role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 10, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. Y

Hansard Transcripts

vol. Z

L176Y - Thu 10 Apr 1997 / Jeu 10 Avr 1997

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Report continued from volume X.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Continuing consideration of Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Will the clerks please take the count.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): Mr Chair, the government party has 50 members.

The Chair: House leader, your party has 50 members. Do you agree?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Agreed.

Clerk Assistant: The official opposition has 15.

The Chair: House leader, you have 15. Do you agree?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Yes.

Clerk Assistant: The third party has seven.

The Chair: House leader, do you agree, seven?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes.

The Chair: I have a government amendment to

section 1.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I rise on a point of order on a number of issues that have been raised in the past number of days. We've sat a long time in this place. We've sat for many hours, 24 hours a day for over a week. We're now in for another long siege, it would appear. Members have been away from their families. It certainly has been most tiring for all of us in this House.

The point of order I'm asking for you to rule on is the similar types of rulings that have been done in the previous committee of the whole sessions with respect to voting on groupings. I'm referring specifically to

section 24,

section 29 and

section 30, in other words, the points of order that were raised on those specific sections, that instead of the entire amendment being read with respect to streets, the street name be read and that will hopefully shorten down the process. I think members have indicated that they want to be able to identify these amendments, and that sounds fair, but I think to read all of the amendments with respect to streets, with respect to heritage sites, with respect to dates, would take us into an unordinarily unusual length of time.

Mr Chair, I would ask that you would rule with respect to all of those amendments and all of those groupings that they be placed in that fashion.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: First I would like you to clarify why the government member would rise to raise this matter now when we have before us, as I understand your comment, a government amendment. This is rather odd, to say the least. If you will clarify that, and if you are prepared to hear arguments on this particular matter at this point, we are prepared to make them, but it is rather strange that he would be raising arguments about opposition amendments which are not yet even called before us.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, just to clarify, if it's required, the member is rising on a point of order at this point because this is the start of the voting procedure. What he is questioning is, in his view, the flexibility and the ability of the Chair and perhaps ultimately of the Speaker to guide this process so that all of the amendments which we will be considering in the future will be under the purview of the decision that you're about to make, and perhaps the Speaker is about to make.

Over the course of the next day and days we will be encountering a number of groupings. The next particular amendment may not be one that fits that category, but this is the appropriate time, right at the outset, to set the game rules, the procedures. We all know that there is a grouping of some 8,000 amendments which are almost entirely similar. There is another grouping, from the opposition party, of some 2,000 amendments which are largely similar. We feel that it's appropriate at this point for you to consider this matter and to establish the rules in that regard by which we will be governed over the course of this particular vote.

Mr Wildman: I asked for clarification on that matter before we proceed.

The Chair: Just give me a few minutes and we'll give you a decision.

Mr Wildman: I'm questioning whether it's appropriate for us to be dealing with this when you've called a government amendment.

The Chair: We'll be dealing first with the voting process, and that was raised by Mr Tilson. I will entertain arguments on that. Mr Tilson, if I understood you properly, there are two issues here. One is to deal with the grouping of the amendments and the second is the reading of the amendments.

Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, that's correct, although I'm going one step further. If you recall, in the committee of the whole sessions we've had in the past number of days with respect to specifically streets, it was finally narrowed down to where simply the street name was referred to. I'm going one step further and saying we now know what all of those are, and surely all of those 8,000 could be voted on in one block, as could the other references with respect to historic sites and with respect to dates.

I'm going even further than what the House or the committee did in the past number of days of voting individually on each individual street. I'm saying, call those groupings as is done in the House of Commons, where in fact there is a specific standing order that refers to voting in groupings. I believe this is the appropriate time to do that in this place.

Mr Wildman: Speaker, that's a very innovative approach. To suggest that we can deem a rule that doesn't exist is really a strange argument. The House of Commons has a rule; that means they passed a rule in the House and it was debated and passed. We have no such rule in this House.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's time.

Mr Wildman: A member says it's time. He may feel that way. Unfortunately for him and his colleagues, it is not now in existence. A member can make an argument that we should look at parliamentary practice in this assembly, that we can consult Speakers' rulings and parliamentary practice in other parliaments, and that those rulings and precedents can be applied, and I would certainly agree with that.

One cannot suggest that because another assembly has a rule, that that rule should be applied here, when the rule does not exist here. It's just not possible, and to say the least, it is a rather odd argument. In the House of Commons, there is indeed a rule that allows the Speaker the discretion to group amendments that are similar. I don't think I have to go any further than to say that rule does not exist in this House, and therefore it does not apply.

It is certainly true that according to Beauchesne, members of the committee could, by unanimous consent, agree to have amendments and votes grouped, and that we could indeed agree to do any number of amendments that are similar together. I don't think it's any surprise to the members of the assembly when I tell them categorically that our caucus does not give unanimous consent for that to happen here. So that is dealt with.

In Erskine May, on page 490, it states that during debate the "grouping of amendments for debate is designed to prevent repetition," and further, "The chairman may at his discretion allow separate divisions on one or more of the subsequent amendments" after the debate.

We all know we are under a time allocation motion that has been imposed by this government because they are determined to ram this through against the wishes of 76% of the population of Metropolitan Toronto, a time allocation motion that very specifically constrained debate in this committee, constrained it to one hour only. We are not dealing with a matter before us for debate. We are dealing with the divisions for votes. We are deciding the issue.

It is our contention that we must decide the issue on each individual amendment, because each of them deals with a different matter; a different group of people is involved.

I want to remind the members of the House that one of the amendments referred to by the member for Dufferin-Peel has indeed been passed by this committee. When he talks about 8,000 amendments, one of them has already been accepted by the majority in this committee and will be part of the law if this bill passes and is declared law: Cafon Court. It has been demonstrated already in this committee that the majority on the committee is not going to treat all the amendments in the same way.

The majority on the committee has already decided that one of the amendments should pass and has indicated that they don't want the rest to pass by forcing division. We don't know that for sure. They've already passed one; it is conceivable that --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We didn't. We heard no --

Mr Wildman: Chair, I know that that's out of order, and surely the member would not be suggesting the Speaker did not rule correctly in this House.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr Wildman: I regret that members would show such disrespect for the Speaker and his high office.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: I won't respond, but I will say, Chair, that all of us in this House are bound by the rulings of the Speaker. It is our responsibility to accept those rulings because it is a rule in this House that the Speaker's rulings, unlike the Chair's rulings, cannot be challenged. Again I note that Erskine May is talking about grouping of amendments for debate. We are not involved in debate at this point. We are deciding the motion through divisions. I think it is indeed unfortunate that the government's drastic time allocation motion is not allowing debate on these issues, as we should be doing, but we are indeed not in debate.

I would also turn to the ruling of Speaker with regard to how we dealt with these amendments when they were being read into the record. The Speaker in dealing with the amendments to

section 24(4), when he made his ruling, stated clearly, and I quote, that his ruling "should not be construed to be a precedent for the reading of amendments in the future. This does not mean that I'm finding these amendments to be frivolous or tendered in a spirit of mockery." The Speaker made no indication that in making that ruling he was waiving the full reading of amendments which is so stringently required in Beauchesne.

It is clearly beyond the authority of the Chair of this committee to, upon his own volition, exercise the authority to act in exceptional circumstances, as the Speaker did. That would be quite extraordinary. It would be quite extraordinary for the Chair of this committee to extend an abridgement of the rights of the members of this House to hearing amendments read upon division. I'm saying the amendments can be grouped, but only by unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.

There is no rule here. With regard to the reading of the amendments, when the Speaker ruled he made it clear it was not a precedent and he also did not waive the reading of amendments for this proceeding. It is our contention that in order for amendments to be understood, members of the committee have the right, and indeed the responsibility if they don't understand what is before them, to request the amendment to be read so that they and others who are observing the proceedings and others who are participating in the proceedings will understand fully what the amendment is and its import before voting.

I call on you, Chair, to exercise your responsibility first to deal with amendments individually, and second to protect the rights of all members of the House to request amendments to be read if they are unsure of what is before them or in any way confused about the import or possible impact of the amendment if it is passed.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'll deal first with the government's submission on the motion to combine amendments and subsequently with dispensing the reading of the amendments. Let me say to you, Chair, that there's absolutely no authority for the propositions which the government has put before you. There is nothing in our standing orders, there's nothing in our traditions, there's nothing in the legislative precedents which would guide you to rule as the government would have you do.

Our standing orders are silent on the point. The only standing order that in fact exists is a ruling of the House of Commons that has no application whatsoever to our circumstances. There has never been a vote in the history of this Legislature that has in fact been on the basis that the government suggests. I will remind you that subsection 1(

a) of our standing orders clearly says, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in all committees of the assembly shall be conducted according to the following standing orders." I defy the members of the government to find one standing order that supports their proposition.

Section 1(

b) goes on to say, "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." Again, the government has presented no evidence that there are any such precedents or any such parliamentary traditions.

In other words, in situations which aren't addressed by the standing orders, Chair, the decision falls upon you and your discretion must be guided by what I will cite to you are some of the rules for exercising such discretion. Firstly I would cite to you Beauchesne's citation 327:

"The Speaker or the Chairman of a committee of the whole ought not to consider the consequences of the adoption or rejection of a motion or an amendment, nor is it their concern whether ministers of the crown or private members are proceeding fast enough with their bills or motions. All the Speaker has to do is to see that the rules of procedure are observed."

I will recall to you that the Speaker himself cited the intent of that citation in one of his previous rulings. Therefore it's not up to you to decide whether time is a factor, whether speed is a factor, whether expeditiousness is a factor. That is up to the House to determine. Your concern is to ensure that the procedures of the House are followed.

