[Report continued from Volume A]
House in committee of the whole.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET A L'EMPLOI
Continuing consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed to voting on clause by clause and all amendments as submitted to the table prior to 4 o'clock this afternoon. This is voting section by section, clause by clause on Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, have no amendments. Is it the pleasure of the House that sections 1 to 3, inclusive, carry?
All those in favour of sections 1 to 3, inclusive, please say "aye."
All those opposed to sections 1 to 3 --
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The Second Deputy Chair: On a point of order, the member for Mississauga North.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, no, no, no.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You can't have a point of order in the middle of a vote.
Mr Offer: Why won't the government members allow me to ask some guidance from you? We have a question as to whether the vote should be section by section and not sections 1 to 3. What if one wishes to vote in favour of section 1 and oppose section 2?
The Second Deputy Chair: It has been customary, when there are no amendments, to include. If it's the pleasure of the House that we do sections 1, 2 and 3 individually, the Chair has no problem.
Interjection: No.
Mr Offer: Why not? It's a vote.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Let's not play games.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. In the event that someone wishes to vote on an individual section in a different way, then on the group we shall handle them one section at a time.
All those in favour of section 1 standing as part of Bill 40, without amendments, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Section 1 carries as shown.
Section 2 of Bill 40: All those in favour of section 2, without amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
There has been agreement that the vote will be stacked.
Under 14 July l992, part of this correspondence reads as follows: "Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession." This vote is therefore deferred.
1750
We now move on to section 3 of Bill 40. Section 3 has no amendments.
All those in favour of section 3 of Bill 40, please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 3, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be deferred.
We now move on to amendments to section 4: amendment to subsection 4(2) by Mr Offer.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Offer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further to subsection 4(2): amendment by Mrs Witmer.
All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to section 4(4): Mr Offer's amendment.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment to subsection 4(4), please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Offer's amendment to subsection 4(4), please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
We move on to section 5: moved by Mr Offer, an amendment to section 5 is out of order.
Further amendment to section 5(2.1) of the act: Mr Offer's amendment.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Offer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 6 is shown as not having any amendments.
All those in favour of section 6, without amendments, please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 6, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Moving into amendments to section 7: Mr Offer has moved an amendment to subsection 7(1), subsections 6(2.2) to (2.5) of the act.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Offer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to subsection 7(1), 6(2.5) of the act, moved by Mr Mackenzie.
All those in favour of Mr Mackenzie's amendment to section 7, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Mackenzie's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to section 7: Mr Offer's amendment, subsection 7(2), 6(4.2) of the act.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mr Offer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You've got to count the members, don't you?
The Second Deputy Chair: We need five members to stand.
Subsection 7(2), Mr Offer's amendment to 6(4) of the act.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to section 7, subsection 2(4), Mrs Witmer's amendment.
All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed to Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
We now move into section 8, where we have some amendments again.
Mr Offer has moved an amendment to subsections 7(2) and (3) of the act.
Those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to section 8, Mr Offer's amendment to subsections 8(0.1) to (0.3) of the act.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment, to subsections 8(2) and (3) of the act, Mr Offer's amendment.
Those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to subsections 8(2) and (3) of the act, Mrs Witmer's amendment.
Those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "aye."
Those opposed to Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote shall be stacked.
Final amendment to section 8. Mr Offer has moved an amendment to subsection 8(6) of the act.
Those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 9 of the act has no amendments. Therefore we shall vote on section 9.
All those in favour of section 9, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
We're moving into amendments to section 10.
Mr Offer has moved an amendment to section 10, to section 9.1 of the act.
Those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Further amendment to section 10, section 9.2 of the act, Mr Offer's amendment.
All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
1800
Section 11 has no amendments. All those in favour of section 11, please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 11, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote on section 11 will be stacked.
Section 12 has several amendments. Mr Offer's amendment to section 12 is out of order.
Mrs Witmer has moved an amendment to section 12, subsections 11.1(2) to (7) of the act. All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Mr Offer's amendment on section 13 is out of order.
Therefore we will be voting on section 13 without amendments.
All those in favour of section 13, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
That vote will be stacked.
Section 14 is presented without amendments. All those in favour of section 14, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Chair: We're voting on each section at a time. I would like to recognize the clock, it now being past 6 of the clock, 6:01:57 to be exact. Under the standing orders, should you not be adjourning the House until the next sessional day?
The Second Deputy Chair: It is my understanding that the House will continue sitting until we have dealt entirely with Bill 40.
Mr Eves: Mr Chair, with all due respect, standing order 9(a) says, and it's very clear: "Except as provided in clause (c), and in standing order 34, at 6 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays" -- I do believe this is one of those days -- "the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day."
