Official Records for 2 April 1997

L176B - Wed 2 Apr 1997 / Mer 2 Avr 1997

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

APPEAL OF CHAIR'S RULING

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

APPEAL OF CHAIR'S RULING

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


1720

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

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

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): Are there any amendments, and if so, to which sections?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I have 28 amendments: section 1 of the bill, the definition of "local board"; section 1 of the bill, the definition of "transitional year"; subsection 3(1) of the bill; subsection 3(2), paragraph 1 of the bill; the addition of a section 3.1 to the bill; subsections 4(1) and (2) of the bill; sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 of the bill; subsection 6(2) of the bill; section 8 of the bill; the addition of a section 8.1 to the bill; section 9 of the bill; section 10 of the bill; section 11 of the bill; section 15 of the bill; subsection 16(4) of the bill; clause 16(5)(b) of the bill; clauses 16(6)(a) and (d) of the bill; subsection 16(12); section 22 of the bill; section 23, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the bill; the addition of section 23.1 to the bill; clauses 24(1)(a) and (b) of the bill; clause 24(1)(e) of the bill; subsection 24(1.1) of the bill; subsection 24(3) of the bill; clause 25(1)(c) of the bill; section 30 of the bill; the schedule of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any further amendments to the bill?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Chair, do you just require the section number at this point? You don't want me to indicate to you the exact nature of each of the amendments?

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr Silipo: I have amendments which we've tabled to subsection 2(9) of the bill; subsection 2(10) of the bill; section 3 of the bill; section 5 of the bill; section 5.1; section 5.2; section 5.3; sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsections 5.1(5) and (6). We have a further amendment to sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2; subsections 5.2(1), (1.1) and (1.2).

We have an amendment to section 7.

We have an amendment to subsection 8(3). We have an amendment to section 8.2 and an amendment to section 8.3.

Section 9: clauses 9(4)(b) and (e); subsections 9(5) and (6); clause 9(7)(b); subclauses 9(8)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii); subsection 9(7.1); subsections 9(8) and (10).

Section 10: clause 10(1)(b); paragraph 6 of subsection 10(2).

Chair, do you want me to continue? Yes? Okay.

Subsection 16(4) and 16(4.1). Clauses 16(a) and (d); subclause 16(6)(d)(iii).

Section 21: 21.1.

Section 23: paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 4.1 and 4.2; also section 23, paragraph 5; also section 23.1.

Section 24: clause 24(1)(a); clause 24(1)(b); subsection 24(1.1); clause 24(1.1)(c); subsection 24(1.2); subsection 24(3). We have many amendments to subsection 24(4), I believe 8,000-plus amendments to this subsection.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Eight thousand?

Mr Silipo: Eight thousand, yes.

Section 29.1: There are several amendments here as well.

Section 30: There are also about 700 amendments to this section. Section 30, further amendments: subsection 30(1), (2) and (3).

Chair, we have amendments to every section of the bill.

1730

The Chair: Are there any amendments on the Liberal side?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Mr Chair, we have tabled amendments to every section of the bill and they are before you on the table.

The Chair: I have before me the first amendment which comes from the Liberal side and I would wish that someone would move the amendment for me.

Interjection.

The Chair: You gave me on Bill 103, package 2(c)(s), if that helps you. Sections 1 to 31 and schedule. Do you have it in front of you?

Mr Colle: I've submitted it to the desk.

Interjection: You have to read it.

Mr Colle: Okay? The first amendment we're making is to section 29.

The Chair: No, before me is sections 1 to 31 and schedule.

Mr Colle: That's right.

The Chair: Would you please move it.

Mr Colle: I'll move those amendments, 1 to 39.

Clerk Assistant and Executive Director of Legislative Services (Ms Deborah Deller): Read it.

Mr Colle: Okay. I'd like to substitute all the amendments we presented to the table for those sections, as you referred to, 1 to 39.

Interjections.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Chair, I think it may be somewhat unprecedented to have as many amendments before us from all three parties as there are today on Bill 103. I don't know that we have been informed as to the order in which each separate amendment is going to be called. If we can have some indication of that, we can expedite this.

The Chair: We never change the procedure. We always follow from 1 and go down the list. Then the motion has to be read, it has to be moved. Just a minute, please.

Do we have unanimous consent to stand down the first four amendments, which are Liberal amendments, and then I'll proceed with the government amendment? Is it agreed?

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, a point of order.

The Chair: Could you move, member for Cochrane North, so I can see the gentleman? Go ahead.

Mr Silipo: I can't move an amendment to section 1 because our amendments start at section 2, but I know there is a government amendment to section 1. Rather than wasting the precious time we have, why don't we proceed to deal with the government amendment --

Interjection.

Mr Silipo: Well, obviously, for some reason our Liberal colleagues don't have their amendments in front of them, so let's not waste the time, and get on with it.

The Chair: Let me ask the question again. I have four amendments from the Liberals here, the first four, and I would ask you if we can stand them down. If it is agreed with everyone? Then we will proceed. If you don't agree, then I'll have to let them go. Do you agree with that? You are prepared to wait. Agreed. Therefore I will not proceed.

The amendment I now have before me is a government motion, and I would ask for someone to read the amendment.

Hon Mr Leach: It's a pleasure to accommodate my friends in the Liberal Party. We have an amendment to section 1:

I move that clauses (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 sections 5 or 5.1;

"(b) the financial advisory board established under section 9 or the transition team established under section 16."

