Education
Accountability Act, 2000, Bill 74, Ms. Ecker /
Loi de 2000 sur la responsabilité en
éducation, projet de loi 74, Mme
Ecker
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Marilyn Leitman, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1601 in room 151.
EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR
LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 74, An
Act to amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to
improve the accountability of school boards to students, parents
and taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience /
Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation pour
rehausser la qualité de l'éducation, accroître la
responsabilité des conseils scolaires devant les
élèves, les parents et les contribuables et enrichir
l'expérience scolaire des élèves.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Carl
DeFaria): The standing committee on justice and social
policy is called to order. We are considering Bill 74, the
Education Accountability Act, 2000. We meet this afternoon for
clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Mr Gerard Kennedy
(Parkdale-High Park): Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The
Vice-Chair: May I finish? Before we begin I'd like to
remind all members that by order of the House dated Wednesday,
May 31, 2000, at 4:30 pm 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, and at that time there shall be no further
amendments 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 recess, if
requested pursuant to standing order 127(a).
Mr Kennedy:
Mr Chair, I refer you to the orders of the day just quoted. I
believe you have there, as Chair, an inherent contradiction. In
the clause previous to the one that you just related to the
committee, it finishes "and that the committee be authorized to
meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that day until
completion of clause-by-clause consideration." In other words, in
the primary charge that we have from the Legislature, it says we
would meet on certain days and we would have clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill, and then we'd be authorized to meet
beyond our normal hour of adjournment "until completion of
clause-by-clause consideration."
Mr Chair, I put to you that
your duties as a Chair require you to follow this interpretation
as opposed to the following clause, the reason being that your
role as Chair is to provide for both the status quo and for
further debate and discussion. We are clearly authorized within
this notice of motion to continue until the completion of
clause-by-clause consideration. The fact that there is another
clause there I agree is problematic, but I think it lends itself
to a ruling by the Chair, which I would request be in favour of
continued debate, particularly given the significant and
substantial nature of the amendments that we have before us.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, if you look at what the
provision indicates, it is at that time the question shall be
put. If we need more time to proceed with all the sections, the
time may be extended. That doesn't mean that the question would
not be put once we reach the 4:30 time. We may need to go beyond
6 o'clock in case we don't approve or deal with all these
sections and amendments.
Mr Kennedy:
Again, Mr Chair, I rely on your interpretation. Rather than be
argumentative, I hope that you are taking into consideration that
a reading of this is that there is one set of instructions which
talks about completion of clause-by-clause consideration and
another set of instructions which says at 4:30 clause-by-clause
amendments shall be put, and so forth. I understand what you are
saying, but it is vital, for us to be able to have consideration
of this bill, that that contradiction be fully considered. I
would again appeal to you for that, because in the alternative,
we have 20 or 25 minutes for actual substantive discussion of the
amendments.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Kennedy. Shall we proceed
then? I think that all members have the amendments in front of
them. There are some amendments.
Mr Kennedy:
Just to be clear then, Mr Chair, you are ruling that there is no
contradiction?
The
Vice-Chair: No, I don't see a contradiction. I agree
with you that if we need more time we may extend the committee
time to past 6 o'clock, but that's simply to go through all the
sections. We have to go through all the sections, but we'll start
putting the questions at 4:30.
Mr Kennedy:
OK, Mr Chair. I've already made my point.
The Vice-Chair: Let's deal with
section 1 of the bill. Are there any comments or questions with
respect to section 1 of the bill?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona
(Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): We have amendments to section
1, Mr Chairman.
I move that the definition of
"co-instructional activities," as set out in section 1 of the
bill, be amended by adding "but does not include activities
specified in a regulation made under subsection (1.2)" at the
end.
The
Vice-Chair: Are there any comments or discussion?
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Just a question of the member. Could
he just explain what the amendment implies?
Mr Tascona:
It amends the definition with respect to "co-instructional
activities," which is set out in subsection 1(1), to permit the
ministry to exclude activities from the definition of
"co-instructional activities" by regulation. In essence, it
grants the regulation-making ability to deal with
co-instructional activities to clarify it, where necessary.
Mr Marchese:
Do I understand that to mean the minister simply can, by
regulation, do anything?
Mr Tascona:
No. If you read the language, it indicates "but does not include
activities specified in a regulation made under subsection
(1.2)." So it narrows down, in terms of clarifying, what is meant
by "co-instructional activities" if in fact there is a difficulty
in terms of its implementation. As you know, it's defined in the
legislation.
