No. 11 No 11
|
Votes and Proceedings |
Procès-verbaux |
|
Legislative Assembly of Ontario |
Assemblée législative de l'Ontario |
|
1st Session, 36th Parliament |
1re session, 36e législature |
|
Tuesday, October 17, 1995 |
Mardi 17 octobre 1995 |
|
PRAYERS 1:30 P.M. |
PRIÈRES 13 H 30 |
The Speaker informed the House that he has today laid upon the Table the Individual Members' Expenditures for the fiscal year 1994/95 / Relevé des dépenses des députés pour l'exercice 1994-95 (Sessional Paper No. 18) (Tabled October 17, 1995).
The Speaker delivered the following rulings:-
Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) rose on a question of order to seek my advice concerning another member's connection with a lottery that was held in that member's constituency.
If the member for Windsor-Riverside is indicating or has been informed that the situation raises a criminal matter, I have to say that I cannot advise the member as to what course of action he should take. Our precedents indicate that the Speaker is not in a position to render legal advice or an opinion. I refer the member to rulings at page 4,257 of the Hansard for June 13, 1988, page 692 of the Hansard for April 23, 1990, and page 213 of the Hansard for April 22, 1993.
Nevertheless, I thank the member for his concern.
Yesterday, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) rose in the House on a question of privilege before Question Period. The member requested that the Speaker determine whether or not the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Tsubouchi) was "deliberately misleading the members of this House" when he indicated in last Tuesday's Question Period that the government had made no decision on a matter concerning his portfolio. The member also requested that the Speaker determine whether or not "the Premier did counsel the minister to make misleading statements..."
The Leader of the Third Party (Mr Rae), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mrs McLeod), and the Premier (Mr Harris) spoke to the question of privilege.
Later the same day, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin) rose on a question of privilege that was separate from but related to the question of privilege raised by the member for Algoma. The member requested that the Speaker review the record concerning a document that the Minister of Community and Social Services had indicated earlier he would be willing to make available.
I have had an opportunity to review the Hansard, our precedents and the relevant authorities concerning the issues raised in these various submissions.
Let me say several things at the outset. First, because members -- all members -- are presumed to be honourable, no member should suggest otherwise.
Second, it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to determine the veracity of statements that are made in the House. In this regard, let me refer members to 2 precedents. On June 7, 1988 a member rose in this House on a question of privilege concerning an alleged inconsistency in a minister's response to an oral question. The member requested that the matter be referred to a committee "to determine whether the minister intentionally or whether the minister inadvertently lied to the House." Speaker Edighoffer responded by making the following remarks (at page 4,101 of that day's Hansard):
It is not the Speaker's duty to judge the validity of the words used. I cannot make a judgement on whether any member has stated the facts correctly.
In a similar vein, Speaker Warner made the following remarks on November 18, 1993 (at page 4,140 of the Hansard for that day) in response to a member's claim that a minister was misleading the House:
The veracity of statements is not to be tested by the Speaker. Those are matters to be dealt with by members of the House in orderly debate.
Let me now turn to the extract from page 119 of the 21st edition of Erskine May that was mentioned by the member for Algoma. The authority for the proposition in Erskine May that making a deliberately misleading statement in the House may be grounds for contempt is a 1963 resolution of the House of Commons at Westminster. That resolution found a member guilty of a grave contempt for making a personal statement in the House that he later admitted was not true. The circumstances raised by the member for Algoma -- and the similar set of circumstances raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- cannot compare with the very serious circumstances associated with that incident.
That 1963 resolution is the only authority in Erskine May for the proposition that the making of a deliberately misleading statement may be treated as a contempt. The circumstances surrounding that resolution are explained in greater detail at pages 704 and 705 of the 2nd edition of the House of Representatives Practice. This authority indicates that although many claims have been raised -- as a matter of privilege or contempt -- that a member has deliberately misled the House, no Speaker has ever accepted such a claim.
These statistics suggest an obvious point, namely, that it will be a rare situation indeed in which there can be a finding of contempt. The incidents that were brought to my attention yesterday are not suggestive of contempt.
On a separate but related matter, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) rose on question of order concerning the way in which the member for Algoma had framed his question of privilege. My review of Hansard indicates that when the member for Algoma used the words "deliberately misleading" and "misleading", he did so in the context of a request that the Speaker review the circumstances. As the member for Algoma himself indicated, he was not suggesting that the minister had misled members.
I thank the various members who made submissions on the matters addressed in this ruling for their contributions.