Hon Mr Leach: This amendment is required to ensure that the main bodies are not local boards and thus subject to controls of the financial advisory board.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Silipo: I have some things to say about this particular amendment, but first I want to raise a point of order with respect to it, and by extension with respect to the balance of the proceedings. It's the point I raised with the Speaker earlier today, and I raise it with you now because we are now into it.

My point of order on this specific amendment is that it is out of order because it introduces an element to the bill that was not contemplated in the original bill. I believe that the well-established practice of the parliamentary process that we function under is that you cannot, by amendment to a bill, introduce a new concept that was not part of the original bill. We know that the notion of community councils was not in the original legislation. There certainly was some discussion during the hearings, but it was not part of the original legislation, so I would make the argument to you that that is out of order.

There are precedents, if you wish, that I can refer to. I will go to them because they might be helpful, if I can just have a second. I know there are a number of precedents on this, but for the sake of brevity I will just refer to a couple. I believe there are decisions that have been made in the House of Commons, particularly, where it has been found, under Speaker Jerome, that this concept applies.

I refer you to the decision of Speaker Jerome listed at Journals of the House of Commons, pages 1418-20. At that instance there was before the House of Commons a bill dealing with immigration to Canada. The Speaker expressed reservations about the procedural acceptability of some amendments and eventually ruled that because certain sections established a new concept, in that case the establishment of an 18-member refugee claims board, which had not been contemplated in the original draft of the bill, those sections were deemed to be out of order.

1740

I make the argument to you here that I think this amendment is out of order. But I also want to raise with you, Chair, the question of how we are going to deal today, because we have similar points to raise on other amendments as we go through them and I don't know, given the limitation of the one hour, where we will be at that point in time, whether we already will have gone beyond the hour by the time we get to dealing with those amendments. At what point will we have the ability to raise those points of order, or is the rule being applied now, the time allocation rule, going to be applied in such a way that at the end of the hour whatever amendments have not been formally moved in the way the minister has just moved this amendment are deemed to have been moved?

We know that by virtue of the time allocation motion, and we don't argue with that at all -- where in the process will there be an opportunity for members to raise objections to certain subsections, certain amendments we may not have a chance to deal with in the 40 minutes that are now left, with respect to whether they are in order? I raise a specific point on this amendment, and by extension, Chair, ask you to give us some guidance on how we're going to deal with the balance of the amendments.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, a distinct point, Mr Chair: We believe this is fundamental to the legislative and democratic process. We believe there are well-established precedents in Canada which state that a government cannot bring forward a bill and then, in the process of trying to have that bill passed, in effect rewrite the bill by introducing new concepts. We believe there is well-established precedent for that.

We believe that if the changes are so fundamental as to change the nature of the bill, then the government has no choice but to withdraw the bill and start again. We believe that is what the government is trying to do here with this particular amendment and with other amendments. They are fundamentally changing the nature of the bill, and in our view, there is well-established precedent in Canada that this cannot be done.

We do not believe this is a procedural rule. We believe it is a substantive rule, and the government cannot then overrule these substantive rules by simply saying: "There's only an hour. If the substantive issues are not dealt with in an hour, then they have to be passed." The government cannot do, by a back-door procedural motion, what it substantively can't do under the rules of parliaments in Canada.

We believe this is a fundamental issue, and it might be an issue, Chair, which you might want to ask for a recess on so that you can consider it properly.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Chair: There's no question there's going to have to be reflection on this simply because if you examine the government amendment -- and the government, when they were announcing this, I think recognized this -- many of the amendments they're putting forward, but this specific amendment they're putting forward is somewhat contrary to this bill in the interpretation of some people. Quite obviously they have many methods to deal with it, but the best method of dealing with this amendment, and with other amendments that may be contrary to this bill, is to withdraw the bill and begin the process again to get it right.

That is why we have been taking time this afternoon, allowing the government to reflect all afternoon, and on previous occasions, on the contents of this legislation, because now they're into a circumstance where they want to appear to be responding to the results of the referendum. They aren't, because the referendum clearly rejected the government position completely, but in wanting to appear to be responding to the referendum and perhaps some of the comments that were made at committee, the government is now putting forward these amendments.

My advice to the minister -- I know he's eager to receive it and act upon it -- is that he withdraw the bill, that he take the bill back to the drawing board, come back later on after he has negotiated, had discussions with the people who made representations with the municipalities, with experts in the field, and come forward with new legislation if he's interested in having new legislation for streamlining local government that does not involve amalgamation into one megacity in Toronto.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I wish to assure you there has been a good deal of reflection on this particular bill, and indeed I think the points put forward by the House leader of the Liberals and the leader of the third party indicate that, in their view, the fundamental nature of this bill is preserved, because their view, which they're stating very clearly, is that the bill is essentially the same as it was before and that the bill should be withdrawn. Their voice is clear that they wish to have the bill withdrawn.

Indeed, the fundamental nature of the bill has been preserved. All the amendments have been reviewed by legislative counsel, by the ministry counsel, by the Clerk's office, and it has been ruled by all the authorities that we have spoken to at this point that the amendments are indeed in order, that the amendments are within the scope of the bill, they maintain the fundamental nature of the bill, and I submit to you that to rule them out of order would not be a proper course of action.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Mr Chair, on the same point: I think the evidence is quite clear, regardless of what the House leader for the party is saying. He has cited no proposition to support his view. The notion of community councils was not in the original bill. It isn't just a word change; it is in fact a substantial change from the bill.