In my opinion, Mr Chair, and I'm submitting to you, we are voting on each individual section of this bill. There's one vote on section 2, there's another vote on section 3, there's another vote on section 4 etc. We are going through one vote at a time. I see no reason why, having completed a vote on a particular section -- committees would adjourn. If this was a committee of the Legislature sitting downstairs, it would adjourn at 6 pm, and I submit to you that we should be adjourning at 6 pm.
The Second Deputy Chair: The vote will continue because the House is in the process of dividing and therefore, according to time allocation, we will continue.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I was going to bring to your attention the time allocation. It is silent about whether or not we complete the business before 6 of the clock. It does say that we shall proceed to attempt to get the votes done. It contemplates, in my view, a completion of the business by 6. That has not occurred.
The standing orders govern, as you know, Mr Chair, unless they are specifically overruled by the provisions of the time allocation motion. There is nothing in the time allocation motion, having just examined it, that says that our work should continue past the regular rising time for this House.
Mr Chairman, I address your attention now to the time allocation motion, and it is, in my view, within your mandate to indicate that we are in violation of the standing orders and that we should now rise and report to the Speaker and come back at this another day.
The Second Deputy Chair: The process of division has started and, under time allocation, the process of division must be completed.
Mr Eves: Mr Chair, on the same point of order: With all due respect, I have read the time allocation motion. There's absolutely nothing in this time allocation motion
that says the vote will continue after the adjournment time of the House. There's nothing in this time allocation motion that says that rule 9(a) is superseded or dispensed with. There is nothing under the new standing orders with respect to time allocation motions in any one of the new standing orders that I can see that talks about overruling standing order 9(a).
As I read the rules, the only rule that can overrule section 9(a) is standing order 33, which talks about where
a member is dissatisfied with an answer given during question period and can request that the House sit beyond
6 of the clock for the purpose of dealing with that issue. There is no other standing order. If there is one, I wish that you would draw my attention to it. I stand to be corrected. But quote me the standing order that says or quote me from the time allocation motion the wording that says this House will sit beyond 6 pm.
The Second Deputy Chair: Under section 14, at 5:45 on the sessional day when the process begins, it must not be interrupted until complete, and we are in the process.
Mr Eves: It doesn't say that.
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, on that point, the process is with respect to the voting on a particular item. We are going clause-by-clause, vote-by-vote. One process is the instigation of a vote with respect to a clause in committee. It is not voting on the entire bill. If that were the case, we would never get out of this place, and I think that's an unreasonable interpretation.
Just one other point while I stand. It is quite clear that today when I rose to give notice on the basis of the fact that there is no indication whether a notice has to be given written or orally, the Speaker has indicated quite clearly that he is going to hold this House to a literal and very stringent interpretation, word by word, of the material before us to deal with the conduct of business. Mr Chair, the Speaker has clearly indicated that you must read the words exactly and not stray from them, as the Speaker reminded me of that earlier in the day. You cannot, Mr Chair, run this place in two ways. You can't run it tightly for one person and then extend this type of interpretation to solve another problem. We're asking, as a matter of privilege, that you be consistent.
The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Nipissing on a point of order.
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I believe we have here a situation where the standing orders have come into conflict with the time allocation motion, perhaps something that wasn't anticipated.
Mr Elston: Yes, just because they don't anticipate it.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): By your side.
Mr Eves: By you. Where is it in here that says to sit past 6?
Mr Harris: The fact of the matter is that in ruling one way or the other, we are contravening, if you like, the spirit of the time allocation motion. On the other hand, we are contravening the spirit of our standing orders if we continue now beyond 6 of the clock.
Mr Chairman, in view of the seriousness of this, I would ask you to take the various arguments that have been put forward under advisement and take some time before making this ruling and reflect on that. Perhaps through you to Mr Speaker, you may want to consider over the next day or two hearing other arguments in chambers, because I believe this ruling could very seriously call into question, if you rule in favour of proceeding now, the standing orders that are there. I would ask you, Mr Chairman, given the seriousness of that, to take some time to reflect on this ruling.
The Second Deputy Chair: On the same point, the honourable member for Sudbury East.
Hon Shelley Martel (Minster of Northern Development and Mines): On the same point of order, Mr Chair: I'm going back to the motion which was carried in this House, even though there was a division, on July 14, 1992, and this is with respect to the time allocation motion.
I want to point out to you again what it says, which is: "At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession."
So it seems to me, Mr Speaker, that clearly, by the time allocation motion that was passed in this House on July 14, l992, we should proceed until all the questions have been put and a vote taken at that time.
1810
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Bruce.
Mr Elston: I rise, Mr Chair --
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Bruce.
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, under standing order 6(b)(i), it very specifically says that this House is not authorized under any circumstances to sit extended hours unless there is a consent of some other form. In fact, if the standing order is to be complied with, then we cannot meet after 6 o'clock whatever that time allocation motion says. It in fact is out of order to contemplate it, because this says that extended hours are only contemplated in the last eight sessional days in December and June.