On Monday, October 16, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) introduced a bill entitled, "An Act respecting the rounding of the Penny in Cash Transactions". It has been brought to my attention that this bill is in unilingual format only, which is contrary to Section 3(2) of the French Language Services Act, 1986. I must, therefore, advise the House that this bill contravenes Standing Order 38(d) and must be removed from the Order Paper.
|
MOTIONS |
MOTIONS |
|
With unanimous consent, the following motion was moved without notice:- |
Avec le consentement unanime, la motion suivante est proposée sans préavis:- |
|
On motion by Mr Sterling, |
Sur la motion de M. Sterling, |
Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 110(a) and for the duration of the 36th Parliament, no standing or select committee shall consist of more than 14 members.
|
With unanimous consent, the following motion was moved without notice:- |
Avec le consentement unanime, la motion suivante est proposée sans préavis:- |
|
Mr Sterling moved, |
M. Sterling propose, |
That the membership of the standing committees for this Session be as follows:
Standing Committee on Administration of Justice:-
Mrs Boyd
Mr Chiarelli
Mr Conway
Mr Doyle
Mr Guzzo
Mr Hampton
Mr Hudak
Mr Johnson (Brantford)
Mr Klees
Mr Leadston
Mr Martiniuk
Mr Parker
Mr Ramsay
Mr Tilson
Standing Committee on Estimates:-
Mr Barrett
Mr Bisson
Mr Brown (Algoma Manitoulin)
Mr Brown (Scarborough West)
Mr Cleary
Mr Clement
Mr Curling
Mr Cordiano
Mr Kells
Mr Martin
Mr Rollins
Mrs Ross
Mr Sheehan
Mr Wettlaufer
Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs:-
Mr Arnott
Mr Brown (Scarborough West)
Ms Castrilli
Mr Chudleigh
Mr Ford
Mr Hudak
Ms Lankin
Mr Kwinter
Mr Martiniuk
Mr Phillips
Mr Sampson
Mr Silipo
Mr Spina
Mr Wettlaufer
Standing Committee on General Government:-
Mr Carroll
Mr Danford
Mr Flaherty
Mr Grandmaître
Mr Hardeman
Mr Kells
Mr Marchese
Mr Maves
Ms Pupatello
Mr Sergio
Mr Stewart
Mr Tascona
Mr Wood (Cochrane North)
Mr Young
Standing Committee on Government Agencies:-
Mr Bartolucci
Mr Crozier
Mr Ford
Mr Fox
Mr Gravelle
Mr Johnson (Perth)
Mr Kormos
Mr Laughren
Mr Leadston
Mr Martin
Mr Newman
Mr Preston
Mrs Ross
Mr Wood (London South)
Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly:-
Mr Arnott
Mr Bartolucci
Mr Boushy
Mr Cooke
Mr DeFaria
Mr Froese
Mr Hastings
Mr Grimmett
Mr Johnson (Brantford)
Mr Miclash
Mr Morin
Mr O'Toole
Mr Silipo
Mr Stewart
Standing Committee on the Ombudsman:-
Mrs Caplan
Mr DeFaria
Mr Doyle
Mrs Fisher
Mr Froese
Mr Galt
Mr Hoy
Mr Jordon
Mr Lalonde
Mr Marchese
Mr Parker
Mr Stockwell
Mr Vankoughnet
Mr Wood (Cochrane North)
Standing Committee on Public Accounts:-
Mr Agostino
Mr Beaubien
Mr Boushy
Mr Carr
Mr Colle
Mr Crozier
Mr Fox
Mr Gilchrist
Mr Hastings
Ms Martel
Mr McGuinty
Mr Pouliot
Mr Skarica
Mr Vankoughnet
Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills:-
Mr Barrett
Mr Bisson
Mr Boushy
Mr Hastings
Mr O'Toole
Mr Pettit
Mr Pouliot
Ms Pupatello
Mr Rollins
Mr Ruprecht
Mr Sergio
Mr Shea
Mr Sheehan
Mr Smith
Standing Committee on Resources Development:-
Mr Baird
Mr Carroll
Mr Christopherson
Mr Chudleigh
Ms Churley
Mr Duncan
Mrs Fisher
Mr Gilchrist
Mr Hoy
Mr Lalonde
Mr Maves
Mr Murdoch
Mr Ouellette
Mr Tascona
Standing Committee on Social Development:-
Mr Agostino
Mrs Ecker
Mr Gerretsen
Mr Gravelle
Mrs Johns
Mr Jordon
Mr Laughren
Mrs Munro
Mr Newman
Mr Patten
Mr Pettit
Mr Preston
Mr Smith
Mr Wildman
|
And a debate having ensued, it was, |
Un débat s'ensuit et |
|
On motion by Mr Rae, |
Sur la motion de M. Rae, |
|
Ordered, That the debate be adjourned. |
Il est ordonné que le débat soit ajourné. |
|
On motion by Mr Sterling, |
Sur la motion de M. Sterling, |
Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 8(a), the House shall meet at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 19, 1995.
|
On motion by Mr Sterling, |
Sur la motion de M. Sterling, |
Ordered, That, notwithstanding Standing Order 96, private members' public business not be considered until Thursday, October 26, 1995 and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 to 4 inclusive.
|
PETITIONS |
PÉTITIONS |
Petition relating to Karla Homolka's Plea Bargain Arrangement (Sessional Paper No. P-6) (Tabled October 17, 1995) Mr J. Gerretsen.