Let's just be very clear. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states quite clearly on page 155, section 437, and I'll read both subsections, because I think they both have some play:

First, "An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved," and I think some argument could be made that this particular amendment, this concept, is foreign to the original proposition. It certainly would come as a surprise to anyone who has read the original bill that this is even in keeping with the spirit of the legislation.

Subsection (2) goes on to say, "An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice." Even if you argue under subsection (2) that this is a new question, you are required to give notice, and notice is not given by simply standing up in the House when we are sitting in committee of the whole and saying, "Here is the amendment." That is not what the authorities cite.

It is unfortunate that the government has taken this route, but the amendment they are proposing is out of order, as is any amendment they bring in which does not meet the test I have just read.

Mr Colle: On the same point, I think the crux of this argument is that the original intent of Bill 103 was to establish a one-tier government. What they've done now with these amendments, they've changed that dramatically and they have a two-tier government, because they have installed what they call community councils, which were not in Bill 103. They were not. There was just one line in the original bill which said the city council may establish neighbourhood councils by bylaw. This bill has gone contrary to the original intent of saying one-tier government, one government established, six new governments at the second tier or local level, with chairmen of each one of these new governments.

1750

You can't have it both ways. Either this intention was to have one tier or it was not, but now, all of a sudden, to go in the totally opposite direction and establish a second tier of government that even has an executive and has the ability to spend money, the ability to function as a government, is contrary to the original bill in which the intent is very clear, of one government, one tier, with no mention at all. To introduce this second tier of government in the amendments whereby you have two-tier government again, as faulty as it is or inconsistent as it is or as hollow as it is, it's still contrary. You've got now two tiers where 103, when it was introduced and through first reading, through second reading, through the hearings the minister and his staff emphatically said, "We are going to establish one level of government." With these amendments, the intent is now to establish two tiers; therefore, it's contradictory.

I ask you to rule on it, Mr Chair, and if you cannot rule on it, if you would pass it on to Speaker Stockwell to make this ruling because this at the hub of these amendments. The government is basically making a complete reversal in its intent and this is not playing by the rules set up by this Legislature where you can't all of a sudden create a new intent and say it's the same bill because it's totally different than the original intent.

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to indicate that nothing could be further from being correct. The community councils are creatures of the council of the whole. They're committees of council. During the hearings that were held in the Legislature and our town hall meetings and in many other sources, we were asked to clarify the role of council and the duties the new council would have. Creating a community council is a role of the new council. They are there at the wish of council of the whole. They have no independent jurisdiction without the approval of council of the whole. The amendment to create community councils is certainly in order. It clarifies the role of council and was certainly the intent of the bill.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): We don't want to prolong this because of the time. I regret that you've been put in this position, but we're asking for you as Chair to rule, first, on whether or not the concept of community councils was envisioned in the first bill, Bill 103. We contend that it was not and thus it is foreign to the bill and thus would be out of order. We are asking you to rule on that. We're asking you to rule with regard to the ruling cited by my friend from Dovercourt from Mr Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons of Canada with regard to this matter.

Second, we're asking you to give us a ruling with regard to similar amendments that the government has indicated it intends to put during committee and how we will deal with that if the time for debate and raising these kinds of issues is past according to the time allocation motion. It is very important that you as Chair of the committee of the whole House rule.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments on the same amendment before I rule? In my opinion, it doesn't go beyond the scope. It does fall into the general principle of the bill. That is my ruling. Any further questions or comments on the amendment?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order with respect to that, Mr Chair: I would like to challenge your ruling.

The Chair: That's okay, that's fine. The procedure is we will wait for the Speaker to show up.

APPEAL OF CHAIR'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I assume the ruling was appealed.

Ms Lankin: The ruling of the Chair of committee of the whole was in response to a point of order that was placed by the member for Dovercourt with respect to the propriety of the amendment moved by the government. The government's amendment is with respect to creating community councils. It is the contention of our party that that is a notion that is foreign to the original bill and that there are parliamentary precedents which would dictate that it is out of order. The member for Dovercourt has those parliamentary precedents to cite for you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Silipo: The point I made to the Chair of the committee of the whole was that by introducing this concept of community council in the legislation by amendment at this stage of the proceedings, this amendment was out of order because it introduces a new concept.

I cited in reference and in support of my argument a ruling by Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons on July 21, 1977. I believe there are others, but I cited this one, at which point Speaker Jerome, as he then was, ruled that parts of Bill C-24, which was An Act respecting immigration to Canada, was out of order. Amendments to it were out of order, particularly two of the clauses, two of the motions, because they introduced a new concept into the bill. The concept they introduced in that case was the establishment of an 18-member refugee claims board which had not been contemplated in the original draft of the legislation.

Here we have a similar situation, I would argue, in that the government amendment introduces the concept of community councils here in subsection (1), in the definition section, and then expounds upon it later on in a further amendment. I would say to you that this is introducing a new concept. It's not in the original legislation and therefore, on the basis of established precedent, it should be ruled out of order.

The Speaker: Member for Dovercourt, a question, please: How did Speaker Jerome rule? I don't have it before me.

Mr Silipo: He found that those amendments that introduced this new concept, which he found in that case to be the establishment of an 18-member refugee board, were out of order. That's the parallel I am drawing with this amendment that introduces a new concept here which is a community council, a new entity that is not contemplated in the original legislation.

