÉTITIONS
Petitions relating to Stopping the deregulation and privatization of Ontario's electricity system (Sessional Paper No. P-8) Mr. Caplan and Mr. Cleary. Petition relating to Funding of Ontario's universities and colleges (Sessional Paper No. P-33) Mr. Bartolucci. Petition relating to Closing the cardiac surgery services at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-36) Mr. Conway.

ORDERS OF THE DAY			ORDRE DU JOUR
Opposition Day			Jour de l'opposition
Mr. McGuinty moved,			M. McGuinty propose,
That, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario offer its unequivocal support to the people in Ottawa and London in their efforts to convince the Eves government to reconsider its decision to remove life-saving children's heart surgery programs from their communities
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 - 31
Agostino Bartolucci Bountrogianni Boyer Bryant Caplan Christopherson	Cleary Colle Conway Crozier Curling Di Cocco	Dombrowsky Duncan Gerretsen Gravelle Hoy Lalonde		Marchese McGuinty McLeod Parsons Patten Peters	Phillips Pupatello Ramsay Ruprecht Sergio Smitherman
NAYS / CONTRE - 53
Arnott Baird Barrett Beaubien Chudleigh Clark Clement Coburn Cunningham DeFaria Dunlop	Ecker Elliott Eves Galt Gilchrist Gill Hardeman Hastings Hodgson Hudak Jackson	Johns Johnson Kells Klees Marland Martiniuk Maves Mazzilli McDonald Miller Molinari		Munro Mushinski Newman O'Toole Ouellette Runciman Sampson Snobelen Spina Sterling	Stewart Stockwell Tascona Tsubouchi Turnbull Wettlaufer Wilson Witmer Wood Young

The House then adjourned at 6:00 p.m.			À 18 h, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.

6:45 P.M.			18 H 45
ORDERS OF THE DAY			ORDRE DU JOUR
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brown) delivered the following ruling:-
Earlier today, the member for Niagara Centre (Mr. Kormos) rose on a point of order respecting the orderliness of Bill 58, An Act to amend certain statutes in relation to the energy sector. His submissions on this point referred to the sub judice rule making reference to a current notice of appeal before the courts respecting Hydro One. He also argued that the bill could be ruled out of order due to its omnibus nature. The Government House Leader (Mr. Stockwell) also made submissions on these points. Let me start with that which was put last, namely the omnibus argument. As Members will know, omnibus bills have been the subject of procedural scrutiny in many Parliamentary jurisdictions as governments have increasingly used them as vehicles for submitting related proposals for consideration of the House. However, to date, I know of no Speaker in any jurisdiction who has, on his or her own initiative ruled a bill out of order because of its omnibus nature. While it is possible to envision a circumstance where a Speaker might find no alternative but to break with that practice, it is my opinion that this would occur only if that Speaker were faced with a piece of legislation that has gone beyond what has to date been procedurally acceptable. Given previous examples of omnibus bills considered by this House and the fact that upon careful consideration of the bill I cannot find that its parts are so disparate as to have no tangible connection I find I am unable to rule Bill 58 out of order on the basis of its omnibus nature. The member for Niagara Centre also made submissions respecting the applicability of Standing Order 23(g), the Assembly's sub judice rule. The member for Niagara Centre noted that a former Speaker of this House indicated in a 1966 ruling that the sub judice rule can apply to civil proceedings. The Government House Leader stated otherwise. Let me clarify that point. Sub judice according to Beauschesne has been applied consistently in criminal cases but there is no settled practice in relation to civil cases. This does not mean it can never be applied in a civil case, but Beauschesne goes on to say that the House would never allow "the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House".


On the point of the applicability of the rule to a bill let me refer to the following ruling of Speaker Hipel, which can be found at page 22 of our Journals for January 29, 1937: "Instances of the passing of Bills affecting particular actions or other proceedings before the courts are not uncommon in the history of this Legislature...." In my opinion, it is clear that ... Erskine May ... goes no further than to state that during the course of a debate Members should not refer to matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law, such matters being sub judice. It is not intended to interfere with the right of legislative bodies to alter existing laws, even though such alteration may affect a matter before the courts. I hold that it would be a stultification of the powers of this Assembly to rule that an Act may not be introduced to remedy a condition in an Act and to make clear the will of the Assembly even though the Act to be remedied is under consideration by a Court of Law. Accordingly, it is my ruling that an Act may be introduced and considered by the Assembly, notwithstanding that such Act may interfere with actions pending before the courts. Let me add that ever since our sub judice rule was created in 1970 and then amended to its current form in 1978 -- its invocation has become infrequent. I appreciate that the member for Niagara Centre may find this situation unfortunate, but he and other members should remember that the less frequently the rule is invoked, the greater the vindication of the single most important parliamentary privilege that members of this House enjoy, namely their right to freedom of speech in this House. I find that Bill 58 is in order. In closing, I thank the member for Niagara Centre for his thoughtful submissions.

A debate arose on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend certain statutes in relation to the energy sector.	Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 58, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne le secteur de l'énergie.
After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried.	Après quelque temps, conformément à l'article 9(a) du Règlement, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée.

The House then adjourned at 9:30 p.m.	À 21 h 30, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.
le président GARY CARR Speaker

PETITIONS TABLED PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 38 (A) Petition relating to funding of Secondary Education (Sessional Paper No. P-26) Mr. Duncan.


SESSIONAL PAPERS PRESENTED PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 39(A):-	DOCUMENTS PARLEMENTAIRES DÉPOSÉS CONFORMÉMENT À L'ARTICLE 39(A) DU RÈGLEMENT
Compendia: Bill 80, An Act respecting directors and officers of Hydro One Inc. and its subsidiaries (No. 17).

4 juin 2002