I also submit to you that if you were to find that the government motion is in order, you would be breaching the parliamentary privileges of this House. Beauchesne's defines parliamentary privileges as the "sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

The paragraph then goes on to say that such privileges "are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity." With respect to the privileges of the House as a whole, Beauchesne states, "The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them."

The standing orders again, I submit to you, are silent, and for you to adopt the position of the government would amount to creating a new order which this House has in fact not agreed to. The only way that the motion of the government could be acceded to is if there were unanimous consent of this House, and it would certainly be open to anyone to ask for unanimous consent of this House with respect to that.

Reference has been made to the standing order of the House of Commons rule 76(5). I'd like to just read it for the members so they know what we're talking about. It says, "The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage...." It's very specific: "at the report stage." We are not at the report stage and the rule has no application to this House, but even if it did it would be inapplicable because it does not pertain to the conditions that we are in at the moment.

You should also be aware that it is not mandatory for the Speaker to combine amendments even under rule 76(5). The commentary to rule 76(5) of the House of Commons states that

section 5 authorizes the Speaker to make decisions concerning whether motions can be considered by the House or not. Those that can may be grouped for debate when one vote will dispense with a grouping or a series of votes, depending on the Chair's decision, but in any event there is a facility for consultation with the members pursuant to the commentary. It is not an absolute and unfettered discretion on the part of the Chair to simply group amendments, even if that

section were applicable, which we submit it is not.

There has been, as you know, one amendment which has indeed passed this House, so the contention that we would be able to vote on all of them at once and that we would get an identical vote is certainly not supported by the evidence before us. It falls again under the issue of privilege that members should have the opportunity to vote on each amendment and to be able to do it as they wish. There is absolutely no predetermination of votes nor should there be in this case. Members simply cannot be deprived of the opportunity to judge each amendment as a separate question and upon its own merits.

Further, Chair, I would remind you that the Speaker himself has pointed out repeatedly during this process that members have the right to know what they have voted on. In his ruling with respect to our Liberal amendments to

section 29, he stated, "The principle that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on must guide me in this circumstance." I would suggest to you that this is another of those circumstances by which you must be guided by the Speaker's own words.

As to the reading of the amendments and dispensing with them, I think I've already dealt with some of it under the category of privilege. It is simply a privilege of each member of this House to know what it is that they are voting on.

Section 28(

c) of the standing orders deals with division and it reads as follows, "When the members have been called in, the Speaker shall again put the question and every member present at that time, subject to standing order 12, shall record his or her vote."

Section 1(

a) of the standing orders, which I've read before, provides that, "The proceedings in the Legislative Assembly...shall be conducted according to the...standing orders." That is the one standing order that applies in this particular case.

It is not just a matter of practice and tradition; it is clearly set out in the standing orders that the question must be put again before division. It is not just a matter of long-standing parliamentary tradition; as I've said, it's a requirement. Therefore it isn't up to the Chair to decide how or whether to enforce this requirement. It's a provision of the rules governing this House and must be enforced by the Chair. The practice of requiring an amendment to be read gives all of the members of the House the opportunity to hear the proposed amendment, to consider it and to know what they are voting on. You have a right, you have a duty and a responsibility to preserve that right

We acknowledge that the Speaker has already ruled that he has latitude to act in exceptional circumstances. We also know that the House is dealing with an exceptional circumstance: We are dealing with an extraordinary number of amendments. Yet we submit that in order to protect and preserve the privilege of members, as you are required to do under our traditions and under our standing orders, you must ensure that there is a reading before division.

In the case of our own amendments under

section 29, not to read the amendments would indeed be a breach of those privileges. As you know, each amendment is quite different. It requires the insertion of three and sometimes four pieces of information, and to suggest that we would be able to simply vote on all of them as a package and dispense with the reading would certainly be a fundamental breach of our privileges.

Therefore, Chair, in conclusion, I submit to you that there is no authority for the propositions that the government has put before you; that in fact if you were to act in accordance with the government's motion, you would be breaching the fundamental privileges of this House, and that is certainly something that this House would be extremely diminished by.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Chair, my colleague for Algoma has already alluded to the non-applicability of rules from our other parliamentary Houses to the procedures in this Legislative Assembly and I will not go over that argument again. What I would like to do is deal specifically with the two rulings on this issue which have already been made during the course of this committee proceeding by the Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. I believe both rulings are germane and directly to the point that has been raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel.

The member argues first that individual amendments need not be read and second that groups of amendments could be put to the question at the same time. Obviously both issues are decided by the primary question of whether or not each individual amendment must be read.

I draw you to two rulings of the Speaker. I will not be long taking you through these. I think they're very direct and that the question raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel is essentially a challenge to the rulings of the Speaker. On Sunday last, the Speaker, when presented with a question of whether or not the New Democratic Party amendments to

section 24 must each be read individually, ruled as follows: He began by reviewing the procedures and practices in this House and came to the conclusion that the practice was that the text must be read and that the fundamental parliamentary principle behind this procedure is that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on. He reviewed specific precedents that were set before him in the arguments and found in review of those precedents that the Chair was absolutely correct in his ruling: Our practice and procedures require the amendments to be read.

He does speak to the issue of the Speaker having latitude to act in exceptional circumstances and finds that the House is in fact facing an exceptional circumstance, and as a result of that he proposes that with the balance of the New Democratic Party amendments to

section 24 they be read in a way which expedites the process and just simply refers to street name.

He does that, however, in light of two specific recommendations to the House. The first is a strong recommendation to the House that it direct its energies in the future to develop proposals that will address our legislative process with a view to adding it to report stage procedures, which would go a long way to solving this kind of problem, a direction to the House to examine its own rules in the future. We believe, in fact, and have had indication that this will be a subject of future discussion in this Legislative Assembly.

The second I think is very critical to the Speaker's ruling. He says, "In closing, I implore the House leaders to begin the process of negotiating an agreement that will resolve this impasse for the benefit of the members, the employees, the citizens of this province and this great institution." It was my argument when a similar challenge arose on Tuesday to the individual reading of the Liberal amendments to

section 29 that the Speaker himself made this exceptional ruling in order to create the context, create the atmosphere for negotiations of the parties to resolve the impasse, something that he could not step in and do himself, but that he attempted to create the atmosphere for that. Mr Chair, as you know, at this point in time, with the good efforts of all parties, unfortunately a resolve was not found.

On Tuesday when this issue was raised again, however, to the Speaker with respect to the Liberal amendments to

section 29, he was asked to rule that a similar procedure could be followed, that we could simply refer to the cities and the street names in the case of those amendments. It was argued before Speaker Stockwell that he would be creating a precedent that goes beyond the rules of this House were he to repeat his ruling, which was of an exceptional nature, that ruling with respect to the amendments of

section 24 by the New Democratic Party.

In his ruling on Tuesday he ruled, and I believe that this is the definitive and final statement on this issue:

"Let me begin by saying that I, as much as anyone here, would welcome a vehicle by which this process could be expedited. We are here in the midst of a procedural impasse of logarithmic proportions. We are faced with an impossible task" -- and I want to underscore this point in the Speaker's ruling, Mr Chair -- "We are faced with an impossible task but one which falls within the bounds of our procedures." Very clearly, he sets out: "But I want to be very clear to all members of this House. I cannot and will not, by virtue of my rulings on this issue in this very difficult circumstance, create a precedent that will impose a future solution that is more properly decided by this House."

Mr Chair, the ruling has been made twice by the Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. The member for Dufferin-Peel seeks to appeal that ruling. As you know, rulings of the Speaker are not appealable; therefore, I submit to you that you have no latitude except to rule the point of order not to be a point of order.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair --

The Chair: Do you have any new arguments to bring that we haven't hear so far?

Hon David Johnson: Mr Chair, I guess the main impetus behind this challenge was with regard to groupings. To the outside world this is Thursday, April 10, but we all know in here it's actually still Wednesday, April 2. Here we are some eight days later going and going and going.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: As the member behind says, it's sort of like the movie Groundhog Day: You wake up every morning and it's the same thing over and over and over again. One wonders if the end is ever in sight. What was that tune the actor heard every morning? I wake up every morning and hear that same tune.

Eight days, Mr Chair. When one looks at the latitude that is available in the House of Commons -- and, yes, it is a specific rule, but we do know that Chairs and Speakers have certain latitudes, have the ability to ensure that the proceedings are carried out in an expeditious way. We're asking, Mr Speaker and Mr Chair, in the spirit of the procedures that are in place in the federal government, that the same sort of approach be taken during these periods.

The matter has arisen with regard to reading of the amendments -- in addition to grouping, the reading of the amendments. I'm not sure if you intend at this point to rule on both the reading of the amendments as well as the groupings.

The Chair: Yes.

Hon David Johnson: All right. Then perhaps more to the point, the Speaker's ruling, a ruling that I would say was applauded by all members in this House, all parties in this House --

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: The House leader for the opposition party is, I think, agreeing that this was a good resolution, that only the street names should be read, particularly in the case of

section 24.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon David Johnson: In his ruling he said that on occasion, particularly when faced with extraordinary circumstances, Speakers may have to intervene in a way which seeks to enable the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand, and that's what we're seeking to do here this morning, through you, Mr Chair, simply to accomplish the business at hand.

The Speaker's ruling, I believe, in the case of simply reading the street names, very similar amendments, entirely similar amendments except for the street name, was in the spirit of allowing the Parliament to do the business at hand, at the same time allowing the members to understand. It's our contention that in fact that ruling is still in place, that this ruling as it pertains to

section 24 was made during the course of the submissions of this committee of the whole. In fact, we remain in that committee of the whole and that ruling remains in effect, and we would ask that you uphold that ruling of the Speaker, particularly as it pertains to

section 24, Mr Chair.