The Speaker: I'll take it, thank you. Member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I'll defer to the member for Oakwood.

1800

Mr Colle: I think this is quite clear. The language in the bill, the discussions in committee, the pronouncements from the minister continually talked about one-tier government, one unified city. That's all they ever talked about. Their propaganda always talked about one unified city. What they did with these amendments is that at the last minute they made a complete reversal. They said, "Now we have to re-establish the identities of the six cities," so they established in the amendments six community councils. Whether the councils are strong or not is irrelevant. The point is that they've established six new government entities, which means they've gone back to two-tier government, two levels of government, which contradicts the original intent of the bill, which was to get rid of duplication, to get rid of tiers.

That's what the motivation was here: to go with one level of government. Now they have six new governments that can spend money, that can effect local planning, as they say in their amendments, so they've gone away from the original intent. You can't do that in this late stage of the game. This is not the way it should work. They should have introduced a new bill. In fact, in their compendium to the City of Toronto Act, as they say, they indicated they would have to introduce a new bill later on next year to introduce other matters. They couldn't do it in this bill because it would be basically not part of this bill.

Because of public pressure they've said, "Oh, we're going to have to introduce a new level of government again." Either you're going to have one level or you're not. Now they've gone to two, so it's contradictory to the original intent of the bill. You can't do it at this late stage. You could have done it maybe during committee or when we went clause by clause. You can't do it now when we have a one-hour debate.

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Oakwood. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Nothing is out of order with this. We were asked during the committee hearings and during our meetings with residents of Toronto throughout the debate and the hearings on this matter. The community councils are a function of council of the whole. They have no powers beyond that of council of the whole. We are responding to what we heard in committee, as I said. The original bill dealt with a new council and this is a clarification of the role of the new council.

This is no different than any committee of any council throughout any municipality in Ontario. Councils set up committees. They control those committees. They can establish them or disband them as they see fit, as can happen to the community councils in this instance. So there's nothing out of order. This is clarifying the role and function of the new city council, which is set out in section 3 of the act.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need to hear these points of order raised, and it's not helpful for you to be heckling. I ask the question: These neighbourhood community councils are made up of appointed individuals or elected officials?

Hon Mr Leach: They're made up of the elected officials, the same elected officials who sit on council as a whole.

The Speaker: Now I'll entertain more points of order, if you like. I'd like them to be quick, to the point.

Mr Bradley: I think if you look carefully at the legislation, as I know you will, you will see how contrary this particular amendment is to the original bill. The original bill clearly deals with one megacity. This is a chance at appeasement. This is an opportunity for the government to try to appease people, to give the appearance that it is somehow going to take into account the representations which were made at committee. Yet by doing so, by including this amendment, the government is clearly doing something which is contrary to the spirit, surely, of the original legislation, I think to the substance of the original legislation.

Mr Silipo: In rebuttal to the point the minister made, I think he likes to or tries to portray this as being merely a simple extension of the powers that municipal councils already have. I want to say to you that if that is the case, it doesn't need to be in the legislation.

Second, I want to draw your attention to another ruling which I think has some precedent value in this case: In another instance also by Speaker Jerome, I believe, June 27, 1977 -- I will pass this on with the Clerk to you -- the government of the day was contemplating extending by amendment the piece of legislation in front of it, Bill C-20 at the time, extending the powers of the Auditor General of Canada by three amendments, expanding the definitions of "tax expenditure," "tax expenditure budget," thus making a wider range of information available to the Auditor General. Two of the amendments sought to extend the functions of the Auditor General by enabling him, among other things, to examine individual income tax returns.

The example there was an attempt through amendment to expand the powers of in that case the Auditor General, and in this case the municipal councils, and those amendments were found to be unacceptable and out of order, because as the Speaker gave in his reasons, those amendments assign other responsibilities to the Auditor General which are entirely foreign to those envisaged by the legislation. These amendments, therefore, go beyond the scope of the bill and certainly beyond the scope of the clauses to be amended. That's something I would pass to you for your consideration. I think we've got a parallel situation here.

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to carry on with that comment. This is not an expansion of the power of the council. The community councils have no powers other than that provided to them by council.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I need the assistance of the opposition, with greatest respect. These are important matters you're bringing to my attention. They're important amendments and if you're asking for a ruling, you can't keep interrupting them when you don't agree with them. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Leach: The reason the community councils were put into the legislation is that we were asked during committee, and we were asked by a number of people, how would the council of a single unified city be able to ensure that communities were protected? We suggested, and we put it into the legislation, that the committee of the whole of the new city council divide itself into committees by area. This is not a unique situation. Councils work by committee now; they work by committee of function. What this does is continue to work by committee, but to work by area rather than function. It's not unique, it's not different and it's not out of order.

Mr Wildman: Two points: First, the key point in the ruling of Mr Speaker Jerome cited by my friend for Dovercourt is the word "foreign," that this is foreign to Bill 103. It was not in the original bill. It is something completely new, a new concept.

The second point is, for the minister to argue, first, that these committees are not important so that it doesn't really matter, or on the other hand that they are simply committees of the council which are geographic and, he says, not unique, well, committees of council that are geographic are indeed unique, I think. Having said that, if they are just committees of council then there is no need for them to be in the legislation. Councils can create their own committees. They don't have to be in legislation.