It seems to me that (a) only if there is specific provision to extend the hours, which there is not, or (b) only if there is no mention in the standing orders otherwise, can we extend the time of sitting to complete business. These standing orders say there is no business to be conducted after 6, and you would have to rule in violation of section 6(b)(i). In fact, you would allow the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, which is to move a motion by its majority to extend the sitting hours of this House. You cannot allow them to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. This would preclude that.
The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. I appreciate all of the advice. The honourable member for Algoma.
Hon Mr Wildman: In the interests of expediting the proceedings of the House and also in complying with the motion passed on July 14, could you please rule on whether or not you have deemed all of the motions to be put as required in the motion?
The Second Deputy Chair: We are in the process of, and we have not had a motion from the floor to deem them to have been put.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: We are wasting some valuable time. The Chair intends to continue. The process is now in motion. The member for Parry Sound.
Mr Eves: With all due respect, I would like your ruling as to whether or not we are in the middle of a vote because it seems to me that the whole basis of the government's argument for why we can sit past 6 pm is that we're in the middle of a vote.
I have just demonstrated to you that we are not in the middle of a vote. In fact, several members on our side of the House have come in partway through this "process," as you call it. We're either in the middle of a vote or we're not. If we're in the middle of a vote, the members cannot, as I understand the rules, leave the chamber and come and go as they please during the middle of a vote. They must remain in their chairs. Then why were some members able to come in partway through this process?
I'd like a ruling as to whether we're in the middle of a vote or not. If we're not, I have a motion that I would like to move. I move that this House adjourn for the day.
The Second Deputy Chair: We are in a process, committee of the whole, with stacked votes, and we are in the process of leading to a vote. We are in the process. We're wasting a great deal of time. Proceeding.
Mr Eves: Mr Chair, with all due respect, I would like a clarification: Are members free to enter and leave the chamber during the middle of a vote, yes or no?
The Second Deputy Chair: They are not during a vote. We are in the process leading to a vote.
Mr Eves: So we're not voting, so we're not in the middle of a vote. Is that right? Is that correct?
The Second Deputy Chair: We are in the process.
Mr Eves: Mr Chair, we are either in the middle of a vote or we are not. If we are not, the House should be adjourned. If we are, the doors should be locked and people shouldn't be coming and going. It's as simple as that.
The Second Deputy Chair: I want the member for Parry Sound to understand that the process is that the vote -- an agreement has been made, decreed --
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): No agreement was made.
The Second Deputy Chair: It's in the July 14 correspondence.
Mr Eves: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, show me the words in the July 14 motion that say we agreed to sit past 6 o'clock.
The Second Deputy Chair: It simply says, "Put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendment thereto and report the bill to the House." We are in the process.
We move on to section 14. Section 14 has no amendments.
Those in favour of section 14, without amendments, please say "aye."
Those opposed to section 14 please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 15, without amendments.
All those in favour please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The section will be stacked.
Section 16, without amendments.
All those in favour please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 17, without amendments.
All those in favour please say "aye."
Those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 18, without amendments.
All those in favour please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 19.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Second Deputy Chair: On a point of order, the member for Bruce.
Mr Elston: I regret to advise you of this, sir, but in the case where we have difficulty in dealing with the standing orders, we have been advised by the Speaker that we are to raise the issue with the Chair of the committee and that nothing can be done until we raise the matter with you.
It is my view, sir, that we have here, obviously, a difference of opinion. We believe there is nothing in the time allocation motion that prevents us from adjourning the committee of the whole and coming back to complete all the votes, because the time allocation is silent. The standing orders are quite specific that only during the last eight days may the government move to extend the sitting of the House.
Mr Chair, we would ask you and the people in this House, as a point of order, to rise now, sir, and consult the Speaker for a ruling on the point, because we believe it is necessary to have one made.
The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Bruce has a very valid point of order.
Hon Mr Wildman: Are you challenging the ruling of the Chair? He has already made his ruling.
The Second Deputy Chair: I want to ask the honourable member for Bruce, are you challenging the Chair?
Mr Elston: Yes.
The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, he is challenging the Chair; it was my opinion. This House will now rise and report to the Speaker.
1820
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Point of order, Mr Chair.
The Second Deputy Chair: We are pending and awaiting the arrival of the Speaker, so I cannot take a point of anything right now.
Mr Callahan: It has to be done immediately.
The Second Deputy Chair: It is in the process of being done.
Mr Speaker, the committee begs to rise and report because of a challenge to the Chair's ruling that we indeed are in a process leading to a vote. There has been a challenge to that decision and I am now seeking advice from you, sir.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parry Sound.
Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, we have asked the Chair of the committee of the whole House to rule as to whether in effect we are indeed in the middle of a vote. We have suggested to the Chair of the whole House that under standing order 9(a), on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays when the House sits, except during the last two weeks of any session, the House must adjourn at 6 of the clock.