The Chair: The member for Downsview, do you have any new arguments that we haven't heard so far?

Ms Castrilli: I just wish to respond to the contention of the government House leader. The government House leader cited the Speaker's decision with respect to the NDP amendment to

section 24(4). He conveniently left out the part that said, "This process will be applied to this series of amendments only and should not be construed to be a precedent for the reading of amendments in the future."

Even were that not the case, if you want to argue that it is a precedent, then I would look for the rest of the ruling as well, Mr House Leader. I'd say to you that you should look at the

section where the Speaker says:

"The practice of requiring an amendment to be read provides all members present with the opportunity to hear the proposed amendment. The fundamental parliamentary principle behind this procedure is that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on.

"Under a time allocation motion such as we are currently operating under, the procedure is altered somewhat. The first part of the process is eliminated by virtue of the terms of the motions which state the amendments are deemed to have been moved. This does not, however, mean that the amendment is also deemed to have been read from the chair." I'll skip the next

part in the interests of time. "The Chair may only dispense with the reading of the amendment with unanimous consent, even in the face of a time allocation motion such as the one we are operating under."

I submit to you, Chair, that the government House leader can't have it both ways. He can't say, "Sorry, the ruling of the Speaker applies," even though the Speaker says it doesn't apply and then ignore the sections that support the principle of the long-standing practice of allowing members to know what they're voting on and reading the amendments.

The Chair: No arguments, no more debates. It is my decision that amendments can only be grouped by unanimous consent. As to the reading of amendments, it is my opinion that under the terms of the Speaker's ruling the amendments to

section 24(4) need not be read.

Mr Wildman: I challenge that part of your ruling, Mr Chair.

The committee rose and requested a ruling of the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Please be seated.

The Chair: Mr Speaker, my ruling as to the grouping of the amendments and the reading of the amendments has been challenged. We ask that you pass a ruling on the grouping of the amendments on

section 24(4).

The Speaker: Who challenged it?

The Chair: Mr Wildman, the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Just for clarity, Speaker, I would point out that the Chair ruled on two issues. I am in no way challenging the ruling on one. I understand the government has objections to that.

The Speaker: Actually, I was watching. I think I have a pretty good idea.

Ms Lankin: Do you want us to speak to both issues at the same time?

The Speaker: I would think it would save time if you spoke to both issues, yes.

Mr Wildman: The first issue was a request by the member for Dufferin-Peel that the amendments be grouped. In other words, that all 8,000 of the amendments that were put by our party with regard to consultations with residents of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto by street should be dealt with together. He cited a number of authorities I guess that he thought justified this request.

First he cited the rule in the House of Commons which allows the Speaker discretion to group similar amendments, and of course, the Chair did not rule in favour of that, because it's simple that the rule that applies in the House of Commons does not exist in this assembly. Our rules do not include such a rule, and therefore, it's an interesting note, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The Chair has ruled that amendments can be grouped by unanimous consent, and we agree that indeed if all members of the committee were to say that they were prepared to have any number of amendments grouped together and unanimously agreed to that, we could indeed do that. In this particular instance, such unanimous consent is not forthcoming, and I have indicated that our caucus will not agree to that, so unanimous consent does not apply.

There have been references to your rulings previously with regard to the reading of amendments, and it is that that I am challenging, the ruling of the Chair. The Chair is basically applying your ruling with regard to the reading of amendments dealing with the streets and extending it to this process, despite the fact that in making your ruling, you stated clearly that your ruling "should not be construed as a precedent for reading amendments in the future."

At the time you made your ruling, you cited exceptional circumstances, and it's true we are still in exceptional circumstances. This committee faces a very large number of amendments. But it is our view that there is a particularly interesting situation we find ourselves in now, since the member for Dufferin-Peel has been referring to all 8,000 of those amendments. One of those amendments passed the committee on a voice vote. The majority indicated that they are not about to treat all of these amendments similarly.

At least in one case, the majority of the committee decided to accept the amendment, so it seems to me that it would be very odd and quite bizarre for us now to say that all of the amendments, including the one on Cafon Court, should be voted on together.

The one on Cafon Court has not been referred for division, and since the others have been referred for division, how are we to know in advance that members of the committee intend to deal with them all in the same fashion, since they have not dealt with one of them in a fashion that indicates that they will all be rejected by the majority or will all be accepted by the majority? How are we to know?

I submit to you that we should not be grouping the amendments, that they should be dealt with individually so that the committee can deal with them on an individual basis and decide which residents, if any, should be consulted on regulations that may affect them in the future.

I also submit that in regard to the reading of the amendments, it is incumbent upon all of us in voting in this committee to know what we are voting on. It is important, particularly if we're dealing with the amendments individually, for us to recognize which ones we're voting on. Therefore, we should know what they are, and to say that by simply identifying the street name we would then know is insufficient.

We are, after all, responsible in voting for knowing the impact and the import of the amendment if it passes, what effect it might have, and by simply reading the street name to identify the amendment, members who may not be familiar with the amendment or are confused will not have the opportunity to do what is their right, and that is to request that the amendment be read so that they know what exactly they're voting on. What does this consultation that is suggested entail? What kind of time frame will it take? How will it work as per the amendment that is before them?

I suggest that we should not abridge the rights of members. I would suggest it is not only a right of a member to request that an amendment be read so that she or he can know exactly what she or he is voting on, but it is indeed a responsibility, if they are not sure, for members to request it be read so they can be sure on what effect their vote might have on the amendment. So I suggest on the two issues, first, that we accept that groupings cannot occur except by unanimous consent, and second, that your previous ruling with regard to the reading of these amendments should not apply in this particular case, since it was not a precedent.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I will be speaking to the first point, the point that deals with the process applying to voting on stacked votes, and I might comment first of all with respect to the member for Algoma, who talked about the vote with respect to Cafon Court. That amendment, as he has indicated, has already passed, and I would submit to you that that specific amendment wouldn't be part of the group voting.

Mr Wildman: There may be another one.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Tilson: That particular amendment wouldn't be part of the group voting that we would be asking you in your discretion to put forward, and it is that discretion that I'm asking you to direct your attention to.

We do find ourselves in an unprecedented situation. We have spent more than one week sitting 24 hours a day, reading amendments. Many of them have been very repetitive and specifically the ones with respect to

section 24 and

section 29, those dealing with streets and I guess historical streets would be the Liberal amendments with respect to

section 29.

We are now about to begin another part of the process, which is formally voting on each of the amendments that have been put forward over the past week. In order to prepare for this process, we have been forced to stock the members' lobbies with supplies. Some members have even brought in sleeping bags. Members of their staff will be kept away, all of our staff, the clerks, the table, the security, this entire constituency, will be kept away from their families for another huge block of time. I have no idea what this length of time will be. It will certainly be an inordinate length of time.

Members will be forced to camp out in their offices within minutes of this chamber, and the list is endless.

Standing order 1(

b) states: "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." So, Mr Speaker, I'm asking you to help expedite an already extraordinarily long process and provide a ruling that will enable the committee of the whole to complete this whole process in a timely and fair fashion.

On April 6, after five days of committee of the whole, you recognized that the House finds itself in an exceptional circumstance in dealing with an extraordinary number of amendments, and that ruling has been referred to during the presentation to the Chair of the committee of the whole.

You made it clear on that occasion, and to use your words, "On occasion, in particular when faced with extraordinary circumstances, Speakers may have to intervene in a way which seeks to enable the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand." So on April 6, after five days of debate, you agreed to shorten the process in dealing with the NDP amendments to subsection 24(4) by requiring the Chair to read just the street name prior to putting the question on each amendment as opposed to reading the entire amendment.

Mr Speaker, I believe groupings of divisions with respect to subsection 24(4) to be an effective way of, in your own words that you used in your ruling, "enabling the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand." The House of Commons standing order,

section 76(5) states that the Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgement upon it. I believe that it's reasonable, if not imperative, that you consider combining the NDP amendments of subsection 24(4) using as a guide the House of Commons standing order 76(5).

Beauchesne also cites standing order

section 76(5) as a precedent for the Speaker to use as a reference when considering the grouping of amendments for the purposes of voting. Beauchesne states: "By practice, the Speaker will also decide whether the motions will be voted separately or in groups," and I would ask that you look at this authority when you're considering your ruling.

I would also ask that you pay particular attention to a ruling made by Speaker Fraser on April 14, 1987, in the House of Commons. He stated: "There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion and in the interests of the House and all its members." I think of all of my presentation to you, that is the

section that I'd like you to consider the most.

After over 200 hours of consideration of amendments at committee of the whole, I ask you again to exercise the discretion that was afforded to the Speaker to protect the interests of the House, of the members, and more particularly, the integrity of the process, and facilitate the swift completion of this stage of the process.

Mr Speaker, I believe it's time for you to intervene again, as you did with respect to

section 24. Grouping divisions on the NDP motions to

section 24(4) as an example would limit committee of the whole voting to hours, as opposed to days or weeks. I submit that with all these types of groupings, you have the discretion to exercise, as you already have -- and it may be only for this particular occasion. Beauchesne talks about special orders on page 5: "A special order may have the effect for only a single occasion or such longer term as may be specified. It has become the custom in modern times to apply the term `special order' to all rules which have only temporary effect."

You made that clear with respect to your ruling on

section 24(4), that for this special occasion -- and I would submit that these groupings which you have in the discretion and you could formulate different types of groupings with respect to

section 24, the streets, or

section 29 with respect to the heritage streets. It's your discretion to prepare those types of groupings. I would submit that you have this discretion to put forward assistance to the Chair of this committee, the committee of the whole, grouping divisions with respect to this bill.