In both cases the amendment is ridiculous and out of order.

Ms Castrilli: Community councils, as we have now heard from the minister, are a brand-new concept. They're both new and foreign, and as has been cited, that is precisely what is objectionable about the community councils.

I really just want to put something else to you which might be of assistance. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 437 deals with this pretty specifically. Under subsection (1) it says: "An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved." Therefore, out of order. Even if you rule that this is a new question, not a foreign question to the original purpose of the bill, then subsection (2) goes on to say: "An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice."

This is a clear case of a new concept, a foreign concept which has been introduced at the very last moment. No one knew anything about it, through the hearings, after the hearings, until now. That is a new and foreign concept and therefore out of order.

The Speaker: I appreciate the interest and I know there are points of order you want to get on the record. I'm not going to say you can't get them on the record. What I would like to say, though, is that they need to be germane first and to the point. The member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: I think there's one defining aspect of this. In the amendments that were made, to show that they've actually created a new tier, which they said they were going to eliminate, they even redefined the boundaries. As you know, originally they were going to use the federal boundaries. In order to re-establish these new entities called community councils, they changed the boundaries to go back to the municipal boundaries used by Metro, so that you have six distinct geographic councils. No matter how it came about, the fact is they reversed course. They now have new, distinct councils established, which is contrary to the original intent of having one level of government, one unified government. Now they've got basically one regional government and they've got six new, distinct regional councils with a chair, budgets, expenditures, obligations and control over things like bylaws, severance etc.

1810

Hon David Johnson: That's very colourful but it isn't factual. In fact there is still one tier; there are not two tiers. What we're talking about is very common in governments: committees. Municipal governments in fact are composed of committees, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, from your previous experience at the municipal level. It's a very common prospect in cities, a very common way of organizing, and there's nothing foreign to the bill. The kinds of responsibilities and duties are exactly the same; precisely the same functions of fire protection, street maintenance, libraries etc. Nothing foreign, nothing new, simply a committee concept which is not foreign in any way, shape or form to the municipal structure.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This deserves further attention. It's a substantive and profound change that is being made here in the legislation. I think on the point of order, we are arguing that in fact this is a foreign idea.

The Speaker: I gathered that, actually.

Mr Cordiano: Well, you've gathered that, but the point has to be made.

The Speaker: I just need now to figure out what it is you're bringing forward that --

Mr Cordiano: The points have been made and I think ultimately you have to rule in our favour. To lend strength to that argument, it cannot be set aside as a continuation of what was in the bill as intended. So I'm lending strength to your argument to make you rule in favour of decreeing that this is a foreign item that is being introduced as a novel idea. Obviously on that point of order, I would hope that you would vote in our favour.

Ms Lankin: I think most of the points have been made with respect to supporting the point of order by the member for Dovercourt. I simply want to make a point in rebuttal.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government House leader in their comments alluded to further amendments that actually establish these councils and suggested that these are just subcommittees of the municipal council which may be set up, and it's up to the municipal council.

I know we are now moving into what it says later in the bill, but I do want to point out to you that under section 5.1, under "Establishment of community councils," it actually says:

"(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."

In fact it is not permissive and not enabling; it is a directive. It says it "shall" establish. These councils that "shall" now be established, not "may be," are not any creature that was envisioned by the original bill.

Mrs McLeod: The government House leader has suggested, in arguing that this is not new or foreign, that it is indeed common for these kinds of committees to be structured. I'm not aware of any comparable example in any jurisdiction in Ontario and indeed in Canada in which there would be committees organized along very specific geographic lines and imposed upon a municipal level of government by the provincial government.

Hon Mr Leach: Just to clarify the point that was made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, it says, "There shall be...community councils," but later in the bill it also says that those councils are there at the wish of council of the whole, and if they choose to dissolve community councils, that's at the purview of council as a whole, as is any committee that is set up by any municipal government.

The 56 representatives are divided into councils, as they are in any other municipal council, and they work by area rather than function. That's not unique.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just on that point, the minister is really contradicting himself. The word "shall" mandates. The word "may" is permissive. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you "shall" have this but later on say you "may." You've got to be consistent. There is no discretion. If the legislation is passed and says "shall," then it is mandated. It is not up to the discretion of the council what it does with it. So I would suggest that if that is your intent, you should amend your particular amendment.

The Speaker: I appreciate the opportunity for input from all the members who participated and I am going to take 10 minutes and look at this.

The House recessed from 1816 to 1839.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank the members with their input with respect to this particular amendment. It's a very interesting amendment and also very interesting are the thoughts and ideas that were brought forward.

The fundamental point with respect to this amendment is that it does say in the bill that the council "shall" strike the neighbourhood committees. The fact of the matter remains, in reviewing the bill, that fundamentally one hour later they could abolish the community committees and that means they have the power over these community committees. They also have the power to change, reconfigure and abolish -- not change the makeup of the committees or reconfigure, but they can change any decisions taken by the community committees and they can amend any decisions they take. It is a difficult amendment but on balance, if the belief is that the amalgamation is the thrust of the bill, then I believe the thrust is still there with this amendment.

We'll now go back into committee.

House in committee of the whole.

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

The Chair: Further questions or comments on this amendment?