Mr Marchese:
Right, (a), (b), (c), you mean. "Co-instructional activities" as
defined by (a), (b) and (c), "and includes but is not limited to
activities having to do with school-related ..." So your
amendment does what, in clear language?
Mr Tascona:
I think I told you in clear language.
Mr Marchese:
That's great. It's as murky as before, or worse, but that's
great.
Mr Tascona:
If you look at the act, subsection 1(1), this is what we're
dealing with, this provision. "Co-instructional activities" is
defined. What we're doing, if you read this, is adding to this
particular provision the language "but does not include
activities specified in a regulation made under subsection
(1.2)." So it's narrowing it down. The definition indicates what
"co-instructional activities" mean, and there are regulatory
powers to deal with indicating what activities would not be
included. That's done by regulation.
Mr Marchese:
I'll be opposing it anyway, so it doesn't matter. Moving on.
1610
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese, I'd just like to remind you, if
there are sections that you are more concerned about, it's better
to move on to those sections so that members of the committee
have more time to comment on those sections instead of spending
so much time on one section and not being able to comment on
other sections.
Mr Marchese:
I appreciate it, but since we're going to be able to sit beyond
the time allotted to get clarity on things, it's good to start
where you need to.
The
Vice-Chair: Any other comments?
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): As of right-yes, Chair, as of
right-read the rules.
The
Vice-Chair: All right. Go ahead, then, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos:
Thank you kindly.
I have concern about every
section of this bill and so do thousands and thousands of people
in Niagara and I trust across the province. I simply wanted,
without being lengthy, to point out that the Chair is
acknowledging that the time closure motion does not provide
adequate time for a full discussion around the bill. I appreciate
the Chair's acknowledging that, because I know I didn't support
the time allocation motion. I think you did, and now you're
acknowledging that the time allocation motion indeed was
inappropriate because there isn't sufficient time, which is why
you're telling Mr Marchese that he's got to speed it up and let
whole sections pass without any debate. Shame.
Mr Tascona:
If I can speak, Mr Chairman, I'm quite willing to respond as time
permits, as Mr Marchese wants to proceed.
Mr Marchese:
Sorry, Joe, you said what? You're not going to respond?
Mr Tascona:
If you've got another question I'm ready to answer it.
Mr Marchese:
No, that's OK. We'll just go one by one.
Mr Tascona:
Thank you.
Mr Marchese:
My pleasure.
The
Vice-Chair: Any other comments on this amendment?
Shall the motion carry?
Mr Marchese:
I'd like a recorded vote. To facilitate, could we do everything
on a recorded vote so I don't have to call out it on a recorded
vote every time?
The
Vice-Chair: That's fine, Mr Marchese.
Shall the section carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac, Marchese.
The
Vice-Chair: Let's move to government motion number
2.
Mr Tascona:
We have another motion, Mr Chairman, dealing with subsection
1(1.2).
I move that section 1 of the
bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2) Section 1 of the act, as
amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1997, chapter 3, section 2,
1997, chapter 22, section 1, 1997, chapter 31, section 1, 1997,
chapter 43, schedule G,
section 20 and 1999, chapter 6, section 20, is further amended by
adding the following subsection:
"Regulations:
co-instructional activities
"(1.2) The Lieutenant
Governor in Council may make regulations specifying activities
that are not co-instructional activities."
The
Vice-Chair: Are there any comments?
Mr Dwight Duncan
(Windsor-St Clair): Could you outline some of these you
might see, items you might cover by regulation that are not
co-instructional activities, some examples?
Mr Tascona:
For example, hallway supervision.
Mr Duncan:
Any other examples?
Mr Tascona:
That's one I can come to right now.
Mr Duncan:
So you don't know of any others?
Mr Tascona:
I'm giving you an example at this point.
Mr Duncan:
I'm asking you, do you understand the impact of this amendment?
If you can't cite examples, do you understand the impact of the
amendment? You're the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Tascona:
What the amendment deals with is giving regulation powers, The
amendment specifically indicates that the regulation will be made
by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This is regulatory
authority. The definition which we have for co-instructional
activities clearly specifies what a co-instructional activity
will be considered to be. What we have in here is the power
through regulation if in fact there is an activity that will be
excluded from the activities. I gave you one example.
Mr Duncan:
So you have one example. Are there any other examples that you're
aware of?