Ms Castrilli: In the interests of time, I will speak to both the issue of grouping and the reading of the motion. Speaker, there are really two major issues here. One is what discretion you have in the absence of statutory precedents in our standing orders or legislative precedents. Second is the privileges of the members of this House. Those are the issues for you to consider.

Under those rubrics, I'll look at a number of issues. The first is that there is simply nothing in either the standing orders or in the authorities that would give you any explicit guidance in this particular situation and there are no precedents, as we have said. Our standing orders are silent. You are required by standing order 1(

a) to conduct this House in accordance with the standing orders, but the standing orders are silent. Standing order 1(b), which the member for Dufferin-Peel has cited, specifically says that you must look at usages and precedents in the absence of standing orders, but as I've indicated, there are none. In other words, it comes down to a question of your discretion.

In this, I'd like to cite citation 327 of Beauchesne, which says that: "The Speaker or the Chairman of a committee of the whole ought not to consider the consequences of the adoption or rejection of a motion or an amendment, nor is it their concern whether ministers of the crown or private members are proceeding fast enough with their bills or motions. All the Speaker has to do is to see that the rules of procedure are" followed. That means that the member for Dufferin-Peel's contention that you should look at the time that it has taken and the time that it will take is totally irrelevant and not germane to the point in question.

I'd like to deal with the notion of parliamentary privilege.

Beauchesne defines "parliamentary privilege" as "the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals." That paragraph then goes on to say that the privileges of Parliament, "are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority or dignity." Then Beauchesne states, and this is the part that I would underline: "The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them."

The standing orders should be seen as a manifestation of the members' privileges, and therefore may not be abrogated from without the unanimous consent of members of this House. The government today is arguing that this is precisely what you should do, that you should abrogate from the standing orders that this House has decided upon over many, many decades without going through the process of unanimous consent. I submit to you that you cannot do that. If you're going to change the procedures that are set out in the standing orders, it can only be done by unanimous consent.

The member for Dufferin-Peel refers to rule 76(5) of the standing orders of the House of Commons. That

section states, "The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage." Speaker, that

section has no application, no relevance to our Legislature. It is a standing order of the House of Commons, with no application to ours. Our standing orders are silent. There is no requirement for you to import the standing orders of another Legislature into ours; in fact, there is no precedent for that.

However, even if it does apply, I'd like to distinguish that rule on four grounds and make a couple of comments. The first distinction I would ask you to note is that the rule applies only to the report --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We're trying to get the time right here. Continue.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you, Speaker. I thought we were in a time warp for a minute.

As I said, there are at least four grounds upon which you could distinguish that order of the House of Commons, even if it were applicable, which I submit it is not. The first is that the standing order applies only to a bill at the report stage. We are not at the report stage, and if in fact it for some reason the bill were sent to the committee of the whole, even at the House of Commons, rule 76(5) would not apply.

The second distinction I would point out to you is that it is not mandatory under the rule for the Speaker to combine amendments together under rule 76(5). The member for Dufferin-Peel did not cite to you the commentary under rule 76(5), which says: "Section (5) authorizes the Speaker to make decisions concerning whether motions can be considered by the House or not. Those that can may be grouped for debate where one vote will dispense with the grouping or a series of votes, depending on a Chair's decision." Therefore, it's discretionary; it's not mandatory, as the member for Dufferin-Peel would have you believe.

The third ground upon which you can distinguish 76(5) is that the same commentary goes on to say, "The Speaker may consult with members proposing the amendments." Again, a decision would leave it open to the Speaker to consult members. That is not our situation in this case. There is no requirement to consult, but in any event, even if it applied, you would probably exercise your discretion by consulting with the members, and I do not think you would get unanimous consent or a unanimous decision on behalf of the members.

The fourth ground upon which I would distinguish 76(5) is that it is used to group amendments for debate or voting. But the amendments must be interrelated and interdependent. That is, they cannot stand separately; they must depend one on the other. I suggest to you that each one of the amendments that we're talking about does stand on its own, does not depend on any other for its existence or its validity.

I'd also make a couple of points with respect to 76(5). The first is that particular standing order was the result of proceedings of a committee which was set by the federal government to study and report on parliamentary proceedings. It was not imposed on the House by the Speaker or by the government of the day. If you're going to make any changes to the standing orders, I would point out that even where 76(5) is in place, it was not done unilaterally by the Speaker, but followed a normal process of the House.

The final comment I would make to you is that each one of these amendments is independent, is separate, should be considered by the House and each member should give it their full attention, and 76(5) does nothing at all to change that contention even it were applicable.

I also, Speaker, would like to talk for a second about our Cafon Court amendment and the fact that we have one amendment that has passed. It is the only one that we have passed unanimously as a House. The member for Dufferin-Peel has argued that this amendment will be excluded, and that is an interesting point, but it does nothing at all for the issue at hand. What Cafon Court does prove, though, is that the votes of the House can be different on each question, and therefore each member must be allowed to express his or her view with respect to that. That, I submit to you, is not only a fact, but it is a matter of privilege, which really brings me to the next point.

Members of this House have a right to examine each of these questions individually; have a right to vote on each question individually. That is a privilege that we have. You, as Speaker, are required to uphold that privilege despite the assertions the member for Dufferin-Peel has made.

Finally, I would comment on rulings that have been made within these proceedings. As you know, because we've argued this case before in other forums, we have no precedents to guide us. But we do have some rulings and some of your own comments. I think while they may not always be precedents, they are germane to this. You have said on more than one occasion that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on. That guided you in making a decision with respect to our Liberal amendments on

section 29 and then again on the NDP amendments in

section 24(4).

Earlier, the government House leader pointed out that your ruling with respect to

section 24(4) was not a precedent. We've all concurred with that. It is clear that is what you meant. But I think in your ruling with respect to

section 24(4) you also were very clear about the circumstances which we face. In particular, you were very clear about what happens even under a time allocation motion. I know you remember your own words, but I will enter them for the record in any event. You said:

"The practice of requiring an amendment to be read provides all members present with the opportunity to hear the proposed amendment.... The fundamental parliamentary principle behind this procedure is that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on.

"Under a time allocation motion such as we are currently operating under, the procedure is altered somewhat. The first part of the process is eliminated by virtue of the terms of the motions which state the amendments are deemed to have been moved. This does not, however, mean that the amendment is also deemed to have been read from the chair.... The Chair may only dispense with the reading of the amendment with unanimous consent, even in the face of a time allocation motion such as the one we are operating under."

You went on to say, "I was struck by the principle behind the practice, that is, that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on."

Speaker, I suggest that you made a good ruling. You have in every instance applied the law as it has been placed before you. I think your decision with respect to both grouping and reading should be consistent with some of the authorities that I've cited, although, as I've said, there is nothing that's particularly binding on you, but I think they're persuasive. I'd like to once again underscore that really this is about the privileges of the members of this House, which you must uphold. In the absence of specific statutory and legislative precedent, you must exercise your discretion with caution and in favour of maintaining the privileges of this House.

Ms Lankin: I believe the issue with respect to the applicability or non-applicability of the House of Commons rule with respect to grouping has been adequately explored by the member for Algoma and the member for Downsview. I want to speak specifically to the issue of whether or not the amendments must be read if requested by a member at this point in time. I want to primarily refer to your two rulings during this particular set of proceedings in committee of the whole but also to practice within this Legislative Assembly.

As you know, on Sunday when this question was put to you with respect to the New Democratic Party amendments to

section 24, you reviewed the practice and procedures of this Legislative Assembly and found and ruled in fact that the Chair was absolutely correct in his ruling, our practice and procedures require the amendments to be read. You cited the fundamental parliamentary principle behind that being that every member has the right to know what they're voting on.

You did go on to set out the ability of the Speaker to have latitude in exceptional instances and set out that you found the House to be in an exceptional circumstance and therefore ruled that the balance of the NDP amendments to

section 24 would be read by referring to street name only. As I have argued to you on another occasion, in your reasons you set out the goals you were trying to accomplish; one was a strong recommendation to the House that in the future we deal with this issue through appropriate rule changes. I suspect that will happen in the future. In closing, you implored the House leaders to begin the process of negotiating an agreement to resolve the impasse.

On Tuesday, the same issue, of whether or not a series of amendments that were similar in nature must be read, was brought to you. At that point in time, in argument before you, I suggested that the exceptional circumstances in which you decided the Speaker could use latitude were ones in which you sought to create an atmosphere and a context to put pressure on all parties in this Legislative Assembly to find a solution to the impasse that we saw before us at that point in time.

I also argued to you that for you to rule again with a ruling of that nature would be to create a precedent that did not exist already within our rules or within our practice, and that it is entirely inappropriate for a Speaker to do that, and also that it would be to distort the balance and the atmosphere that you had sought to create in order to facilitate negotiations. Again, while at some point in time members of this assembly may from time to time wish the Speaker could solve all problems, you cannot.

There are certain matters that are matters of differences between the parties of the Legislative Assembly, and if there is to be a resolve, they must find it themselves, and the Speaker cannot step in and do that for us.

In that ruling on Tuesday, I believe you were very clear on this subject. You said, "I want to be very clear to all members of this House: I cannot and will not by virtue of my rulings on this issue in this very difficult circumstance create precedent that will impose a future solution that is more properly decided by this House."

I believe this is important. You went on in your ruling to distinguish the Liberal amendment to

section 29 from the NDP amendment to

section 24 in its variable nature. I submit to you nothing turns on that differentiation, because you yourself in your ruling say, "In addition, even if I were to entertain the idea of making such rulings, it could not be done with respect to this particular issue." You make it very clear that you are not entertaining the idea of making such rulings. Your finding was that you "cannot and will not by virtue of...rulings on this issue in this very difficult circumstance create precedent that will impose a future solution that is more properly decided by this House."