Petition relating to Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act (Sessional Paper No. P-7) (Tabled October 17, 1995) Mrs M. Marland.
|
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS |
DÉPOT DES PROJETS DE LOI |
|
The following Bill was introduced and read the first time:- |
Le projet de loi suivant est présenté et lu une première fois:- |
|
Bill 10, An Act respecting the Price of Motor Vehicle Fuel and protecting Whistleblowers in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Industry. Mr R. Chiarelli. |
Projet de loi 10, Loi concernant le prix du carburant pour véhicules automobiles et visant à protéger les dénonciateurs dans l'industrie du carburant pour véhicules automobiles. M. R. Chiarelli. |
|
ORDERS OF THE DAY |
ORDRE DU JOUR |
|
Opposition Day |
Jour de l'opposition |
|
Mr Rae moved, |
M. Rae propose, |
Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that "our obligation to those in need is even greater in the case of our children"; and
Whereas the Common Sense Revolution also notes that "children living in poverty suffer from significantly higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancies and tend to receive poor nutrition and education"; and
Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who live on welfare through cuts in welfare benefits, because 41% of the people living on welfare are children; and
Whereas the 22% cut in welfare benefits hurts children most of all - children who will have to do without the food, clothing or adequate housing they need, children who have no way to fight back against the cuts; and
Whereas, Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who need day care by cutting the funding for day care provided through jobsOntario Training, so parents can't look for work or take job training; and
Whereas, this punishes families trying to help themselves and makes safe and dependable day care for their kids less accessible; and
Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids who need extra help - abused children, children with disabilities, children from troubled homes - by cutting the budget for services like Children's Aid Societies, children's mental health centres and second-stage housing for women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence and abuse; and
Whereas Mike Harris's government is hurting kids and their families by eliminating jobs, by making it harder for them to make ends meet and harder to get training to get back to work; and
Whereas Mike Harris's government is cancelling early childhood education pilot projects and making junior kindergarten less accessible for children across the province, despite a generation's evidence that education supports in the early years pay huge positive dividends later in children's lives;
Therefore, this House calls on the Mike Harris government to stop hurting Ontario's children, primarily by restoring the benefits it has seized by means of welfare rate cuts, but also by restoring the funding cuts it has made to child care provision, to training, and to social service agencies.
|
A debate arising, after some time, the motion was lost on the following division:- |
Un débat s'ensuit et après quelque temps, la motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:- |
AYES / POUR - 33
Agostino Duncan Morin
Bartolucci Gerretsen Patten
Bisson Gravelle Phillips
Brown Hoy Pouliot
(Algoma-Manitoulin) Kwinter Pupatello
Castrilli Lankin Ramsay
Churley Marchese Sergio
Cleary Martel Silipo
Cooke Martin Wildman
Cordiano McGuinty Wood
Crozier McLeod (Cochrane North)
Curling Miclash
NAYS / CONTRE - 67
Arnott Guzzo Parker
Baird Hardeman Pettit
Barrett Harnick Preston
Bassett Hastings Rollins
Beaubien Hodgson Ross
Boushy Hudak Runciman
Brown Jackson Sampson
(Scarborough West) Johns Saunderson
Carroll Johnson Shea
Chudleigh (Brantford) Sheehan
Clement Johnson Skarica
Danford (Don Mills) Smith
DeFaria Johnson Snobelen
Doyle (Perth) Sterling
Ecker Jordan Tascona
Elliott Kells Tilson
Fisher Leadston Tsubouchi
Flaherty Marland Turnbull
Ford Martiniuk Vankoughnet
Fox Maves Villeneuve
Froese Murdoch Wettlaufer
Galt Newman Wilson
Gilchrist O'Toole Wood
Grimmett Ouellette (London South)
|
At 6:00 p.m., the question "That this House do now adjourn" was deemed to have been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 34(b). |
À 18 heures, la motion portant «Que la présente Assemblée ajourne les débats maintenant» est réputée avoir été proposée conformément à l'article 34(b) du Règlement. |
|
After one matter was considered, the question was deemed to have been adopted. |
Après l'étude d'une question, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été adoptée. |
|
The House then adjourned at 6:10 p.m. |
À 18 h, 10 la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux. |
le président
Allan McLean
Speaker