Mr Tascona:
Not at this time.
Mr Kennedy:
I'd like to make a point, Mr Chair, if I could. I think it's an
important point raised by the member for Windsor-St Clair,
because the "co-instructional activity" definition is open-ended.
We're dealing with this in reverse here, where the power that the
parliamentary assistant is recommending we confer now to the
minister-at least the definition has the virtue of being stated,
of being clear, of having examples of what it means. Now the
minister wants the power to do whatever she or he subsequently
would, without the scrutiny of Parliament whatsoever. I think
that's what is at stake. I just want to iterate that this is a
concern in and of itself. It would have been better today if we
knew from the government what precisely they have already
determined does not fit in with co-instructional activities and
how they intend for those activities to be done. That's a policy
consideration, but that list would have been helpful for us
today.
Mr Tascona:
There is no list.
Mr Kennedy:
I just assume that if we're being asked to pass something, it has
a specificity on the government's intentions.
Mr Tascona:
If you read it, Mr Kennedy, I think it's very specific in terms
of what co-instructional activity is, in terms of what that is
considered to be. The intent is to clarify, narrow down, if in
fact there's an activity that doesn't fall within that definition
of "co-instructional activity." I can't predict the future as to
what would happen out there in the school boards in terms of how
they apply this, but if they do need clarification, that would be
the intent of this particular provision. I think it's very clear
in terms of how it reads.
Mr Kennedy:
But you are asking us, just for the record, to give the minister
basically blanket authority to affect this definition any way
that she, or possibly he in the future, would see fit, and you're
not prepared to divulge to us how that might be done.
Mr Tascona:
You seem to be suggesting there's something there, and there's
not. If you can understand what is in front of you, you can
understand that we put together a definition-
Mr Duncan:
You couldn't answer his question; you're the PA.
Mr Tascona:
If I can speak, Mr Duncan, we put together a definition of what
are considered co-instructional activities. We put in a provision
that will permit clarification if in fact one of these activities
that occurs under the school boards-and I can't predict what will
happen out there. It would allow the minister to make the
clarification; it's the means to do that through regulation.
That's what it means.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): From your last statement what you are saying,
though, is that you're predicting there will be items that are
not co-instructional. So if you can say you don't know what
they're going to be, you're now predicting there will be some,
and that's the purpose of the questions.
The second part to that is,
what's going to happen about these items if they're deemed not to
be co-instructional? What becomes of them inside the educational
setting? For instance, the monitoring of halls or the other
items.
Mr Tascona:
They wouldn't be considered co-instructional activities.
Mr Levac:
They would be?
Mr Tascona:
If you read the section it's very clear what co-instructional
activities are intended to be. If there's an issue with respect
to that, the provision that we've already passed would permit the
minister to deal with that. I would quite frankly put it to you
that certainly it depends on how the boards proceed. It can only
work, I would submit to you, for the teachers, by excluding
certain activities as co-instructional activities. It's
essentially a safety net for teachers. The language is very
clear. I really don't understand what your problem is with the
language and understanding. I think you fully understand the
intent but you want me to predict the future. Perhaps there may
not be any problems.
Mr Kennedy:
In fact, we are looking for specific examples of a power the
minister wants to use. We have very limited examples of what that
is and the government, consistent with its approach to this bill,
has the power, or takes the power, anyway.
As for it being to the
benefit of teachers, there is no reason for us to believe that
this third category that could exist between co-curricular and classroom time
couldn't be to the detriment of teachers in some future
iteration. In fact, without the benefit of any specificity from
the ministry, that leaves it wide open to interpretation as to
what might get put on the shelf there and what its implications
are, because it's clearly not forthcoming today.
1620
The
Vice-Chair: Any other comments?
Mr Tascona has moved
government motion number 2. Shall the motion carry? All in
favour? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac, Marchese.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended,
carry?
Mr Marchese:
No, we're going to debate it, right?
The
Vice-Chair: You want a debate?
Mr Marchese:
Yes, we need to comment on it.
The
Vice-Chair: Are there any comments or questions on
section 1, as amended?
Mr
Marchese: Yes, on the whole section.
We had two hours in Barrie
and a whole day in Ottawa, and the protestation was against all
three aspects of the bill: first is the co-instructional
activities, the extracurricular stuff that people did
voluntarily; second is the extra period teachers will be required
to teach, thus firing people; third is basically decapitating the
heads of boards of education-effectively, trustees, but literally
all the staff who may decide they are in disagreement with the
directives of this government.