The government seeks to have you create precedent at this point in time. For what reason? For speed? To expedite matters? That is not your job. The references in Beauchesne make it very clear: The Speaker cannot look to speed, cannot look to accomplish for the government on its House agenda what the government itself has been unable to do.

The member for Dufferin-Peel argues and makes arguments around the imposition on staff of the Legislative Assembly and on political staff and on members of the Legislative Assembly and the requirement that they would be here around the clock. I submit to you that if the members of this Legislative Assembly wanted to come to an agreement on another

schedule for voting of eight hours a day, they could do that. We have already created an agreement governing the procedures of this vote, by unanimous consent, which differs from the normal practice, but it has been done by unanimous consent. That door is open to us. That should not be a reason that would compel you to create a precedent.

I say that democracy sometimes is messy, sometimes inconvenient, sometimes lengthy. But it is not for the Speaker of this Legislative Assembly to step in and create solutions that the members of the Legislative Assembly cannot arrive at themselves. It is not the Speaker's job to expedite government business. I believe these arguments I'm about to make, in a sense, are irrelevant to the decision before you, but I would put to you that there is nothing being held up at this point in time. Committees are meeting by mutual consent. Normally, committees would have been suspended.

By all-party agreement committees continue to meet. There is not a House calendar for today that has House business before us that is being held up. The inconvenience is one of time. Sometimes democracy is inconvenient. But democracy must be upheld in this Legislature by the members of this Legislative Assembly, and the Speaker cannot rule on the basis of convenience to the government party.

I submit to you on the basis of practice in this Legislature that it would be improper for you to extend your earlier ruling of exceptional circumstances with respect to the amendments to

section 24 to this

part in the procedure. We are no longer at the point of one having deemed the amendments to be moved and now having to read them on to the record. We are now at the point of dealing with deferred votes. If you review the practice in this assembly, Mr Speaker, you will see that during deferred votes, during the taking of those votes, it is practice to make an adequate identification of the amendment before the Legislative Assembly and to proceed with the votes. It is also clear that it is practice that if at any time any member of this assembly asks that the motion be read in full, then it is read in full.

It is different than the stage at which you ruled earlier, which is that they must be read into the agenda. It is now at a point where it must be identified for the purposes of voting, and if any member requests that it be read, it must be read.

I argue, I submit to you that you cannot extend the ruling from earlier to this, and for you to rule in a similar vein at this point in time with respect to a different part of the process that we are in in this committee of the whole would be to create a precedent, which you yourself have said -- and it can be no stronger said: "I cannot and will not by virtue of my rulings...create precedent that...impose a future solution that is more properly decided by this House."

I believe that this House will in fact find solutions to these issues. I believe that you will see changes to the rules come forward that will deal with a myriad of issues. But it is not for the Speaker at this point in time to impose those solutions.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Dufferin-Peel has spoken very well in terms of the issue of grouping, and I don't purport to get into that, and I thank him for his comments, if I'm able to do that.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine uses the word "inconvenient," uses the words "messy and time-consuming." There are other words that could be used, such as "stalling" and "delaying" and "wasting of time and taxpayers' dollars."

We have here the prospect, and I guess we have to consider it, of a very legitimate legislative process, one that has been in place for many, many years, the committee of the whole process, which has essentially, through this approach that has been taken, been rendered unworkable by the tactics employed, not only in terms of Bill 103 but apparently, according to reports of amendments being filed, Bill 104 as well.

Mr Speaker, in your ruling earlier on this same day, I guess, since we're still on Wednesday, April 2, you indicated that there is a fundamental parliamentary principle behind this procedure in that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on. The fact is that we have now read, in the case of clause 24, some several thousand amendments in their completeness and stacked some 8,000 or thereabouts of these particular amendments.

The members of this House have had the ability and have had the presence to be part of that process, every member of this House, to hear those several thousand being read, to witness those 8,000 being stacked. I would think a reasonable test would be, particularly in that case, that every member indeed has had the right and has exercised the right and certainly knows what he or she is voting for.

In addition, Mr Speaker, it would be our contention that we would ask that you consider not only

section 24, but consider an extension of your thinking, in terms of the thinking that went into your ruling on

section 24, and bear in mind that in the case of the amendments dealing with the heritage streets, that we have now had the ability to hear some 2,000 of those amendments, not only being stacked, Mr Speaker, but being read word for word in every detail. So again, I would submit to you that the members of this House have had every opportunity to hear those amendments, to understand those amendments and I think a reasonable test would be that in fact they have exercised that opportunity, that they certainly would understand those amendments. Similarly with the dates: some 800 dates being read in their fullness, being stacked, and the members have had that opportunity to fully understand.

In your speaking you also referenced the committee of the whole procedure for the Social Contract Act of 1993, which reminded me, in looking at that process, Mr Speaker, that during the equivalent voting period that we are now embarking upon here today that in fact there was no reading of the amendments during this equivalent voting period during the Social Contract Act. I well recall at that point, Mr Speaker, being new in my career, coming from the municipal scene, that I was taken by the huge number of amendments during that social contract debate. I believe we had some 200 or thereabouts, and today we face 12,000 amendments. So it's interesting to see the parallel there.

Mr Speaker, you also have gone on to say: "I believe the modern definition of `Speaker' requires that decisions are taken which are also in the best interests of the institution of Parliament." Very wise advice, I must say. "On occasion, in particular when faced with extraordinary circumstances, Speakers may have to intervene in a way which seeks to enable the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand." I think those are key words and ones that I believe are supported by all members of this House, no matter what party they come from, that indeed we need to get on with the business at hand.

You went on to reference Speaker Sauvé. You went on to reference Speaker Warner, where Speaker Warner in 1991 indicated that the Speaker does have a latitude to act in exceptional instances. In your ruling, Mr Speaker, I believe, and I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but surely you would have taken into account the fact of 12,000 amendments; Social Contract Act, some 200 or thereabouts, deemed at that time to be an enormously large number of amendments. Here we are facing 12,000, surely exceptional instances.

Further, you indicated that it was an exceptional circumstance, that the committee of the whole was dealing with an extraordinary number of amendments, a substantial number being identically worded, with the exception in the case of

section 24 of the street names.

You went on to recommend a process whereby the sheet minus the street would be made available to the members of the House and that the street name would be read. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that that was a wise decision. I would submit to you that that decision is still in force at this particular point. Perhaps you might even deem that no further ruling is required. I don't know. I leave that to your discretion. I would submit that this is still the same committee of the whole, the same process. The ruling still applies. You may wish to reconfirm. Certainly they are still the same circumstances.

Mr Speaker, you have indicated several other recommendations. I won't dwell on them. Suffice to say we have pursued those recommendations, or will pursue them, in terms of future changes to the rules, in terms of attempting to negotiate a process.

I would, in summation, Mr Speaker, indicate that it is certainly our belief that your ruling, in particular on

section 24, should be reconfirmed. The same circumstances exist. I would ask you to consider extending that ruling, now that we have had the opportunity to hear all of the amendments being read with regard to the heritage streets. Consider allowing the Chair to simply read those streets or, if you wish, the street and the municipality. Mr Speaker, I would think you would have the latitude to do that.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): One of the points is the House leader talked about

section 29, and I assume that we're dealing with all groupings here. Two or three points: Point number one is the fact that the Chair who happened to be in the chair at that time has already made a ruling on this matter, and that ruling was not challenged. It's a challenge made yesterday by the government House leader to the effect that all of the historic designations that were talked about in the 2,000 Liberal amendments should be dealt with at once. The Chair ruled that they should be dealt with on an individual basis and that ruling was not challenged, and I might say that's the only ruling that hasn't been challenged with respect to any of those major rulings that the Chairs have made.

If the House leader wants to talk about certain rulings still standing, I would submit to you that that ruling stands, that presumably, with the government not challenging that decision, they accepted the fact that there was something unique about these amendments and that they were not going to challenge that ruling and bring it to your attention.

Next, with respect to the

section 29 amendments, I would submit -- and I totally accept the arguments with respect to the NDP amendments as well, but this goes even further than that. Surely to goodness a heritage designation is something very unique to a particular street, to a particular neighbourhood, depending upon age and character of the streets and neighbourhoods involved, and I would submit that we have 2,000 amendments of this nature that were all duly selected for their own individual particular reasons.

It may very well be that some members of this House may feel that some of these streets are worthy of designation and others are not, but I'm simply saying to deal with them as a whole would be highly improper, Mr Speaker.

Finally, with respect to the standing orders as they pertain to the federal House, I think it's very interesting to note, if you read the notes with respect to standing order 76(6), that notice has to be given of the kind of amendment that is now requested of groupings. Quite clearly, subsection (5) of that standing order authorizes the Speaker to make decisions concerning whether motions can be considered by the House or not and whether they are to be selected or not. Those that may be grouped for debate, where one vote will dispense with the grouping in a series of votes, depend on the Chair's decision.

In making such a decision, the Speaker may consult with the members proposing such amendments concerning the subject and purpose of the amendment.

I assume that no notice has been given by anyone with respect to the motion that has been put forward this morning by the member for Dufferin-Peel. As a matter of fact, the standing order itself talks about notice having to be given of an attempt to do this kind of thing so that the Speaker can then get all the amendments together and in effect negotiate a process whereby they may be grouped. That has not happened in this particular case.

So on the basis of no notice having been given to the opposition with respect to this proposal this morning, and on the basis that each heritage street, as contained in the Liberal amendments, stands on its own footing, I would suggest to you with respect to those amendments that the voting be dealt with on a separate and an individual basis.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Speaker, I want to deal with the point we have challenged in the ruling, which applies to the issue of reading or not reading the amendments. To emphasize a couple of things, first of all, the reference the government House leader makes to the social contract legislation: It's important to note that at that time there was no request, when we got to the point of the recorded votes, there was never in any of the proceedings -- I have them in front of me -- a request by any member of the Legislative Assembly present for any of the amendments to be read.