The only exception that standing order 9(a) makes to that standing order is standing order 33, which of course comes into question when a member, during question period, serves notice that he or she is dissatisfied with the answer, and then the House is permitted to sit beyond 6 pm on those days.
I don't want to put words in the mouth of the Chair of the whole House, but I asked him very directly whether we were in the middle of a vote or not. He didn't directly answer that question. He said we were in a process that was leading up to a vote.
We obviously were not in the middle of a vote, because as you well know, Mr Speaker, during the middle of a vote you cannot come and go out of this chamber as you wish. The doors are locked. The members who are in the chamber must remain in their places until the vote is completed. You cannot walk in halfway through a vote. Every one of these five doors coming in here -- except for yours, which would make it six, of course -- were open, and members came freely, as they wished, during the various stages or clauses of the bill being discussed in committee of the whole House. So we obviously were not in the middle of a vote.
Under the time allocation motion moved by the government -- I believe July 14 was the date -- it talks about starting to put the questions in committee of the whole House at 5:45. It does not say that standing order 9(a) is overruled. It does not say explicitly that the House will sit beyond 6 pm. It does not say, "Notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the vote shall continue until it's completed." It is totally silent on that issue.
I believe we have had an indication from the Chair of the committee of the whole House, in fact we have proof, that we were not in the middle of a vote. We have not voted. We have not been in the middle of a vote. Various members are still coming and going out of this chamber, so we obviously are not in a vote.
According to standing order 9(a), I would submit to you that this House should stand adjourned at 6 pm until tomorrow.
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I regrettably asked that this application to you be made, first of all, because I was the subject matter of another ruling by you earlier wherein you literally and very closely followed each word of the standing orders and made sure you abided exactly by the words under the standing order under which I had stood to address a notice of a motion that I wished to put with regard to Bill 40. That being the case, I would expect now that you will stay very tightly to the same interpretative style of the standing orders.
I rise to point out three standing orders, one under section 9(c), which talks about the manner in which sitting past 6 of the clock can be accomplished. As you know, if it is against the will of 12 members in the House anywhere, the motion is defeated when it is placed by the government. That is a very specific indication that you may not sit past 6 of the clock in this House to do anything except complete a vote.
A vote itself is what we normally describe to be a process. You cannot talk about the process of a bill as being all-inclusive in completion of a particular bill's votes in their entirety. For instance, in committee of the whole, you can't say it is one single process to start at clause 1 and finish at clause 75. That is not a process; that is a series of processes designed to end the entire matter of the question.
There is an exception to the extension of hours, when 12 members are unable to stand in their places to block an extension of time. Quite clearly, under standing order 6 you are able, as a government, to extend the hours of sitting past 6 of the clock for the purpose of cleaning up last-minute business, or at least the business that has to be done before the break occurs. That's quite clear. Knowing that is the situation, there is nothing in the standing order itself, as I would agree with my friend from Parry Sound, that says you can sit past 6 o'clock in the House to do any of the business at all. In fact, you must comply with the standing orders in all regards if the time allocation motion itself is silent upon the issue. It is silent on the issue.
All we need to know is that each of the votes can be put by the Chairman of the committee of the whole in series at another sitting of the committee of the whole House. He -- in this case, he -- would be able to comply fully with the wording of the time allocation motion. It does not say that all questions shall be put before 6 of the clock. It does not say that all questions need to be put after 6 of the clock. It does not say that the House is extended to complete all of the business of the day. It does say that the committee of the whole, when it deals with Bill 40, must go directly to finish all of the votes necessary to dispose of the work of the committee of the whole with respect to Bill 40 when it meets for that purpose again. No more amendments, no more debate, no more talking about any of the amendments; it just has to be completed in series.
1830
But when the standing orders are violated by a time allocation motion under the auspices of the new standing orders that you already know about, you cannot allow a small-l liberal -- if I may describe it that way -- interpretation to overrule the very specific and the very tightly worded lines in the standing orders, which prevent us from meeting past 6 of the clock for any purpose except under the purposes described in 6(c) or except if the government gets away with moving the motion to extend the hours of the House. Mr Speaker, that is quite clear.
I just remind you again of how you shut me down earlier today by relying tightly and specifically on each word that is in the standing orders. I would ask you to interpret the standing orders tightly and specifically. I would ask you, as a result of your earlier decision today, to rule in regard to the time allocation motion tightly and specifically.
Just one last point: Any time people move to upset the standing orders, it is a grave, grave step to be taken, although these people here seem to think it's a matter of routine and course. Any time somebody takes such a grave step, Mr Speaker, you must read what is literally put in there, voted on and passed, not what you feel should have been, not what you think he dropped out of there that makes his problems greater. You, sir, have an obligation to protect us and to protect the integrity of the standing orders when they are not specifically taken away from by these allocation motions.
Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that it is past 6 of the clock, I ask you to rule that this House now stands adjourned and I ask you to rule, sir, that "process" does not mean the process of committee of the whole, because we all know that committees of the whole House have sometimes sat not only for one or two days at a time but several days, and we have been interrupted from time to time to recognize the clock and move on to other business.
The Speaker: The government House leader.
Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I find this debate or discussion on this point of order interesting. I think it is important to understand that when the voting procedure started a while back at 5:45, there were only three members of the opposition even here. The Labour critic for the --
Mr Eves: That's not true. I was here, you were here.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.
Interjections.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You're supposed to ring the bells for a vote.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: You're such a sleazebag, David.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.
Mr Mahoney: Making smart-ass remarks like that.
The Speaker: Would the member for Mississauga West please come to order.
Interjection: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege.
The Speaker: No, would the member just remain seated for a moment, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I was summoned to the House because of an important matter. The very least members could do would be to remain quiet so each of the three parties can make their points to the Chair and the Chair will have an opportunity to make a decision.
Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, on a very --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, I ask you to review the time allocation motion that was passed in this House on July 14. In one of the paragraphs that's relevant to today's discussion, it states:
"At 5:45 pm on that sessional day" -- being the second sessional day we're in committee of the whole -- "those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House."
The Chair of the committee of the whole House ruled appropriately that in fact he was carrying out the orders of the House that had been duly debated and duly voted on in this House and voted in the affirmative by the majority of the people in this House.
Mr Speaker, I ask that you follow the wishes of the majority in the House, as directed by the time allocation motion that was passed earlier in the year. Let's get on with the business of the House and support the Chair of the committee of the whole House.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Point of order.
The Speaker: Point of order? I ask the member for Ottawa West to carefully consider. I have heard one from each party, and normally it's the House leaders. The House leader for the Conservatives has some additional information.
Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, on a new point of order.
Interjections.
Mr Eves: Just a minute. My point of order is very simple, Mr Speaker. We are no longer in committee of the whole House. We are now in the Legislature, and I would ask you, sir, to recognize the clock, and I would submit to you that under standing order 9(a), seeing as how we are not sitting now in committee of the whole House, you have no alternative but to adjourn this House until tomorrow.
The Speaker: It's very clear. The member may have forgotten, but there was a challenge to the Chair, and that challenge --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I implore members. This is a difficult situation. You do not make it easier by simply yelling at one another.
I would ask the member to consider that the reason I am here is because there was a challenge to the Chair. I am listening to the points of order as to why or why not the decision of the Chair should be upheld.
The member for Ottawa West.
Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will be very brief. I just want to bring to your attention one of the very basic rules we work under in this place, and that is standing order l(b). I just want to bring two things to your attention in this particular section:
"In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or 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 would only ask one thing, Mr Speaker, that when you make your ruling you comply with standing order l(b) and indicate the standing order under which you are making your decision that would enable it or, secondly, the usage and precedent of the Legislature or parliamentary tradition on which you rely. I would ask you to do that under standing order 1(b), sir.
The Speaker: I appreciate the contributions. The leader of the third party has an additional point of order.
Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the second point that was raised by my House leader, I would like to ask you to consider that the reason why you are in the chair is really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, you are in the chair.
Interjections.
Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but I believe, with respect to the standing orders, the fact of the matter is that you are in the chair and it is past 6 of the clock. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that it would be most appropriate that we continue receiving arguments on this point, if you like, in the duly noted time that we should be, namely, starting tomorrow, when we come back into session. You are in the chair, we are not in committee of the whole, we are not in the middle of a vote and it is past 6 of the clock. The matter of the challenge to the Chair can be considered, as it should be, tomorrow.
The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, I think we should be very clear about this. The Chair of the committee made a ruling. That ruling was challenged, and as is our procedure, the Speaker has been summoned to deal with the challenge.
I have heard the arguments put forward by the honourable House leader of the opposition and by the honourable House leader for the third party and the honourable House leader for the government, as well as the contribution by the member for Ottawa West, whose contributions in total I certainly appreciate.
I will say to you very briefly that this is not a simple matter. I would appreciate a few moments to reflect on it. The House will stand in recess for 10 minutes, at which time I shall return and render a decision.
The House recessed at 1841 and resumed at 1851.
The Speaker: Let me first thank the members for Parry Sound, Bruce, Ottawa West, Nipissing and the government House leader for bringing this matter to my attention.
Let me first deal with the matter of the timing of this decision. It's absolutely important that this ruling be given now, because it results from a point raised in committee of the whole and the essence of the matter before us is one of timing. Members must be aware that whenever the House passes a motion of time allocation, that motion in effect is the one that dictates the way in which a bill will be considered at the various stages of the legislative process. The time allocation motion is in effect a standing order on its own merits as regards the piece of legislation to which it is attached. In the matter at hand, therefore, I have no choice but to abide by the terms of that special order.