On section 1, many came in
front of the committee to protest what this government is doing.
The majority of people said, "You can't mandate volunteerism."
That's what the activity was-it was voluntary. Some 99% of the
people across Ontario are doing it. Boards are doing it. Teachers
are doing it voluntarily. Even in the riding of the minister, we
were told by people who know that they're doing it there as well.
Contrary to the popular belief that no one is doing it in boards
where she is the member, we are told that teachers are doing
extracurricular activities in schools and are doing it there as
well.
What problem are we trying
to fix? That's the question people were asking, because there
isn't a problem. It's a voluntary activity, meaning people do it
because they feel passionately about what they do, whatever it is
they volunteer for. If all of a sudden you're going to mandate
that activity, people said: "It won't happen. The programs will
be lost. Teachers simply won't do it. If you force them to do it
and their heart is not in it, the programs will die."
The good thing is that your
government heard the message from everyone across Ontario who has
commented on this, through the e-mails we're getting and, through
the hearings the opposition parties held separately because you
refused to hold yourselves accountable.
You have listened somewhat.
You're not forcing teachers to do it any more. But what you're
saying to them is: "It's in abeyance. It's in law. It's there to
be used if we, as a government, decide to use it. It's there as
long as you good men and women teachers behave, but as soon as
you misbehave, it will become law."
What you have in the bill
at the moment will in effect become law should teachers decide to
misbehave, as they did in Durham, where you imposed a contract on
the teachers, forcing them to teach an extra period. The teachers
said: "Given the level of exhaustion and the level of stress we
are experiencing, and given that we are unable to teach
effectively, qualitatively, the way we want, many of us don't
have the time any longer to volunteer our extra time after
school." Many decided voluntarily to withdraw that service on the
basis of an imposed arbitration on the teachers that saw many of
them teaching an extra period.
Leaving this power in the
hands of the minister to use means that in the event teachers
decide they might be angry on another day, when you decide you
will impose another arbitrator on some other board, and the
teachers decide, "We're going to work to rule; we simply won't do
it any more," you have the power through the amendment you're
making to impose this law on those teachers so they will be
forced to do the extracurricular activities.
I think it's wrong; I think
it's bad. It's an unnecessary attack on the teachers, it really
is. You know that. The thing is, your minister knows that. You
all know it. Some of you pretended in the hearings that you were
concerned about some of the opinions that were given, many of
them by teachers and the parents of students, but I don't think
you really give a damn, and I'll tell you why. I believe that you
believe a lot of people out there support you on the basis that
teachers are underworked and overpaid. What you would have forced
on them was extracurricular time, from being volunteer to being
mandated, as a way of feeding on the perception that teachers are
simply not working hard enough. This not only applies to the fact
that they're volunteering the extra time and you were going to
force them, but it also applies to the fact that you're going to
force them to teach an extra period.
You're operating on the
basis that the public will buy into what you're feeding them,
that teachers are underworked and overpaid. I think that's
politically nefarious. I believe you all know that. The reason
you had only two hours in Barrie and one whole day in Ottawa was
because you knew that if you gave people more time, they would
have more time to organize information hearings where people, in
listening to each other, would understand that there's a problem
here, that there's something very political going on that has
nothing to do with the quality of education.
How does forcing teachers
or threatening them with imposing on them mandated
extracurricular time help with the quality of education? It
doesn't. In fact I argue, and many argued, that there's the
potential for losing our extracurricular activities, because you
can't force people to do what they did voluntarily before. If you
say, "You, Mr Marchese, are now required to coach football," but
I have no love for football and I don't even know how to coach, I
might decide, "OK, I'll go on the field and I'll coach the
football team," but if the students know there's a coach who is
not there for the love of it or who doesn't have the knowledge,
the sport dies. It applies to everything we do, from theatre
after school to chess to any activity they do at the moment.
Do you understand, Joe? Do
you understand the problem we're having here?
Mr
Tascona: I'm listening very closely.
Mr
Marchese: I know you are.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese, it's now 4:30.
Mr
Marchese: I realize that.
The
Vice-Chair: I apologize but I have to interrupt the
proceedings.
Mr
Marchese: But you can't do that, Mr DeFaria.
The
Vice-Chair: I'll have to put-
Mr
Marchese: You can't do that, because I'm not done.
That's the way it works.
The
Vice-Chair: I apologize, but I can.