I suggest to you that if there had been, then they would have been read, but there was none from any of the members of the opposition or the government.

In fact there was also, it's interesting to note, the traditional and usual process followed which had a standing vote taken on each amendment, which of course, here, we have agreed to deal with otherwise by unanimous agreement, that, just to make the point, you can only deviate from the accepted practice by agreement or by direction of the House. That doesn't exist here and it would be I think stretching the rules, even as you have applied them with your ruling, to at this point in the process change the process from the traditional practice which allows members to ask for individual amendments to be read, for you to rule that they should not be read.

When you made the exceptional ruling that you did, we were in a particular part of the process, the first stage of the process, but we had gone through some 2,000 amendments of a similar nature at that point. I suggest to you that we are nowhere near that situation at this point. Certainly I can tell you that it is our intention to exercise the right that we have to have the amendments read, subject of course to whatever ruling you come to, but to do that in a way that respects the traditions of the House and respects the fact that we have gone through a number of hours of having the amendments read.

I think it's important that that sense of balance also be kept and that you, in making your ruling, underline that in fact while this is still the committee of the whole process, this is a separate piece of the process and that the recording of votes is an all-important process.

For all that we know, Speaker, for all that I know and all that you know, as unlikely as it may seem, there may indeed be members of this assembly who were not here for any portions. It's true that there were people who were not here for all of the portions of the previous part of the committee of the whole, but there may indeed be members who were not here for any of it.

I don't know for a fact whether that's true or not, but the important principle that, at this particular point of recording of the votes, that established practice of having the amendments read if requested -- and I underline that, Speaker: if requested -- I think is something that should not be done away with.

It certainly should not be done away with on a request from the government at the beginning of this process and should only be considered, if ever, if a situation arises similar to the one that you found yourself in when in fact you made the extraordinary ruling that you did, and the ruling that you yourself said was not to create precedent.

The Speaker: I will not cut off anyone who wants to make a point of order -- I've heard a considerable amount of information -- but if you do, I would appreciate it if you'd be succinct and to the point. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I submit to you that, further to the House leader's comments, we are still in the same process. If we are not in the same process, it would certainly lead to certain questions which the Speaker must decide, such as, is there a time limitation with respect to a Speaker's ruling within the same process? If there is such a time limitation, upon which basis do you divide a process up? How do you do this?

I guess my only point I want to make here is that no precedent would be created in this particular instance, because we are still in the same process, Mr Speaker, and with due respect, I suggest that your original ruling is still applicable and still in effect.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, be quite straightforward on this and deal in a very practical sense with the matters before us. First of all, I think it is very clear that there is no rule of this House which permits a Speaker under rules of this House to be able to group amendments. I've looked in the rules of procedure and I have not found that. If we're going to base it on a rule of this House, that rule does not exist; it exists only in the House of Commons, I think it's 76(5), in the House of Commons.

While the Speaker of the House of Commons then may rule that amendments may be grouped for voting purposes, such a procedure would require the approval of all members of the House who are in attendance in this particular House, and that approval has not been forthcoming to this point in time. So except by unanimous consent, amendments must be placed, in the view of the opposition, individually.

One cannot prejudge how individual members are going to be voting on individual amendments. One may have a guess as to how that might be, and that seems to be the point that the government is making, they have what they would call a good guess, but one cannot prejudge that and therefore it would our contention that grouping would be inappropriate.

A voice vote also cannot conclusively determine how all members of the House are going to vote. When we're in voice vote stage, one cannot really tell where the nays and yeas are coming from. One can guess, one can have a good guess at that, but one cannot conclusively determine that.

Dealing with the matter of reading each amendment in its entirety again, it is essential and necessary that members hear the entire amendment that is placed, if there is a request to do so by any members of this House. It has been appropriately pointed out, that doesn't necessarily automatically happen. In the voting procedure which we are about to enter, for instance, one may believe that on every occasion it is going to be requested that the amendment be read in its entirety. That is prejudging a circumstance that may or may not arise in the future.

It is the

interpretation of the opposition members that your ruling permitting the reading of the abbreviated form of the NDP amendments by referring only to the street name applied only to those amendments from the point beyond your ruling and to the completion of that during the voice vote stage of the committee of the whole. We have now reached a new stage. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations made reference to this. In my view, we have reached a new stage as we come to the actual individual voting, the standing vote, as we used to refer to it.

On that basis, I would say that the government contentions on both of these issues should in fact be rejected.

The Speaker: I appreciate the input from all members. I'm going to take a 30-minute recess to consider their arguments.

Also, according to the rules, we have to close and lock the lobby doors during this period. Unless I hear a dissenting voice, considering that the numbers have been logged, as I understand, I'll agree to open the lobby doors during the recess period.

Mr Wildman: Could I ask for clarification on that? It's my understanding that if the lobby doors are open and people can have egress, it's understood they are coming back in order to maintain the numbers.

Ms Lankin: You just mean these doors.

The Speaker: I just mean these doors. I should have been a little clearer. Just these doors; that gets you into the lobby and access to those phones.

It will be a 30-minute recess.

The House recessed from 0949 to 1033.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank the various members for their submissions. Let me deal first with the issue of grouping of the amendments. The situation before me is as follows: The committee of the whole House has been giving clause-by-clause consideration to Bill 103 pursuant to the time allocation order. The votes on the clauses and amendments have been stacked pursuant to that order, and the committee is set to proceed with the actual vote. The Chair of the committee of the whole House decided that he could not group the amendments for voting purposes without unanimous consent.

The voting process would be shortened considerably if the Chair decided to group the amendments or if the committee could somehow agree to group the amendments.

Since there is no unanimous consent to group the amendments, the issue before me is whether the Chair has the authority or jurisdiction to group amendments to Bill 103 for voting purposes in the absence of unanimous consent.

In jurisdictions like the House of Commons at Westminster, the Canadian House of Commons and Quebec's National Assembly, the Speaker or Chair, as the case may be, has the authority to select amendments that will be considered and to, in effect, determine which amendments are voted on. However, that authority is spelled out in the standing orders of those jurisdictions. There is no such authority in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and so the practice in those jurisdictions that do have such rules cannot, as I indicated in a ruling earlier in the sessional day, bear on how I rule on this issue.

This does not put an end to the matter. The rules -- our standing orders -- form only one source of procedure that is followed in this assembly. The practice of this House and its committees has long been an important source of parliamentary procedure, and so I have reviewed our practice to determine whether the Chair has the authority to group amendments for voting purposes in circumstances where there is no unanimous consent.

In this regard, I refer members to a situation that faced the First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House in the 35th Parliament. On that occasion, Bill 91,

An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry, was being given clause-by-clause consideration. It should be noted that the bill was under time allocation and that the time allocation order was worded like the time allocation order for Bill 103. At about the same point in time on that bill as the committee of the whole House is now on Bill 103, the government House leader of the day stood in his place and addressed the following remarks to the Chair:

"We're at a stage where all the amendments that have been moved are deemed to have been divided on and stacked for a vote, and we've had one

section of the bill divided on and stacked for a vote. In the amendments, there are two packages. There is a package of government amendments and a package of amendments by the Conservative Party.

"I would seek the consent of the House to deal with those amendments in three packages: that we deal with the

section which has been divided on as one item, that we deal with the government package of amendments as a second item, and that we deal with the Conservative package of amendments as a third item."

Immediately after the government House leader of the day made these remarks, the Chair asked whether there was agreement to the proposition put forward by the government House leader. The member for Mississauga South indicated there was no agreement, and so the Chair had to proceed with the usual committee of the whole voting process on the bill. I note that on many of the subsequent votes on the individual amendments, there were no divisions; instead, the House agreed to the "same vote" as the vote on the proceeding amendment.

However, on other amendments, divisions were taken at the insistence of the member for Mississauga South, the member for Wellington and the member for Grey-Owen Sound. Still later in the committee of the whole voting process on that bill, the Chair found that there was unanimous consent for the original proposal of the government House leader, and the bill was eventually reported to the House later that same day. The events of the day can be found at pages 7339 to 7354 of Hansard.

I find that the voting process on that day is reflective of our practice on how votes are to be conducted in the committee of the whole. Since the early 1970s, Speakers Lamoureux, Sauvé and Fraser in the House of Commons and Speaker Warner in this House, when faced with requests from one side of the House or the other to effect drastic measures to resolve impasses arrived at in the House, have said that situations might arise in the future where Speakers would have to step in to impose a solution when negotiations between the parties have not been successful and the House has been effectively obstructed in its progress.

In my opinion, the situation facing us does not constitute one where I would be forced to impose a solution. If this House wants to effect a new procedure, it should, and it should do so in the usual manner. We are in a process where we are moving at a painfully slow pace but we are proceeding.

With respect to the ruling of Speaker Fraser in 1987, I want to say this: Speaker Fraser went only so far as to allow the government to move a motion of a kind that up to that point had never been moved. In that case, Speaker Fraser was not imposing a new or imported rule on the House. He was simply finding that there was nothing in their rules which would disallow such a motion. I repeat: He was not imposing a procedure that did not exist.

I am upholding the ruling of the Chair that unanimous consent is required for the Chair to group the amendments for voting purposes.

Let me now turn to the issue of the reading of the amendments. The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) has appealed the ruling of the Chair of the committee of the whole House that for the purpose of the actual voting on the so-called street amendments, the Chair will read not the entire amendment but only the name of the street associated with each amendment.

Let me begin this branch of my ruling by saying that members will recall that earlier this sessional day I had ruled that, with respect to the lead-up to the voting process on the street amendments, it was sufficient that the Chair read the names of the streets identified in each amendment as opposed to the entire amendment.

