Votes and Proceedings 2001-Oct-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario



No. 56	N^o 56

Votes and Proceedings	Procès-verbaux
Legislative Assembly of Ontario	Assemblée législative de l'Ontario
Wednesday October 24, 2001 Daytime Meeting - Sessional Day 83 Evening Meeting - Sessional Day 84	Mercredi 24 octobre 2001 Séance de l'après-midi - jour de session 83 Séance du soir - jour de session 84
2nd Session, 37th Parliament	2^e session 37^e législature


Prayers 1:30 P.M.			Prières 13 H 30
The Speaker addressed the House as follows:- I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the Fourteenth Report / quatorzième rapport of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(e), the Report is deemed to be adopted by the House (Sessional Paper No. 154).

Reports by Committees			Rapports des Comités
Mr. Barrett from the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy presented the Committee's Report which was read as follows and adopted:-			M. Barrett du Comité permanent de la justice et des affaires sociales présente le rapport du comité qui est lu comme suit et adopté:-
Your Committee begs to report the following Bill without amendment:-			Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant sans amendement:-
Bill 14, An Act to encourage awareness of the need for the early detection and treatment of brain tumours. And the Bill was accordingly Ordered for Third Reading.			Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à favoriser la sensibilisation à la nécessité du dépistage et du traitement précoces des tumeurs cérébrales. En conséquence, le projet de loi est ordonné pour la troisième lecture.

Introduction of Bills			Dépôt 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 118, An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to require annual cost-of-living adjustments to income support payments. Mr. Martin.			Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue d'exiger des rajustements annuels relatifs au coût de la vie en ce qui concerne les versements du soutien du revenu. M. Martin.

Deferred Votes			Votes différés
The deferred vote on the motion for Third Reading of Bill 65, An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs was carried on the following division:-			La motion portant troisième lecture du projet de loi 65, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés aux programmes à l'intention des usagers de la route, mise aux voix sur le vote différé, est adoptée par le vote suivant:-
AYES / POUR - 47
Arnott Baird Barrett Beaubien Chudleigh Clark Clement Coburn Cunningham DeFaria	Dunlop Ecker Elliott Flaherty Galt Gill Hardeman Hudak Jackson Johns	Johnson Kells Martiniuk Maves Miller Molinari Munro Murdoch Mushinski		Newman O'Toole Ouellette Runciman Sampson Snobelen Spina Sterling Stewart	Stockwell Tascona Tsubouchi Turnbull Wettlaufer Wilson Witmer Wood Young
NAYS / CONTRE - 36
Agostino Bartolucci Bountrogianni Bradley Brown Bryant Caplan Churley	Cleary Colle Crozier Curling Di Cocco Dombrowsky Duncan	Gerretsen Gravelle Hampton Hoy Kennedy Kormos Kwinter		Lalonde Levac Marchese Martel Martin McLeod McMeekin	Peters Phillips Prue Pupatello Ramsay Sergio Sorbara
And the Bill was accordingly read the third time and was passed.			En conséquence, ce projet de loi est lu une troisième fois et adopté.

Petitions			Pétitions
Petitions relating to the New City of Kawartha Lakes (Sessional Paper No. P-59) Mr. Levac, Mr. Martin and Mr. Prue. Petition relating to the Preservation of the Kedron Dells Golf Course in Oshawa (Sessional Paper No. P-85) Mr. O'Toole. Petition relating to Increasing funding for Home Care Services / Pratiques budgétaires réellement axées sur les patients dans le domaine des soins de santé et soins à domicile (Sessional Paper No. P-90) Mrs. Dombrowsky. Petition relating to Passing Bill 4, Saving For Our Children's Future Act, 2001(Sessional Paper No. P-97) Mr. Hastings. Petition relating to Stopping the claw back of the National Child Tax Benefit Supplement (Sessional Paper No. P-100) Mr. Martin. Petition relating to Providing Funding to prevent the closure of Emery Adult Learning Centre (Sessional Paper No. P-109) Mr. Sergio.

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

Orders of the Day			Ordre du Jour
Opposition Day			Jour de l'opposition
Mr. Hampton moved,			M. Hampton propose,
That the Legislative Assembly calls on the provincial government to implement a temporary provincial sales tax holiday to provide immediate stimulus to Ontario's sagging economy, to enhance consumer confidence and to create a progressive tax cut that would help working families at the cash register when they need it most.
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 - 7
Churley Hampton	Kormos Marchese	Martel		Martin	Prue
NAYS / CONTRE - 66
Arnott Baird Barrett Beaubien Bountrogianni Caplan Chudleigh Clement Coburn Colle Cordiano Crozier Cunningham Curling	DeFaria Di Cocco Dombrowsky Duncan Dunlop Ecker Elliott Flaherty Galt Gill Gravelle Guzzo Hardeman	Harris Hastings Hudak Johns Johnson Kells Klees Lalonde Levac Martiniuk Maves McMeekin Miller		Molinari Munro Murdoch Mushinski O'Toole Peters Phillips Pupatello Ramsay Runciman Sampson Sergio Smitherman	Snobelen Spina Sterling Stewart Stockwell Tascona Tsubouchi Turnbull Wettlaufer Wilson Witmer Wood Young