Mr
Marchese: No, Mr Chair, you can't.
The
Vice-Chair: I will proceed now to put the questions on
the remaining sections.
Mr
Marchese: Mr DeFaria, would you please check with the
clerk to get some advice before you do that, because I don't
think you should-
The
Vice-Chair: I will if you wish.
It's 4:30, and pursuant to
the standing orders I can do that.
Mr
Marchese: Mr DeFaria, could I ask the clerk to say out
loud what she said to you, so we can hear her opinion?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Susan Sourial): At 4:30 the Chair can put
the questions, and all debate is to stop at 4:30. There's no more
debate at 4:30.
The
Vice-Chair: I will now proceed to put every question
necessary to dispose of all the remaining sections of the bill
and the amendments.
Mr
Kennedy: You have a choice, Mr Chair, to put a different
interpretation-
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: Order, please. Shall section 1, as amended,
carry?
Since there was a request
for a recorded vote, I'll defer voting on that section.
Mr
Tascona: We could vote on the section.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll defer the vote to the end.
Mr
Tascona: OK.
The
Vice-Chair: Section 2: There is a government motion to
amend it, number 3, so the vote is deferred again.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): Excuse me, Mr Chair: Do we not vote
on each particular section? The reading of the motion is
dismissed, but we do need to vote on each particular one, do we
not? Otherwise we have a slight problem because we have
government and opposition amendments-a serious problem,
actually.
The
Vice-Chair: The clerk just advised me that because there
is a request for recorded votes on all the amendments and
sections, we will go through all the motions for amendments and
then at the end we'll take a vote.
Mrs
Elliott: On the section as a whole?
The
Vice-Chair: On each amendment and on the section.
Mrs
Elliott: I hear what you're saying; I don't understand
it.
Interjections.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): There's only one 20-minute
recess in the standing orders.
The
Vice-Chair: I'll proceed with government motion number
3.
Interjections.
Mr
Beaubien: It says in the standing orders one 20-minute
recess.
Interjections.
1630
The
Vice-Chair: Let's just go back.
Shall section 1, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac,
Marchese.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall government motion
number 3 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac,
Marchese.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Mr
Marchese: I'm sorry. Don't they have to be read into the
record?
The
Vice-Chair: No, they are deemed to have been read and
they are deemed to be put.
Liberal motion number 4-I
apologize.
Shall section 2, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac,
Marchese.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Mr Kormos:
On a point of order, Chair: I'm reading the time allocation
motion very carefully, as you did: "Any division required shall
be deferred until all remaining questions have been put." So you
can't have a recorded vote until all the questions have been put,
because the deferral of the recorded vote has to happen after all
remaining questions have been taken in succession. With respect,
I don't want you to foul this up so badly that the vote is
invalid. I'm just trying to be helpful to the government members.
As I say, you know that the time allocation motion rules have to
be interpreted strictly and very literally. "Put every question
necessary ... . Any division required shall be deferred until all
remaining questions have been put."
I think you've screwed up
the first three or four votes already. You might have to put them
again. They're illegal.
Mr
Beaubien: To be fair, I will request a five-minute
recess so that I'm able to make sure the opposition is very
satisfied that the process is fair and democratic.
Mr
Kennedy: No, it's too late. You won't find that will
make this process fair and democratic, that's for sure.
Mr
Beaubien: I'm just requesting a five-minute recess.
Mr
Kennedy: I'd like to speak in support. I appealed to you
at the beginning to protect our rights in this committee by
taking an interpretation of that motion. Strict it will be, then,
Mr Chair. It certainly does say that the votes be put in oral
fashion and then and only then division takes place. We are then
obliged to do it in that fashion. I would hope that the Chair
would not show favouritism or otherwise differently interpret. He
would not interpret in a way that I think was permissible. But I
certainly would support the idea that these votes need to be done
in the way required in that particular motion, as odious as that
motion is.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, the problem is that Mr Marchese
had requested originally to have a recorded vote on all sections
and amendments, and everybody agreed at that time.
Mr Kormos:
You can't start tampering with the motion.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I don't think you'll find that
there's a unanimous or any other recorded-
The
Vice-Chair: I'll have-
Mr
Kennedy: It says, "Any division required shall be
deferred," Mr Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: I'm going to call a recess of five minutes
to consult the rules and we'll come back in five minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1637 to 1644.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll proceed as the members have requested.
We'll go through each section and then come back to them, with
the vote deferred at that time.