Members will also recall that, later in that sessional day, I ruled that the so-called heritage amendments had to be read in their entirety, and that the circumstances associated with those amendments were different than the circumstances associated with the earlier street amendments.

In the situation I am now being asked to rule on, the committee of the whole House is about to enter into the voting process proper; that is, members are now going to vote on each of the stacked votes.

I must say that I am still of the view that my ruling with respect to the street amendments cannot constitute a precedent in the disposition of this appeal. However, that ruling was intended to cover the committee of the whole stage consideration of these amendments.

The principles referred to in that ruling are intact. I am referring to the related principles that members are entitled to know what they are voting on, and that it is important to prevent errors in the voting process. I am of the view that it must surely be the case that, by now, members are familiar enough with the street amendments that they know what they are voting on, and that errors can be prevented. Therefore, I am ruling that, with respect to the street amendments, the Chair can simply read the street names.

I want to emphasize, however, that while the reasoning and the end result of this ruling and of my previous ruling on the street amendments may be similar, this ruling is not based on nor is it strengthened by the existence of that earlier ruling. I want to reiterate the point that I would have come to the same view on the current appeal if I would have ruled differently or not ruled at all on that earlier occasion. That earlier ruling should not be construed as a precedent, and the same goes for the ruling today.

In short, I am upholding the ruling of the Chair of the committee of the House that only the street names have to be read for all of the 8,000 or so street amendments.

Finally, as Speaker I must strike a very delicate balance. I understand in situations such as this that emotions run very high and tempers become short. I believe that over the past eight days I have rendered fair and impartial decisions, cognizant of the length of time and the onerous demands placed on all of us. But the fundamental underlying foundation of my decisions must be true to parliamentary democratic traditions because these decisions affect not only us, but the decisions taken by the Speaker also affect parliamentary institutions for generations to come.

I appreciate your attentiveness, and I have ruled.

House in committee of the whole.

The Chair: Government motion,

section 1, definition of "local board."

Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I request that the amendment be read.

The Chair: "I move that clause (

a) and (

b) of the definition of `local board' in

section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`(

a) a neighbourhood committee or community council established under

section 5 or 5.1;

"`(

b) the financial advisory board established under

section 9 or the transition team established under

section 16.'"

All those in favour say "say." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The Chair: I declare the motion carried.

Government motion,

section 1, definition of "transitional year."

Mr Wildman: Chair, I request that the amendment be read.

The Chair: "I move that the definition of `transitional year' in

section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`transitional period' means the period beginning on the day this act receives royal assent and ending on December 31, 1997."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The Chair: I declare the motion carried.

Liberal motion,

section 1, definition of "transitional year":

"I move that

section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out the definition of `transitional year' and substituting the following:

"`transitional period' means the period beginning on the day this act receives royal assent and ending on December 31, 2000."

All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The Chair: I declare the motion lost.

Shall

section 1, as amended, carry? Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The Chair:

Section 1 is carried, as amended.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Marilyn Churley): Liberal motion, sections 1.1 to 1.3. Those in favour?

Ms Lankin: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

part I of the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

"`Municipal referenda or plebiscites binding

"`1.1(1) The government of Ontario acknowledges that it is bound by the results of the municipal referenda or plebiscites conducted in the urban area on March 3, 1997.

"`Same

"`

(2) If a majority of voters answer the question posed in the referenda or plebiscites referred to in subsection (1) in the negative, this act shall be deemed to be repealed on the day it receives royal assent.

"`Timing

"`1.2 The government of Ontario acknowledges that the creation of the new city shall not be driven by external deadlines such as the regular municipal elections of 1997, but shall be carried out responsibly and properly, following careful analysis, and in accordance with the expressed wishes of the people and the advice of local elected officials.

"`No tax increase

"`1.3(1) Municipal property taxes in the old municipalities and in the new city shall not be increased as a result of the implementation of this act or as a result of any other provincial restructuring of the delivery or funding of services.

"`Services

"`

(2) Municipal facilities and services in the old municipalities and in the new city shall not be reduced in order to comply with subsection (1).

"`Costs of implementation

"`Any increase in municipal expenditures in the old municipalities or in the new city that results from the implementation of this act or from any other provincial restructuring of the delivery or funding of services shall be funded by the government of Ontario.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: Motion lost.

Liberal motion, subsection 2(1).

Mr Wildman: Read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by striking out `January 1, 1998' in the first line and substituting `January 1, 2001.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: Motion lost.

Liberal motion, clause 2(5)(b).

Mr Wildman: Read the motion.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that clause 2(5)(

b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`(

b) all the assets and liabilities that the old municipalities had on December 31, 2000 are vested in and become assets and liabilities of the new city on January 1, 1998, without compensation.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: Motion lost.

Liberal motion, subsection 2(5.1).

Mr Wildman: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Reserves and reserve funds

"`

(5.1) The new city holds any reserve or reserve funds acquired from an old municipality under clause (5)(

b) in trust for the residents of the geographic area of jurisdiction of that old municipality and shall deal with them only for the benefit of those residents.'"

All those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion, subsection 2(9).

Mr Wildman: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Local boards

"`

(9) Every local board of an old municipality that is in existence immediately before the coming into force of

section 27,

"`(

a) shall be deemed to be a local board of the new city; and

"`(

b) is continued, in respect of the part of the urban area over which it had jurisdiction immediately before the coming into force of

section 27, until the council passes a bylaw to provide otherwise.'"

All those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion, subsection 2(10).

Mr Wildman: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Official plans

"`

(10) Every official plan of an old municipality that is force immediately before the coming into force of

section 27,

"`(

a) shall be deemed to be an official plan of the new city; and

"`(

b) remains in force, in respect of the part of the urban area to which it applied immediately before the coming into force of

section 27, until it is amended or replaced in accordance with the Planning Act.'"

All those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Shall

section 2 carry? Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The

section is carried.

Government motion, subsection 3(1).

Mr Wildman: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "3(1) I move that subsection 3(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Composition of council

"`3(1) The council of the new city is composed of,

"`(

a) the mayor, elected by general vote; and

"`(b) 56 other members, two of whom shall be elected for each ward.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

Liberal motion, clause 3(1)(b).

Mr Wildman: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that clause 3(1)(

b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`(

b) one member elected for each of the wards established under

section 4.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion, subsection 3(1.1).

Mr Bradley: Read it, please.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Election campaign spending limit, mayor

"`

(1.1) For the purposes of subsection 76(4) the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the maximum amount of election campaign expenses that a candidate for the office of mayor may incur is fixed at $200,000, and the prescribed formula referred to in that subsection does not apply.'"

All those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Liberal motion, subsection 3(2):

"I move that subsection 3(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Transition, first council

"`

(2) The following special rules apply to the members of the council elected in the 2000 regular election:

"`1. Despite

section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the members' terms of office begin on January 1, 2001.

"`2. Despite subsection 49(1) of the Municipal Act, the first meeting of the council shall be held on January 2, 2001.'"

All those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Government motion, subsection 3(2), paragraph 1:

"I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out `section 10 of the Municipal Elections Act' and substituting `section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.'"

All those in favour, say "aye." Opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

Shall

section 3, as amended, carry? Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 3, as amended, is carried.

Government motion,

section 3.1:

"I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"`Executive committee

"`3.1(1) There shall be an executive committee of council consisting of the mayor and the chairs of the six community councils.

"`Dissolution or change

"`

(2) The council may, by bylaw, dissolve the executive committee or change its composition.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

Government motion, subsection 4(1) and (2):

"I move that subsections 4(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Wards

"`

(1) The urban area is divided into 28 wards as described in the schedule.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'm designating the member for Dovercourt to give the "ayes" and "nays" to the votes.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Liberal motion, subsections 4(1) and (2):

"I move that subsections 4(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Division into wards

"`

(1) The Ontario Municipal Board shall, by order, divide the urban area into an even number of wards.

"`Public consultation

"`

(2) Before establishing the number and boundaries of the wards, the Ontario Municipal Board shall hold public consultations.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Shall

section 4, as amended, carry? Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 4, as amended, is carried.

NDP motion: government motion, sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsections 5.2(1), (1.1) and (1.2):

"I move that the government motion to strike out

section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 be amended by striking out subsection 5.2(1) and substituting the following:

"`Planning functions

"`

(1) The city council may, by bylaw, assign to the community councils any of the following functions with respect to the parts of the urban area that they represent:

"`1. Functions in connection with planning matters that would otherwise belong to the city council, including the passing of zoning bylaws.

"`2. Functions in connection with planning matters that the Planning Act allows the city council to delegate to a committee of council, an appointed committee or an appointed official.

"`3. The functions of a committee of adjustment under the Planning Act.

"`Conflict

"`

(1.1) A bylaw passed under subsection (1) applies despite the Municipal Act, the Planning Act or any other act.

"`Other functions

"`

(1.2) The city council may, by bylaw, assign to the community councils any of the following functions with respect to the parts of the urban area that they represent:

"`1. Functions in connection with licensing.

"`2. Functions in connection with local roads.

"`3 Functions in connection with waste disposal and recycling.

"`Functions in connection with arts funding.

"`5. Functions in connection with animal control.'"

All those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion: government motion, sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsection 5(3) --

Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Did you say both NDP and government?

The First Deputy Chair: If I did, I apologize. I read more directly from the motion, which says, "Government motion, sections 5, 5.1..." which are being amended. That was a mistake. I should just say sections 5, 5.1, 5.2; subsection 5(3). It is an NDP motion. It's the writing on here that I was reading from.