The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-
I have had an opportunity to consider the point of order raised and the submissions made respecting private members' motion number 8 standing in the name of Mr. Guzzo. I take seriously the very good point made by the House Leader of the Official Opposition and will rule now in order to facilitate tomorrow's business of the House. I'm sure that it will come as no surprise to the House that this motion has caused me some concern since it first appeared on the Orders and Notices Paper. While my attention was drawn to the motion in the first place because the Speaker figures significantly in it, there are a number of other reasons for my reservations as to its orderliness. And let me be clear on this point, the Speaker makes a decision on these matters based on procedural considerations. There are ample precedents here and elsewhere referring to the inability and indeed undesirability of a Speaker ruling on legal or constitutional issues. What is before the House today is, as the Member for St Paul's has said, the orderliness of the motion itself and not its legality. I also want to address the point raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to the fact that the motion remained on the Orders and Notices Paper when others were recently removed. Members should be aware that the private members' motions recently stricken from the Orders and Notices Paper were stricken in response to a ruling specific to preambles and recitals. It was in that context only that the motions were reviewed. As I have said, this motion even at that time, caused me some concern. But, in the absence of a point of order being raised, I was inclined to do as the member for London West suggested I should do which was to exercise discretion in favour of leaving it on until the motion was moved. However, a point of order having been now raised, I am required to render an explicit decision which necessitates closer scrutiny of the motion. I want to start by saying a few words about the nature of private members' motions. As members well know, private members' motions are typically framed so that if and when they carry, they constitute expressions of the opinion of the House; in other words, they are said to be non-binding. This same principle has been applied on several occasions during the time allotted to consideration of private member's public business when the Speaker has denied requests for unanimous consent to give third reading to a bill or to alter some later proceeding of the House. When Members are meeting for the purpose of considering private members' business, they cannot bind the House to a final decision on a matter. Were it otherwise, a government could easily take advantage of its majority and a time-limited private members' debate to pass motions which could, for example, amend the Standing Orders. This is clearly not the intended purpose of private members' public business. There are certain restrictions on the form of Private Members' motions. It is true, as the Member for St Paul's asserts, the restrictions are limited and should be carefully applied but I believe that this motion crosses that restricted line. Let me be clear, the restrictions I speak of refer to form not content. The motion standing in the name of Mr. Guzzo, should it carry would bind the Speaker to a certain course of action. I would find the motion less objectionable if it was worded in such a way as to be merely an expression of opinion and not an order of the House. This leads me to my second concern, which focuses on the terms of the motion itself, and specifically, the direction it gives to the Speaker. The Speaker's role and responsibility can be divided into three categories. First the Speaker presides over this House and decides on procedural matters; second the Speaker is responsible for the administration of the Office of the Assembly; and third, the Speaker has an official role as representative of the Legislative Assembly. The motion in question seeks to have the Speaker do that which is outside the traditions and boundaries, which constitute the role and responsibility of the office. It is a motion that attempts to direct the Speaker to do that which is beyond the scope of his authority and for that reason it is a motion that could not be perfected. The Member for Niagara Centre suggested that somehow the Speaker has a lesser obligation to comply with the terms of a motion than he would to a statute. I beg to differ, as Speaker, I am honour bound to respond to the directives given by this House. The Standing Orders are determined by motion of this House, they are not created by legislation, but a Speaker has no authority, nor has he a right to ignore them. Finally, I have reservations about the part of the motion that deals with the funding for this inquiry. Members will know that Standing Order 56 prohibits private members from moving any motion, the passage of which would have the effect of causing a direct expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund. It is my opinion that the motion in question contravenes Standing Order 56. The numerous concerns that I have outlined are enough collectively for me to determine without hesitation that this motion is out of order and I am directing that it be stricken from the Orders and Notices Paper. That said, I do note that the Member for Ottawa West-Nepean has a bill on this same subject standing in his name on the Orders and Notices Paper and since the notice provisions have been met he may if he so wishes move second reading of that bill during the time allotted for consideration of his ballot item tomorrow morning.

The House then adjourned at 6:20 p.m.			À 18 h 20, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.

6:45 P.M.			18 H 45
Orders of the Day			Ordre du Jour
Debate was resumed on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 60, An Act to give victims a greater role at parole hearings, to hold offenders accountable for their actions, to provide for inmate grooming standards, and to make other amendments to the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.			Le débat reprend sur la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 60, Loi visant à accroître le rôle des victimes aux audiences de libération conditionnelle et à responsabiliser les délinquants à l'égard de leurs actes, prévoyant des normes relatives à la toilette des détenus et apportant d'autres modifications à la Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels.
After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried.			Après quelque temps, conformément à l'article 9(a) du Règlement, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée.

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

Petition Tabled Pursuant to Standing Order 38 (A) Petition relating to a Two-tier health care (Sessional Paper No. P- 24) Mr. Peters. Petition relating to Rising prices for Home Care services purchased by Community Care Access Centres (Sessional Paper No. P-72) Mr. Duncan. Petition relating to Maintaining Health Services in Southwestern Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-102) Mr. Peters.

Responses to Petitions			Réponses aux Pétitions
Petition relating to Brain Tumour Awareness Month (Sessional Paper No. P-27): (Tabled June 28, 2001) Mr. Wood. Petition relating to Three remaining Developmentally Handicapped Regional Centres (Sessional Paper No. P-52): (Tabled June 11, 2001) Mr. Hoy. Petitions relating to Shortage of Nursing staff in Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-61): (Tabled June 12, 2001) Mr. Bradley, Mr. Bryant and Mrs. McLeod. (Tabled June 14, 20; September 26, 2001) Mrs. McLeod. (Tabled June 28, 2001) Mrs. Dombrowsky and Mr. Peters. (Tabled September 25, 2001) Mr. Conway.

October 24, 2001