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Chair: I just would like to remind you that in raising the previous point of order, which obviously now has been dealt with, I also raised --

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: It's hard to even hear myself.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Silipo: I raised also with you the question more in terms of seeking some guidance from you, Chair, about how we would deal with similar issues that might arise with respect to amendments that we might not have the chance to debate in terms of the time allocation that's left, the 26 minutes that are now left on the clock. If we are into the process after the 26 minutes are up, and of course the amendments are deemed to have been moved by the time allocation motion, does that mean that we are not in a position to raise any point of order with respect to whether we believe certain amendments are out of order, or how are we going to deal with that? I think it's important we know that at this juncture.

The Chair: No problem at all. Once we've gone through the hour and if you have amendments or if you don't agree with a certain amendment, of course you have a point to raise and debate it. Just bring it to my attention.

Mr Silipo: Just so I'm clear, Mr Chair, what you're saying is that even after the hour is over and we are voting on amendment X, at that point, if we have a point of order, you will accept it at that point?

The Chair: If you believe one of the amendments is out of order, you can rise, of course, and mention to me that it's out of order. I will pay attention to it and we'll continue on after that.

Mr Bradley: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Is what you are saying this, and I'll give an instance: There is a particular amendment that the government or the opposition has brought forward, somebody challenges the validity of the amendment, in other words, whether that amendment is in order, can we at that time have you go to the Speaker and say to the Speaker, "Would you please rule on whether that's in order or not?"

The Chair: Of course, if anyone wants to appeal my decision, I'll have to go to the Speaker. I have no choice.

Mr Bradley: What you are saying, to get it absolutely right, is that any time during the voice vote on each of these amendments, we can challenge that amendment as to its being in order or not in order?

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr Bradley: Are you going to rule immediately on those challenges?

The Chair: I will rule on it, and if you don't like my ruling, you can appeal it.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I appreciate your clarification.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, before you move off debate on this particular amendment, I would like to make sure that I have understood the Speaker's ruling that allows this amendment to be in order. I think it's absolutely essential that the record be clear at this point in time, because I believe the Hansard record could be used in interpreting the legislation at some future date.

I understand the Speaker has ruled that the amendment is in order because, although the legislation says that these community councils "shall" be established, it is the Speaker's understanding, confirmed on the basis of the minister's comments, that those community councils could be dissolved within an hour of establishing them by the new mega-council, and that community councils would therefore no longer exist and that the dissolution of the community councils would not be considered to be a violation of the legislation that sets out clearly that these community councils shall be established.

Because this is so contradictory, I think it's essential that the record be clear. The Speaker has said the amendment is in order because although the community councils must be established, they can be dissolved as little as an hour later, and the council, in dissolving them, would not be in violation of the legislation.

If I've understood that correctly, then the minister's contention that this is in fact a response to the concerns that have been presented by the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto becomes completely meaningless, because the community councils may exist for as little as an hour.

The Chair: I have listened you to attentively, and it's not up to me to rule on a ruling of the Speaker, so it's completely out of order and that's it.

Questions or comments on the amendment?

Mr Colle: Just a brief question: In terms of what the Speaker has just ruled --

The Chair: No. Your question has got to be on the amendment that's up, not what the Speaker has ruled. That's finished. That is the end of it. If you have any questions or comments on the amendment that was introduced by the minister, that's what we will deal with, nothing else.

Mr Colle: My question on this amendment is whether the ambiguity here in this amendment in terms of what a neighbourhood council is or neighbourhood committee and community council is -- this amendment makes it very ambiguous to where I think even the Speaker confused the two. I think that has got to be straightened out before we proceed, because they're two different entities. I think the Speaker interchanged them and I think this amendment adds to that confusion. That's why I think it is still out of order.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to answer this question?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Speaker, my apologies, I was busy looking at the amendments. The amendment says that they shall create six councils, and the intent was that they should create six, one for each of the existing municipalities. Then it goes on further to state they would be subject to the -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. My apologies. No, I have no further question and I'd move that this amendment carry.

Mr Colle: What about this ambiguity about the neighbourhood councils and the mega-council? We are still are confused by this amendment.

Hon Mr Leach: It applies both to neighbourhood committees and community councils, Mr Chair.

1850

The Chair: Any further questions or amendments?

Mr Silipo: I would actually like to make a couple of points with respect to this amendment, if that's in order. I think the exercise that we've just gone through has been a fascinating one. I listened very carefully to the Speaker's ruling and my sense was that he came as close as he could to indicating to the government that they got this one in by a hair.

I found really interesting, as we went through the debate on the point of order, the minister's position on this, which was, if you recall, they've been touting the community councils as one of the big answers to what they heard and how they're responding to what they heard. "We're going to have strong, local bodies," they said, "that are going to respond to and reflect the local wishes." In the same breath the minister turns around and says: "But then it's up to council. They can disband these five minutes after they establish them."

I want to say again, you can't have it both ways, Minister. You know that what you are doing through this amendment for the establishment of the community councils is quite frankly a farce. You're pretending that you are giving people what they said they want, but you're not. You are not substantially because you have chosen to ignore that the fundamental question that people said no to in the referendum was the concept of the megacity or the unified city, as you like to call it.

But what they said no to was you're trying to lambaste this through. You're trying to push this through. You're trying to ram this through in the kind of undemocratic way that you have been doing. You can wrap it up any way you want. You can put these community councils in with these kinds of amendments that say, on the one hand, council has to establish them and then they can turn around and take them out. You know as well as I do that at the end of the day these community councils will be meaningless. They will be meaningless because they will not have any powers, and yet you tried to introduce a new concept in here that hadn't been there before.