Mr
Kennedy: Just for the benefit of Hansard, Mr Chair, it
was suggested by one of the government members opposite that our
break was going to ensure that the democratic process and the
rights of the opposition were respected. I'm sure it's an
oversight, but there was no communication to date with us around
what would be acceptable or how we would preserve those rights,
and I wouldn't want anyone in Hansard to misconstrue
otherwise.
The
Vice-Chair: That's fair, Mr Kennedy. I am advised by the
clerk that we can proceed as Mr Marchese indicated and, subject
to your comments, I'll allow each side to have comments on it.
What I plan to do is go through each section and deal with each
amendment and defer the vote until when we go through all the
sections. At that time, we'll go back again to the sections and
take a recorded vote.
Do you have any comments?
Mr Kennedy first. Do you understand?
Mr
Kennedy: I understand what you're proposing. I would ask
for a moment to loan the third party our copy of the
resolution.
I would ask for your strict
reliance neither in favour of one party nor another here on this
resolution. I had asked previously for an interpretation of this
resolution which would, as I understand the role of Chair, allow
you to provide for the biases which you are to have, which are
for continuity and the status quo, which is to allow things to be
debated in the absence of other factors. You have made a narrow
interpretation of this which I think is itself problematic.
However, a strictly narrow
interpretation of the provisions that we are governed by is, "Any
division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions
have been put," not those having to do with a certain section. So
I have to say that I object that we're interpreting what may be
simply the convenience of government members to be able to follow
amendments. I don't believe that is what our orders are here
today. Therefore, I object to your ruling unless it basically
follows precisely the requirement that we have under these very
draconian and I think wholly regrettable motions.
The only reference I can
find-and I would be happy to be persuaded by your reading of
this-says, again, for clarity's sake, "any division required." I
see nothing that modifies this particular arrangement. It says,
"Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining
questions have been put and taken in succession," and we're only
allowed one 20-minute waiting period, so it's clear that the
drafters of this motion, who have put us in this undemocratic
position, want us to consider them all together.
That may be convenient for the government caucus or
whatever, but I do not think that the proposal-Mr Chair, with all
due respect, and I certainly mean nothing else by it, I don't
think that we are in a position to modify this without the
appearance of bias.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Kennedy. Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: What I really would have liked are more days
of hearings to allow the public to-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese-
Mr
Marchese: I'm going to help you.
The
Vice-Chair: I want to deal with this issue.
Mr
Marchese: I'm going to be very brief.
The
Vice-Chair: Otherwise I'm going to have to step in.
Mr
Marchese: If you do that, it won't be helpful. I'm
trying to be helpful, and it will come.
The point is that the
public really needed many more days to be heard: teachers,
students and parents. My fight is not with you individually; it's
with your government and with your minister in terms of this bill
and the effects it will have on the educational system. My motion
simply will slow you down a bit, but not much. It will irritate
and slow you down a bit, so it doesn't accomplish what I really
want in the end, and that is to hold you and your government much
more accountable. For that we need more days than just to
irritate you somewhat for the rest of this afternoon.
To be helpful, I'm going to
withdraw my motion that we vote on every item on a recorded vote.
We'll have the opportunity at the end to record our opposition to
the entire bill. I withdraw that motion that we vote on each item
on a recorded vote separately. I think that will help you,
right?
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: Just a small point of order: I appreciate the
point raised originally by the third party and now the change of
view of the third party, but I would put forward that under your
orders of the day, government notice of motion number 51, this is
the only consideration. So it means basically we will look at
each amendment twice. That's the only consideration that our
party will get.
We did put amendments
forward to demonstrate whether or not there is fairness on the
part of the government, and our only consideration for that will
be if they are gone through in this fashion.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Kennedy. I'm going to be
proceeding then. As I indicated, I am going to proceed with the
voting on it and will defer the vote because originally there was
a request for a deferred vote, and it seems that either one or
both sides of the opposition want to go through this twice.
1650
Shall section 1, as
amended, carry? Deferred vote because there was a request for a
recorded vote.
Shall motion number 3
carry? There was a request for a recorded vote, so we'll come
back to that. That's deferred.
Going to section 3, the
motion to amend number 5, shall-
Mrs
Elliott: Mr Chair, if I may?
Mr
Marchese: What page are we on?
The
Vice-Chair: There is a Liberal motion. No, that's
information, for information, so that's not a motion.