"I move that the government motion to strike out

section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 be amended by adding the following subsections to

section 5:

"`Public consultation

"`

(3) Despite subsection (1), no bylaw shall be passed unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The clerk has given notice of the proposed bylaw, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of the part of the urban area to be represented by the neighbourhood council.

"`2. The council has considered all written submissions made by those residents and received by the clerk within 30 days after the notice was given.

"`3. If 10 or more of those residents requested a public hearing within 30 days after the notice was given, a public hearing has been held and the council has considered all oral submissions made at the hearing.

"`4. The clerk shall give three weeks notice of a public hearing in the same manner as the notice under paragraph 1.

"`5. The notice under paragraph 1 shall,

"`i. include a copy of the proposed bylaw,

"`ii. tell residents where and how to obtain, without charge, a copy of this act together with background material,

"`iii. advise residents of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

"`iv. advise residents where their written submissions and requests for a public hearing should be sent.'"

All those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion, sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsections 5.1(5) and (6):

"I move that the government motion to strike out

section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 be amended by striking out subsections 5.1(5) and (6) and substituting the following:

"`Changes

"`

(5) The city council may, by bylaw,

"`(

a) change the composition of a community council;

"`(

b) dissolve a community council and establish a new one.

"` Same

"`

(6) The following rules apply to the bylaw:

"`1. Every part of the urban area shall be represented by a community council.

"`2. No ward shall be represented partly by one and partly by another community council.

"`3. Only members of the city council shall be members of a community council.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion, sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsection 5.2(7):

"I move that the government motion to strike out

section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 be amended by striking out subsection 5.2(7)."

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Government motion, sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2:

"I move that

section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Neighbourhood committees

"`5(1) The city council may, by bylaw, establish neighbourhood committees and determine their functions.

"`Number

"`

(2) The number of neighbourhood committees shall be fixed in the bylaw.

"`Establishment of community councils

"`5.1(1) There shall be six community councils, one for each part of the urban area that was an area municipality under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

"`Composition

"`

(2) Each community council is composed of the members of the city council elected for each ward in the part of the urban area represented by the community council.

"`Chair

"`

(3) The members of each community council shall elect a chair from among themselves; in the event of a tie, the chair shall be chosen by lot.

"`Committee of council

"`

(4) Each community council is a committee of the city council for all purposes.

"`Dissolution or change

"`

(5) The city council may, by bylaw,

"`(

a) dissolve a community council or change its composition;

"`(

b) establish a new community council for any part of the urban area.

"`

(6) The following rules apply to the bylaw:

"`1. The bylaw may dissolve all the community councils without establishing new ones.

"`2. If the bylaw establishes new community councils, every urban area shall be represented by a community council.

"`3. No ward shall be represented partly by one and partly by another community council.

"`4. Only members of the city council may be members of a community council.

"`Local planning and committee of adjustment functions

"`5.2(1) The city council may, by bylaw, assign to the community council any of the following functions with respect to the parts of the urban area that they represent:

"`1. Functions in connection with local planning matters that the Planning Act allows the council to delegate to a committee of council, an appointed committee or an appointed official.

"`2. The functions of a committee of adjustment under the Planning Act.

"`Recreational facilities

"`

(2) The city council may, by bylaw, assign to a community council the management on behalf of the new city of one or more recreational facilities (such as arenas, community centres and parks) located in the part of the urban area that the community council represents.

"`Spending limits

"`

(3) In managing a recreational facility, a community council shall not incur expenses that exceed the amount allocated by the city council.

"`Additional functions

"`

(4) The city council may, by bylaw, assign to the community councils, with respect to the parts of the urban area that they represent, a function that is prescribed under subclause 24(1)(e)(i).

"`Conditions

"`

(5) A bylaw passed under subsection (4) may impose conditions on the exercise of the function by the community councils.

"`Effect of assignment

"`

(6) When a bylaw passed under subsection (4) is in force, the city council is obliged to pass any bylaw recommended to it by the community council if the following conditions are met:

"`1. The recommended bylaw relates to the function that has been assigned to the community councils by the bylaw passed under subsection (4).

"`2. The city council has allocated to the community council sufficient funds for any expenditure arising from the recommended bylaw.

"`Revocation of assignment

"`

(7) The city council has power to revoke an assignment of functions by passing a bylaw amending or revoking a bylaw passed under subsection (1), (2) or (4).'"

Those in favour, please say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

Shall

section 5, as amended, carry? Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 5, as amended, is carried.

Government motion, subsection 6(2). Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The motion is carried.

Liberal motion, subsection 6(4).

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that subsection 6(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Transfer of certain assets and liabilities

"`

(4) All the assets and liabilities relating to the distribution and supply of electrical power that were controlled and managed by the old municipality on December 31, 2000 are vested in and become assets and liabilities of the new city, under the control and management of the commission, on January 1, 2001, without compensation.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The motion is lost.

Shall

section 6, as amended, carry? Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 6, as amended, is carried.

Section 7 of the bill: All in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 7, as amended, is carried.

NDP motion,

section 7.1.

Mr Silipo: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"`Toronto Transit Commission

"`Commission continued

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The motion is lost.

Liberal motion,

section 8.

Mr Colle: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Employees of old municipalities and local boards

"`8 A person who is an employee of the old municipality or of a local board of an old municipality on December 31, 2000 and would, but for this act, still be an employee of the municipality or local board on January 1, 2001 is an employee of the new city or one of its local boards on January 1, 2001.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Government motion,

section 8.

Mr Silipo: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Employment continuous

"`

(2) A person's employment with an old municipality or local board shall be deemed not to have been terminated for any purpose by anything in subsection (1).'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is carried.

NDP motion, subsection 8(3).

Mr Silipo: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that

section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Minimum notice period

"`

(3) After

section 27 comes into force, an employee referred to in subsection (1) is entitled to six months notice of termination or to the period of notice of termination provided by the applicable employment contract or collective agreement, whichever is greater.'"

Those in favour, say "aye." Those opposed, say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Shall

section 8, as amended, carry? Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50, the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair:

Section 8, as amended, is carried.

Government motion,

section 8.1. Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 50; the nays are 22.

The First Deputy Chair: The motion is carried.

NDP motion,

section 8.2.

Mr Silipo: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"`Reserves and reserve funds

"`8.2 The reserves and reserve funds of each old municipality shall be spent only for the benefit of residents of the relevant part of the urban area.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 8.3

Mr Silipo: Please read it.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"`Transition funds

"`8.3 The amount of reserves and reserve funds of old municipalities that pass to the new city under

section 2 shall not be taken into consideration in determining eligibility for transition funds from the province.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Liberal motion,

section 9. I'll read it.

"I move that

section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Board of advisers

"`9(1) There shall be a board of advisers consisting of one or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"`Duties

"`

(2) The board of advisers shall,

"`(

a) observe the affairs of the old municipalities during the transitional period;

"`(

b) report to the Minister at his or her request;

"`(

c) cooperate with the transition team.

"`Primacy of local elected officials

"`

(3) The board of advisers has no power to override local decision making or interfere with the activities of local elected officials.

"`No retroactivity

"`

(4) The board of advisers has no power to act before this

section comes into force.

"`Dissolution

"`

(5) The board of advisers is dissolved on January 31, 2001.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; clauses 9(4)(

b) and (e):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out clauses 9(4)(

b) and (e)."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; clause 9(7)(b):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out clause (7)(b)."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subsection 9(7.1):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Same

"`(7.1) Subsection (7) does not entitle the members, employees and agents of the board of trustees to a higher level of cooperation or compliance than members of the public are entitled to receive.'"

All those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subclause 9(8)(a)(i):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subclause 9(8)(a)(

i) and substituting the following:

"`(

i) furnish information, records or documents that are in its possession and would normally be available to members of the public.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subclause 9(8)(a)(ii):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subclause 9(8)(a)(ii)."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant : The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subclause 9(8)(a)(iii):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subclause 9(8)(a)(iii) and substituting the following:

"`(iii) update earlier information furnished under this subsection.'"

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subsection 9(8):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subsection (8)."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

NDP motion,

section 9; subsection 9(10):

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace

section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subsection (10)."

Those in favour say "aye." Those opposed say "nay."

Clerk Assistant: The ayes are 22; the nays are 50.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote is lost.

Government motion,

section 9:

"I move that

section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD

"`Financial advisory board

"`9(1) There shall be a financial advisory board consisting of one or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate one of the members as chair.

"`Body corporate

"`

(2) The financial advisory board is a body corporate.

"` Remuneration and expenses

"`

(3) The members of the financial advisory board shall be paid the remuneration fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the reasonable expenses incurred in the course of their duties under this act.

"`Duties

"`

(4) The financial advisory board shall,

"`(

a) consider 1997 operating and capital budgets under

section 11;

"`(

b) consider requests for approval under

section 10 and grant them when the board considers it appropriate;

"`(

c) report to the minister at his or her request;

"`(

d) cooperate with the transition team;

"`(

e) carry out any other prescribed duties.

"`Guidelines

"`

(5) The financial advisory board,

"`(

a) shall establish and publish guidelines with respect to,

"`(

i) payments and agreements to make payments in connection with the ending of an employment relationship, as referred to in paragraph 5 of subsection 10(2), and

"`(ii) appointments, hiring and promotion, as referred to in paragraph 6 of that subsection; and

"`(

b) may establish and publish guidelines with respect to matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of subsection 10(2).

"`Same

"`

(6) The guidelines do not apply to the new city or to its local boards.

"`Cooperation, access to information

"`

(7) The members of each old council, the employees and agents of the old municipality and the members, employees and agents of each local board of an old municipality shall,

"`(

a) cooperate with the members, employees and agents of the financial advisory board, assist them in the performance of their duties and comply with their requests under this act;

"`(

b) on request, allow any person described in clause (

a) to examine and copy any document, record or other information in the