It's just one more example, as I see it, of the kind of two-faced approach we have by this government in this piece of legislation. I just find it astounding that this is the way in which this government would pretend they are responding to the concerns that they heard. But actually -- no, I have to correct myself. I no longer find it astounding. I'm no longer surprised by the measures to which this government and certainly, in this instance, this minister will go to to try and wrap a draconian measure, which is what Bill 103 is, in nice wrapping as if people will buy that.

I think what the minister needs to understand on this specific amendment and all of the other ones that we won't get a chance to debate is that people out there are not fools. People have more than understood what this minister and this government are doing and people will not forget and people will not go away.

At some point it's conceivable that this bill may pass, but let me be clear with the minister. He should be under no illusion that even if he manages to get this bill passed, that's the end of the process because what he has contributed to, along with Premier Harris, is a real awakening among the population of Metropolitan Toronto through this bill to what this government is all about. No community council concept, no mishmashing of ideas is going to any longer confuse the people of Metropolitan Toronto. They understand the Harris agenda, they understand the Al Leach agenda and they will have no part of it, and we will have no part of it.

We have already said that if we form the next government, and we want to be very clear with people about this, we will put in place a real process that addresses what has to be done in creating a real governance structure for the region which is the greater Toronto area, and within that, looking at what changes need to be made to ensure that there are strong, local, effective councils. Within that, we will then revoke Bill 103 and we will do the work that needs to be done with local politicians and, most important, with the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto to ensure that there is a consensus arrived at.

People are ready for change, people want to see change but they want to see it in a way that is healthy, in a way that takes into concern the best that there is and that is working about local councils, not this mishmash of community councils which have powers, don't have powers, have them one minute, don't have them the next minute, but local councils with real powers that can then relate to a regional government that has real governance responsibilities for what is now the real region, which is the greater Toronto area.

That's what we will continue to talk about, that's what we will continue to work for, and this government is completely missing the boat if they think that with a simple amendment like this establishing community councils that will exist or may exist or may no longer exist two hours or two weeks or two months later, they are appeasing anybody. They are not, and they should at least have the decency to admit that they are not, responding to the essential point that was made by the people of Metropolitan Toronto in the hearings on this bill and certainly in the referendum, which is no, Minister, no to the megacity.

Hon Mr Leach: We listened to the people when they came to the committees and said they wanted strong communities and they wanted the municipal boundaries to be respected. We listened and that's why we put in legislation the creation of community councils because we, as well, believe that communities in existing municipal boundaries should be protected.

However, having done that, come December or November of next year, there will be a new, directly local municipal council, and if you want local democracy to prevail, the new council should have the ability to deal with how that community works by voting either to keep the community councils, expand the community councils, give them more powers, give them less powers. That's what democracy is, not for the provincial government to come down and say: "We're going to legislate community councils and you will never, ever be able to change it. You will be bound by that forever."

That is not democracy. Democracy is giving the duly elected council in November the ability and the right to see if there's a better way to do it. If there's a better way to do it, we encourage them to do so. At this point in time this government believes by setting up community councils in legislation we are showing the way for the new council, and I hope they would continue with them, but if they find a better way to do it, it is their local, democratic right to choose to do so.

Mr Colle: This is incredible. What I am hearing is talk about local democracy and protecting it. This minister is wiping out six local governments arbitrarily against the will of the people and the citizens who voted overwhelmingly no in the referendum, against all the elected officials, and he talks about respecting local government and local democracy. This is the height of hypocrisy, especially when we've got this proven --

The Chair: Order. Your choice of words is --

Mr Colle: Okay, "inconsistency."

The Chair: Would you please withdraw the word?

Mr Colle: I'll withdraw "hypocrisy."

In terms of this minister then, when he had a chance to stand up for these community councils, a chance here to defend them, what did the minister and the House leader say? "Oh, they're just committees. They can be wiped out. They don't count." This was this minister's answer to saying he listened to people. What they put forth is these counterfeit councils. They're a farce, as this whole bill and this whole process is. You haven't respected people, and then to tell people that you're going to have a local government of 57 members -- talk about farces. You can imagine how you're going to be able to engage in a debate or deputations to -- there's no such thing in Canada -- a 57-member council.

1900

The only attempt the minister had to water that down and give local autonomy a say was maybe re-establishing local government. All he has done is put up these counterfeit, fraudulent, patronizing committees that are just a testament to the arrogance of this minister and this government to all the citizens who voted no to this megacity bill. They won't be bought off by this fraudulent attempt to appease them, because they're smarter than you are, Minister. They're not going to be fooled by these counterfeit councils. You just stood up in this House and said they were counterfeit, you said they were meaningless, and you encouraged the Chair to rule they were meaningless. That's what you think of these councils. They're counterfeit, as this bill is counterfeit.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I just found it incredible listening to the minister lecture us about democracy here, trying to explain that that's what this section of the bill is all about. In a way, the very thing we're debating here today is the absolute lack of democracy in this whole process. Minister, you may think that by making these amendments today you're actually providing democracy, which is what part of what the No coalition was all about: the lack of process. In fact, from my reading of that amendment, what you've just said -- and I'm going to choose my words carefully; we have a few minutes left here -- is misinterpreting perhaps. I don't have it in front of me, but if you look at it, some of the things you're saying it does are not even there, these things about the committee of adjustment. What you're saying, in my view, is the opposite of what's actually in writing.