Government motion number 5:
Shall it carry? Deferred.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, just as a very quick point of order:
You're referring to numbering. May I ask where that numbering is
expressed on the page?
The
Vice-Chair: Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
Mr
Kennedy: You're referring to the page numbering?
The
Vice-Chair: The page numbering, yes.
Mr
Kennedy: And so that refers to the motion, and then the
subsequent pages, because there isn't one for the Liberal-you
mentioned that there was a Liberal information for committee to
vote against section 3. There's no page number indicated
there.
The
Vice-Chair: That was just for information for the
committee.
Mr
Kennedy: Yes, but in terms of our being able to follow
you, because you are about to go through in rapid succession, you
have page numbers. There is page number 4 there, but the further
pagination says, government motion, page 4(a), (b), (c). I
thought that number 5 there, for example, referred to government
motion number 5(a), (b), and (c), and yet if you look at the
previous page, it's a Liberal motion and it's-I just want to make
sure we're on one pagination, because I don't want to lose the
opportunity to either move motions or object to motions in a
proper fashion.
The
Vice-Chair: That's why I started mentioning whether it's
a Liberal motion or a government motion and so on.
Mrs
Elliott: Could you also mention the section so we know
when we're through that section, if that whole section is to be
carried, please?
The
Vice-Chair: So we'll proceed.
On government motion number
5 there is a request for a recorded vote, so we'll defer the
vote.
On Liberal motion number 6,
subsection 3(2), there is a request for a recorded vote, so we'll
defer the vote.
Government motion number 7,
section 4 of the bill-
Mrs
Elliott: Excuse me. We're deferring the recorded vote,
are we not? Do we not have to vote on each section?
The
Vice-Chair: We're just going to defer the votes and then
vote on it. There is no point in voting on it twice.
Mr
Kennedy: With due respect, Mr Chair, it does presume
that there isn't any concurrence on any side, and I think to
presuppose the vote is not to take it at all. So I do think we
need to vote on each motion, and I do believe, again, that's
strictly in keeping with what we're here for.
The
Vice-Chair: I'm informed by the clerk that the proper
way of doing it is just by-since there was a request for a recorded vote-deferring all the
votes until the end.
Mr
Tascona: What are we doing right now?
Mr
Kennedy: I don't understand. What is the purpose?
The
Vice-Chair: I'm sorry. I'm not going to interrupt
reading any more. I'm informed by two clerks that that's the
proper way of doing it.
I'm now at government
motion number 7. There has been a request for a recorded vote, so
it's deferred.
Liberal motion number 8:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Liberal motion number 9:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Government motion number
10: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Government motion number
11: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Page 12 is not a motion;
it's just for information. So that's not part of the motions.
Mr
Kennedy: That's the recommendation to vote against
section 7, so that comes out?
The
Vice-Chair: That's correct.
Government motion number
13: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Government motion number
14: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Liberal motion number 15:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Liberal motion number 16:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Liberal motion number 17:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Section 8: There has been a
request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 9: There has been a
request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Mrs
Elliott: Is that 8 or 18?
The
Vice-Chair: It's 8. We're talking now about sections of
the act that don't have amendments.
Mrs
Elliott: Oh, I've got you. All right.
The
Vice-Chair: Section 9: There has been a request for a
recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 10: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 11: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 12: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 13: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 14: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 15: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 16: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 17, government
motion, page 18: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so
it's deferred.
Government motion number
19: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Section 19-again that's the
section, not the motion: There has been a request for a recorded
vote, so it's deferred.
Section 20, government
motion number 20: There has been a request for a recorded vote,
so it's deferred.
Government motion number
21: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Section 21: There has been
a request for a recorded vote, so it's deferred.
Section 22, government
motion number 22: There has been a request for a recorded vote,
so it's deferred.
Government motion number
23: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Government motion number
24: There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
1700
Section 24, government
motion number 25: There has been a request for a recorded vote,
so it's deferred.
Liberal motion number 26:
There has been a request for a recorded vote, so it's
deferred.
Section 25-now we're going
back to the section: That has been a request for a recorded vote,
so it's deferred.
We'll go back now and take
recorded votes on the sections and the amendments.
Mr
Kennedy: Chair, before you do that, I wonder if I could
ask for a brief recess. It looks like there's a Liberal amendment
missing and I just want to make sure that isn't the case. I
wonder if I could have the support of the committee to reconcile
that, just as the government side did for their procedural
requirements.