I will take the time to read the pertinent section, to quote from the special order: "At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession."
The Chair has to be guided by the fact that this is, firstly, the second of the two sessional days that were allocated, and secondly, that at 5:45 pm on that sessional day, ie, today, the Chair had no choice but to call forward the vote and to proceed in order until the item had been dispensed with. Indeed, that's what the Chair was in the process of doing. I sustained the decision of the Chair, and indeed, with your indulgence, I would commend the member on the way in which he conducted the business of the House. I watched it from my office and felt that he did a superb job. This House should return to committee of the whole.
Mr Eves: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Point of order?
Mr Eves: I believe that I made another point of order and I make it again. The mace is on the table, sir. The House is in session, sir. With all due respect, under standing order 9(a), I ask you to recognize the clock, it being past 6 of the clock. With all due respect, Mr Speaker, I think the reason why the House is in session is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the mace is on the table, you're in the chair and it's past 6 of the clock. Under standing order 9(a), with all due respect, you have no alternative but to adjourn the House.
The Speaker: I understand the member for Parry Sound indeed, and I appreciate that he's a member who always follows the rules very closely. I know he appreciates that the reason the mace is on the table and I'm here is because there was a challenge of the Chair's ruling. I have dealt with that challenge. This House now returns to committee.
House in committee of the whole.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. We now proceed. Mr Offer's amendment to section 19 is out of order, and we therefore proceed with Mrs --
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Order, please.
Proceeding with Mrs Witmer's amendment to section 19, subsections 19(1), 41(1) to (1.3) of the act.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment to section 19 please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Moving on to section 20, Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 20 will go unamended.
All those in favour of section 20 please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 20 please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
On to section 21. We have a similar situation: Mr Offer's motion is out of order, therefore section 21 stands unamended.
All those in favour of section 21 please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 21 please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The motion carries.
Similar situation with section 22: Mr Offer's motion is out of order, therefore section 22 stands unamended.
All those in favour of section 22 please say "aye."
All those opposed to section 22 please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 23: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. We will therefore deal with Mrs Witmer's amendment to subsection 23(3), 45(8) of the act.
All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote will be stacked.
Section 24, likewise: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 24 stands unamended.
All those in favour of section 24 please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote will be stacked.
1900
Section 25 is a similar situation. Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 25 stands unamended.
All those in favour of section 25 please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will be stacked.
Section 26: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. We will therefore deal with Mrs Witmer's amendment, section 26.1.
All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's amendment please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be stacked.
Shall section 26 carry? Carried.
We are now dealing with section 27. Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 27 will stand without amendment.
All those in favour of section 27 please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will be stacked.
We now move on to section 28, a similar situation: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 28 stands unamended.
Those in favour of section 28 please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will be stacked.
Section 29, similar situation: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order.
All those in favour of section 29 please say "aye." All those --
Mr Offer: On a point of order --
The Second Deputy Chair: Please allow me to finish this.
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, on a point of order.
The Second Deputy Chair: The vote will be stacked.
The honourable member for Mississauga North on a point of order.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is patently obvious to myself and to my caucus that the government, through its time allocation/closure motion, has closed down this House. They have absolutely no intention to deal with the concerns we have raised, to deal with the concerns that many people throughout this province have raised with respect to this piece of legislation. There is absolutely no question that what they are going through now is a charade. They are going through a stage-managed process, and I will be leaving and not taking part in this type of stage-managed process which will affect the future of this province.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Parry Sound on a point of order.
Mr Eves: On the point of order raised by the honourable member, I have always been taught to respect the Chair and the Speaker, but I can tell you unequivocally -- and I'm choosing my words very carefully, Mr Chair -- that the second ruling the Speaker made while the Legislature was in session, while the mace was on the table, I think is a great affront to my privileges as a member, to the parliamentary and democracy process. There is no doubt that this House was in session, the mace was on the table, and standing order 9(a) -- I don't care why he was here, I don't care if he came in to catch a pigeon flying around in the middle of the chamber. The reality is --
The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr Eves: -- that the Legislature was in session, and under standing order 9(a) he had no alternative, in my humble opinion, under the standing orders that these members create, not that he creates --
The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr Eves: -- and the House is adjourned as far as I'm concerned. It is a joke.
Interjections.
Mr Eves: Get ready for tomorrow, sweetheart.
The Second Deputy Chair: We are proceeding with section 30. Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore we will vote on section 30 unamended.
Shall section 30 carry? Carried.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. We will now deal -- order. We will now deal with section 31. Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 31 stands unamended.
Shall section 31 carry? Carried.
Similar situation with section 32, with Mr Offer's first amendment: It is out of order. However, we have several other amendments which are in order. Section 32, Mr Offer has moved an amendment to 73.1(2) of the act.
