Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

No. 246 N^o 246

Votes and Proceedings

Procès-verbaux

Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1st Session, 36th Parliament

1re session, 36e législature

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

Mardi 18 novembre 1997

PRAYERS 1:30 P.M.

PRIÈRES 13 H 30

MOTIONS

MOTIONS

With unanimous consent, on motion by Mr Sterling,

Avec le consentement unanime, sur la motion de M. Sterling,

Ordered, That, An humble Address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:-

We Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of the Honourable Robert C. Rutherford, as Integrity Commissioner, as provided in section 23 of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, chapter 38, to hold office under the terms and conditions of the said Act commencing December 1, 1997.

The Speaker delivered the following rulings:-

Yesterday, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised a matter of privilege relating to advertisements sponsored by the government that address issues concerning Bill 160 and the recent province-wide work stoppage by teachers.

Both members asserted that the advertisements convey their messages in highly partisan terms, to the extent that the ad campaign amounts to an unfair and abusive use of public funds, funds that are not available to all sides in this House.

Because of the alleged advantage taken of this uneven distribution of opportunity, it was asserted by the members that their privileges had been breached.

The members for Cochrane South, Fort William, Scarborough-Agincourt and the Government House Leader also made submissions. I have carefully reviewed those comments and the materials that were provided to me.

I want to say that this point of privilege revolves around an issue that is not new to this Chamber. Government advertising has increasingly been a source of concern and complaint for members ever since it has been embraced by governments of the day as a method of communicating with the general public. Indeed, the members who spoke to this point have all been members of governments that have themselves been subject to the very complaint that underlies this point of privilege.

Privilege, as set out in our Standing Orders and in the parliamentary texts, is a very special thing. Its essence is that each of us has a right to be here, in this Chamber; to speak to and vote on the issues of the day; to be free from intimidation or obstruction in doing our parliamentary work; for the Assembly to be free from contempt, and to have those privileges protected.

As your Speaker, I must determine, if asked to do so, if any member's entitlement to these very extraordinary parliamentary benefits has been threatened, or if the proceedings of the Legislature have been reflected upon or presumed in a manner that amounts to a contempt of the House.

That is a very imposing duty, but it is also a very imposing test.

The test for a successful case of privilege must surely be, "How does the event or activity aggrieved of prevent either the member, or parliament itself, from performing its functions? Or, does this activity call the Assembly and its honour and integrity into disrepute?".

In the case at hand, does the ad campaign complained about impede any of us, as M.P.P.'s, in our functions? Does the campaign call the role of the legislature into question, or criticize it, or anticipate it?

In my view it does none of these things. The ads may represent an aggressive challenge to opposing views put forward by others, but I do not believe they caused any of us to come here without the uncontested ability to continue the debate on this issue, nor can it be argued that the respect due to this House is diminished by the wording of the ads. Therefore I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

Before concluding, I wish to make an observation.

On previous occasions, I have expressed concern about the nature, tone and propriety of advertisements or similar distributions made by the government. I continue to hold those reservations and strongly encourage this and any future government to consider the power and influence that they wield when they send their messages to the broad public.

I ask for the indulgence of the House to allow me to make a brief statement respecting the public galleries.

Members of the public have the opportunity to observe first hand the legislative process by attending the public galleries. This attendance though is contingent upon compliance with the rules as clearly outlined on the gallery passes. For example, one such rule states "demonstrations are not permitted in the building including the galleries. This includes the display of signs, banners, buttons or other activities". Another says that "Visitors must refrain from applause or making any interruption or disturbance." There is no ambiguity about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The gallery is not a place for demonstrations or protest.

As stated in my earlier ruling, the essence of Parliamentary Privilege is that members must be free from intimidation or obstruction in doing our parliamentary work and members have the right to have these privileges protected on both sides of the House. When the public in the galleries cause disruptions, they impede the progress of business in this House and, in extreme cases, offend the privileges of members. It is my role to protect those privileges, and it falls to me to remedy these situations when they occur.

Public causing disruptions from the galleries will be asked to leave. In the case of an individual standing and yelling out, he or she is asked to leave and the gallery cautioned. However, when it appears that such individual outbursts are part of a larger demonstration, I am sure members can appreciate that there is a limit to the number of cautions that can reasonably be given before the entire gallery must be cleared.

Demonstrations are certainly a part of the democratic process of this Province and I have encouraged and accommodated these demonstrations outside, on the front lawn of the Legislature.

But inside this place, protest and demonstration is completely unacceptable. This Chamber is the forum for considered debate, and the public gallery the place from which to observe that debate.

During "Oral Questions", as a result of disruptions, the Speaker ordered all Galleries to be cleared and the House was recessed for 15 minutes.

PETITIONS

PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to Stopping the Funding of Abortions (Sessional Paper No. P-93) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Mr E. Hardeman.

Petition relating to Support for all current forms of black bear hunting (Sessional Paper No. P-275) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Mr P. Preston.

Petition relating to Withdrawal of Bill 136 (Sessional Paper No. P-290) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Ms S. Martel.

Petition relating to Bill 160, Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997 (Sessional Paper No. P-321) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Mr F. Miclash.

Petition relating to Naming Highway 416 The Veterans' Memorial Parkway (Sessional Paper No. P-324) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Mr J. Baird.

Petition relating to Amending the Regulatory Tobacco Act (Sessional Paper No. P-325) (Tabled November 18, 1997) Mr T. Barrett.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

A debate arose on the motion for Third Reading of Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies.

Il s'élève un débat sur la motion portant troisième lecture du projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.

At 5:45 p.m., pursuant to the Order of the House of June 2, 1997, the Speaker interrupted the proceedings and put the question, which motion was carried on the following division:-

À 17 h 45, conformément à l'ordre adopté par l'Assemblée le 2 juin 1997, le Président interrompt les délibérations et met la question aux voix et ladite motion est adoptée par le vote suivant:-

Arnott Hodgson Preston

Baird Jackson Rollins

Barrett Johns Ross

Beaubien Johnson Runciman

Boushy (Brantford) Saunderson

Carroll Johnson Shea

Chudleigh (Don Mills) Skarica

Cunningham Jordan Smith

Danford Klees Sterling

DeFaria Leach Tascona

Doyle Leadston Tilson

Fisher Martiniuk Tsubouchi

Flaherty Maves Turnbull

Ford McLean Vankoughnet

Fox Munro Villeneuve

Froese Murdoch Wettlaufer

Galt Mushinski Wilson

Gilchrist Newman Wood

Grimmett O'Toole (London South)

Guzzo Ouellette Young

Harnick Palladini

Hastings Pettit

Bisson Gerretsen McLeod

Boyd Grandmaître Miclash

Bradley Gravelle Patten

Brown Hampton Phillips

(Algoma-Manitoulin) Kennedy Pouliot

Caplan Kormos Pupatello

Christopherson Kwinter Ramsay

Churley Lalonde Ruprecht

Cleary Laughren Silipo

Conway Lessard Wildman

Crozier Marchese Wood

Cullen Martel (Cochrane North)

Duncan Martin

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.

The House then adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

À 18 h, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.