The
Vice-Chair: How long do you need?
Mr
Kennedy: Five minutes.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll have a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed
from 1701 to 1708.
The
Vice-Chair: I call the committee to order. I will
proceed then with the recorded vote and I'd like to call section
1. Shall section 1, as amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
We are now on government
motion number 3. Shall government motion number 3 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 2, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
We are now on government
motion number 5. Shall government motion number 5 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
1710
The next motion is Liberal
motion number 6. Shall Liberal motion number 6 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: Defeated.
Shall section 3, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
We are now on section 4,
government motion number 7. Shall government motion number 7
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Liberal motion number 8.
Shall Liberal motion number 8 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Shall section 4, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
We are now on section 5.
There are no amendments to section 5. Shall section 5 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 6, Liberal motion
number 9. Shall Liberal motion number 9 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: Liberal motion number 9 is defeated.
Government motion number
10. Shall government motion number 10 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Government motion number
11. Shall government motion number 11 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 6, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
We are now on section 7,
government motion number 13. Shall government motion number 13
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Government motion number
14. Shall government motion number 14 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Liberal motion number 15.
Shall Liberal motion number 15 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Liberal motion number 16.
Shall Liberal motion number 16 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
We are now on Liberal
motion number 17. Shall Liberal motion number 17 carry?
AYES
Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Shall section 7, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 8 has no
amendments. Shall section 8 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 9 has no
amendments. Shall section 9 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Mr
Beaubien: Mr Chair, since there are no amendments from
sections 9 to 17, can we collapse those sections?
The
Vice-Chair: Usually we could, but since there was a
request for a recorded vote, I think we better proceed with
it.
Section 10 has no amendments. Shall section 10
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 11 has no
amendments. Shall section 11 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 12 has no
amendments. Shall section 12 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 13 has no
amendments. Shall section 13 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 14 has no
amendments. Shall section 14 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 15 has no
amendments. Shall section 15 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 16 has no
amendments. Shall section 16 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
There is an amendment to
section 17, government motion number 18. Shall government motion
number 18 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 17, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 18, government
motion number 19. Shall government motion number 19 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 18, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 19 has no
amendments. Shall section 19 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 20 has an
amendment, government motion number 20. Shall government motion
number 20 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Government motion number
21. Shall government motion number 21 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 20, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 21 has no
amendments. Shall section 21 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 22, government
motion number 22. Shall government motion number 22 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall government motion
number 23 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 22, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 23, government
motion number 24. Shall government motion number 24 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 23, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Section 24, government
motion number 25. Shall government motion number 25 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Liberal motion number 26.
Shall Liberal motion number 26 carry?
AYES
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
NAYS
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
The
Vice-Chair: The motion is lost.
Shall section 24, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall section 25, the short
title of the bill, as amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall the long title of the
bill carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall Bill 74, as amended,
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried.
Shall Bill 74 be reported
to the House?
AYES
Beaubien, Coburn, Elliott,
Tascona.
NAYS
Bisson, Kennedy, Levac.
The
Vice-Chair: Carried. Thank you very much.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Vice-Chair, on a point of order-
The
Vice-Chair: I don't think we can have points of order at
this time.
Mr
Kennedy: A point of order is always in order.
The
Vice-Chair: We have completed the bill, as indicated. If
someone has a short comment, I will hear the comment.
Mr
Kennedy: For the purposes of the record and in reference
to an earlier point of order, I had asked for a more generous
interpretation of the time we had to actually consider the
amendments. It's only 20 minutes after 5 o'clock. We would have
had time to do so, and I regret very much your ruling and the
nature of the business that we have here today that in fact has
curtailed debate of this discussion. I believe it is a point of
order and I respectfully ask for it to be heard, because the only
way that a minority point of view here can be heard is in raising
points of order.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, I don't think you can have a
point of order on a bill that has already been approved to be
reported to the House.
Mr
Kennedy: As long as the committee is in session I am
permitted to question-it is my right-the process of this
committee. I have made a comment that I think is appropriate in
terms of the rulings of the Chair, and those may have precedent
for future chairs in a similar position. The only point I wish to
make is that the opposition has missed out on about 40 minutes of
time it could have used to examine it still more fully.
Mr Levac:
Will the bill be submitted to the Red Tape Commission?
The
Vice-Chair: The bill will be submitted to the House, I
understand, tomorrow.
Mr Levac:
My question is, does it get referred to the Red Tape
Commission?