Shall Mr Offer's amendment carry? No, the motion is defeated.
Mrs Witmer has an amendment to section 32, 73.1(4) of the act. Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? The amendment is lost.
Mrs Witmer has another amendment to section 32, 73 of the act. Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? No, the amendment is defeated.
Mrs Witmer, section 32, 73.1(2). Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? No, the amendment is lost.
Section 32, 73.3 of the act, Mrs Witmer's amendment. Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? The amendment is lost.
Section 32.1: Mrs Witmer's amendment is out of order.
Shall section 32 stand as part of the bill? Agreed? Agreed. Section 32 is carried.
Mr Offer's amendment to section 33 is out of order, therefore section 33 will be voted on unamended.
Shall section 33 carry as part of the act? Agreed? Agreed. The motion's carried.
Section 34: Shall section 34 carry? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 35 does have amendments. Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 35 stands unamended. Shall section 35 carry? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 36: Likewise, Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 36 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. Carried.
Section 37: Shall section 37 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 38: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 38 stands unamended. Shall section 38 carry? Agreed? Agreed. Carried.
Likewise for section 39: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 39 carry? Carried. Agreed.
Likewise for section 40: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 40 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. Section carried.
Section 41: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 41 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 42: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order, therefore section 42 is unamended. Shall section 42 carry? Agreed? Agreed. Section 42 carries.
Likewise for section 43: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 43 carry? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 44: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 44 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. Section 44 carries.
Section 45: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 45 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. Motion carries.
Section 46: Likewise, Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 46 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. The section carries.
Section 47: Mr Offer's amendment is out of order. Shall section 47 carry unamended? Agreed? Agreed. Section 47 carries.
Shall section 48 carry? Agreed? Agreed.
Similarly for section 49: Shall section 49 carry? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 50 has some amendments. Mr Offer's amendment to section 50 is (3). Shall Mr Offer's amendment carry? No? The motion is lost.
Mrs Witmer's amendment to subsection 50(3): Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? No? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 50 carry unamended? Agreed. Carried.
Shall sections 51 to 63, inclusive, carry as amended? Agreed.
Similarly, section 64: Mrs Witmer does have an amendment to section 64.1. This is an addition to that section, therefore shall 64 carry as unamended? Agreed. The motion carries.
Mrs Witmer's amendment to 64.1 is adding a new section. Shall Mrs Witmer's amendment to 64 carry? No? The amendment is lost.
We have a number of votes to be taken. We will now call in the members. There is a 15-minute time limit for the bells. Call in the members.
The division bells rang from 1913 to 1928.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. Could all members please take their seats. We are now dealing with the amendments to Bill 40 and the different sections. We will now vote on section 2.
All those in favour of section 2 standing as part of Bill 40 please rise and remain standing until you have been enumerated or counted by the table.
All those opposed to section 2 please rise and remain standing.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I declare section 2 of Bill 40 carried.
We will now deal with section 3. All those in favour of section 3 please rise and remain standing. The same vote? Agreed.
Section 3 carries.
Section 4, amendment by Mr Offer: All those in favour of Mr Offer's amendment. Same vote reversed? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 1; the nays are 60.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. Mr Offer's amendment is defeated.
Mrs Witmer has an amendment to section 4, subsection 4(2). Same vote? Agreed.
I declare Mrs Witmer's amendment defeated.
Mr Offer's amendment to section 4: Same vote? Same vote.
I declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Shall section 4 of Bill 40 stand as unamended, without amendments? Same vote reversed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
The Second Deputy Chair: Section 4 carries. The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
Section 5, Mr Offer's amendment to section 5: Same vote in reverse? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. Mr Offer's amendment to section 5 is defeated.
Shall section 5 stand without amendments as part of the act? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
The Second Deputy Chair: Section 5: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I declare section 5 carried.
We now move to section 6, as unamended. Shall section 6 of Bill 40 carry? Same vote? Same vote.
I declare section 6 carried.
Section 7 does have some amendments. Mr Offer's amendment to section 7: Do we have consensus for the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. I declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Mr Mackenzie's amendment to section 7: Shall Mr Mackenzie's amendment carry? Same vote reversed? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Mackenzie's amendment to section 7 carried.
Mr Offer's amendment to section 7: Shall the same vote in reverse carry? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. I declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Mr Offer has another amendment. Would it be agreeable to have the same vote? Agreed.
I declare Mr Offer's amendment to section 7 defeated.
Mrs Witmer has an amendment to section 7. Is it agreed that the same vote carry? Agreed.
Mrs Witmer's amendment is therefore defeated.
Shall section 7 carry, as amended? Same vote in reverse.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I declare section 7 carried, as amended.
Section 8: We have amendments to section 8. Mr Offer's amendment to section 8: Is it the pleasure of the House that the vote carry in reverse? Agreed.
Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60.
The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. I declare Mr Offer's amendment to section 8 defeated.
Further amendment to section 8, Mr Offer: Is it the pleasure of the House that the same vote carry? Agreed.
I declare Mr Offer's amendment to section 8 defeated.
Further amendment by Mr Offer: Is it the pleasure of the House that we continue with the same vote? Agreed.
I declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Mrs Witmer has an amendment to section 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the same vote carry for Mrs Witmer's amendment? Agreed.
I declare Mrs Witmer's amendment defeated.
We have a final amendment by Mr Offer to section 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that we continue with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Shall section 8 of Bill 40 carry without amendments? Is it the pleasure of the House that we have the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I therefore declare section 8 carried.
Section 9 does not have any amendments. Is it the pleasure of the House that we have the same vote for section 9? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 9 of Bill 40 carried without amendments.
We have an amendment to section 10. Mr Offer has moved an amendment to section 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the same vote carry in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. I declare Mr Offer's amendment defeated.
Mr Offer has a further amendment to section 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the same vote apply? Agreed.
I therefore declare Mr Offer's second amendment to section 10 defeated.
Shall section 10 carry without amendments? Would it be the pleasure of the House that we have the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I therefore declare section 10 of the bill carried.
We now move to section 11. Section 11 does not have any amendments. Is it the pleasure of the House that the same vote carry for section 11? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 11 of Bill 40 carried without amendments.
Section 12 has one amendment by Mrs Witmer. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mrs Witmer's amendment carry?
Interjections: No.
The Second Deputy Chair: Should it therefore be the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. I therefore declare Mrs Witmer's amendment defeated.
Shall section 12 of Bill 40 carry without amendments? Same vote in reverse.
The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I therefore declare section 12 of Bill 40 carried without amendments.
Section 13 had an amendment from Mr Offer which was out of order. Therefore we will deal with section 13 as unamended. Is it the pleasure of the House that section 13 carry with the same vote count? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 13 of Bill 40 carried without amendments.
Section 14 of the bill stands unamended. Shall section 14 of the bill carry with the same vote? Agreed.
Therefore, I declare section 14 carried.
Similarly, is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote on section 15? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 15 carried.
Section 16 of the bill: Similarly, is it the pleasure of the House that we carry with the same vote? Agreed.
1940
I therefore declare section 16 of Bill 40 carried.
Likewise for section 17, is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 17 of Bill 40 carried. Section 18 of Bill 40 stands unamended.
Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 18 of Bill 40 carried.
Section 19 has an amendment by Mrs Witmer. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mrs Witmer's amendment carry? Same vote reversed? Agreed.
The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. Therefore, I declare Mrs Witmer's amendment to subsection 19(1) defeated.
Shall section 19 carry without amendments? Is it the pleasure of the House that we have the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. Therefore, I declare section 19 of Bill 40 carried without amendments.
Section 20 had one amendment which was out of order. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that section 20 carry unamended with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 20 of the bill carried.
We now move on to section 22. We did have an amendment which was out of order. Therefore, shall section 22 carry without amendment? Do we agree to have the same vote? Agreed.
Therefore I declare section 22 of the bill carried.
Section 23 has an amendment from Mrs Witmer. Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote in reverse for Mrs Witmer's amendment? Agreed.
The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. Therefore I declare Mrs Witmer's amendment defeated.
Shall section 23 of Bill 40 carry without amendment? Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 60, the nays are 1. I therefore declare section 23 of the bill carried without amendment.
Section 24 had one amendment which was out of order. Therefore, shall section 24 carry unamended? Agreed to the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 24 carried.
Section 25, similarly an out-of-order amendment. Shall section 25 carry without amendment with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 25 of Bill 40 carried.
Section 26 does have an amendment which is in order. It's from Mrs Witmer. Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with Mrs Witmer's amendment with the same vote in reverse? Agreed.
The ayes are 1, the nays are 60. Therefore I declare Mrs Witmer's amendment to section 26 defeated.
Shall section 26 carry -- it has already been voted on, I'm sorry.
We are now dealing with section 27, which had one amendment from Mr Offer which was out of order. Is it the pleasure of the House that section 27 carry without amendment? Is it agreeable to have the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 27 of the bill carried.
Section 28: One out-of-order amendment from Mr Offer. Is it the pleasure of the House that section 28 carry without amendments with the same vote? Agreed.
Therefore I declare section 28 of the bill carried.
Likewise for section 29: Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with the same vote? Agreed.
I therefore declare section 29 of the bill carried.
I have now reached the end of the questions. The remainder of the bill has been dealt with. Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with Bill 40 as amended? Agreed.
Shall the bill be reported as amended? Agreed.
Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, I move that the committee rise and report.
The Second Deputy Chair: The government House leader has moved that the committee rise and report.
The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.
Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): It being well past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Thursday, October 29, at 10 o'clock of the morning.
The House adjourned at 1947.