It's the height of ridiculousness to stand here and try to pretend -- I chose that word carefully -- that what you're doing with this is actually providing more democracy.

These amendments in general -- we're not going to have an opportunity to talk about them in general; soon our time, the hour for actual debate, even though we'll go on, will be up. But I want to say to you here and now, Minister, we still want you to withdraw this bill, and it's a very serious request. As you know, the large percentage of Metro voters voted no, and there's a basic, fundamental flaw. We're going to be putting forth a lot of amendments, but nothing can really fix this bill.

I'm going to ask you now, in the few minutes we have left in this hour, to still seriously think about withdrawing it. It is not too late. The sky is not going to fall. There is still time to work with the people in a democratic way to come up with some solutions. Pretty well everybody has said that the status quo is not acceptable. We have to work on the whole greater Toronto area first and figure out how to coordinate those services, then sit down, as we've proposed to you, and start working out the best municipal representation within that structure that is democratic so people feel they are -- and are -- represented democratically.

I would ask the minister now if he would still consider today withdrawing this bill and starting all over again. It is not too late. We can still do this right.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Mr Chair, I wonder if you or perhaps the minister, Mr Leach, could clarify the problem we are having with clause 1(a). I'm reading from the amendment. Do you have Bill 103 with you, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes, I have the amendment.

Mr Sergio: I'm having difficulty, because the amendment from the minister calls for an amendment to section 1, amending (a) and (b). Part (a) refers to "a neighbourhood committee or community council established under section 5 or 5.1." Now, I want to call your attention to page 5, under section 5. There is no 5.1. Can you please explain to me, can you please have Mr Leach explain, where 5.1 comes into the picture?

Hon Mr Leach: Government amendment number 7 deals with that question, and I would refer the member to the government's amendment.

Mr Sergio: This is the problem we are having and that the public is having, because the amendment in front of us doesn't say anything with respect to amendment 7 or whatever other 7. It deals strictly with amending (a) and (b) and to find that amendment in section 5 or 5.1. It does not say anything about, "Go and find that in section 7."

This shows you how convoluted this bill is. It has been drawn up in such a rush that even the minister doesn't know the content of the bill. I would like to have a clear-cut explanation of where we can find and address this community council under 5.1 of the government's amendment.

Hon Mr Leach: We provided copies of our amendments to the opposition parties almost a week ago, a courtesy, I might point out, that wasn't extended to us. I would suggest that if the member read the entire package, he might see where that issue is dealt with, and it's dealt with under amendment 7; that's where that's dealt with. I would suggest that the member read the entire package and inform himself of the changes we're making.

Mr Sergio: That's unacceptable. We are dealing with the community councils in section 1 of the entire bill itself, and this was amended with their own amendment. This amendment does not say to go and find that amendment in section 7. With all due respect, this must be addressed, and the only way it can be addressed properly is if the minister does the right thing and -- I don't know if you're listening, Mr Chair. Are you listening, Mr Chair? Well, I'm addressing it directly to the minister: If you want to do the right thing, you should withdraw the bill now, defer it and get it right, because you have no idea what's in your own bill.

You just cannot address the community councils, as you have said in your own amendment to clause 1(a), and then say, "Well, if it's not in this particular clause here, go and look in section 7." Any citizen out there who would read your own amendment would have to find that community council in clause 1(a). With all due respect, I'm requesting that you give us either a fair, good explanation, or you consider deferring the entire bill until you get it right.

Hon Mr Leach: You owe me one.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much. For giving me the remaining 23 seconds, the minister says I owe him one. I want to say to you, Minister, there is so much that needs to be debated, there is so much that needs to be said about this flawed process, about the way in which your government has rolled over the public of Metropolitan Toronto, shown disrespect for the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, all I can say is that you should be ashamed. This is the darkest day in the history of the Legislature of Toronto.

The Chair: On January 29, we passed the following motion:

That one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once, and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 2 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House and that, notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the committee of the whole stage of Bill 103.

1910

All of the amendments have been deemed to have been moved and I will now put the questions on all sections of the bill, starting with the government amendment to section 1:

"I move that clauses (a) and (b) of the definition of `local boards' in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`the neighbourhood committee or community council established under sections 5 or 5.1;

"`the financial advisory board established under section 9 of the transition team established under section 16.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. As agreed, the vote will be deferred.

We will now deal with the Liberal amendment to section 1, the 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."

Shall the amendment carry?

Mr Silipo: A point of order: You said it was a Liberal amendment, and it's a government amendment, is it not?

The Chair: No, it's a Liberal amendment.

Mr Silipo: I could swear that the words I was following were exactly the government amendment, but okay.

The Chair: What I have before me is the Liberal amendment. For your information, Mr Silipo, the Liberal one says "December 31, 2000," and the government says "December 1, 1997."

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will now deal with the government motion on section 1, the definition of "transitional year."

"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."

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." I declare the motion carried. The vote is deferred.

We'll now deal with a Liberal motion, adding sections 1.1 to 1.3.

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

"Municipal referenda or plebiscites binding

"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. If a majority of voters answered a 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 received royal assent.

"Timing

"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.

"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.

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

"Cost of implementation

"Any increase in municipal expenditures in the old municipalities or in the new city that result 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."

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Chair: When members vote, are they not supposed to be in their seats that they usually occupy in the House? There are a number of members in the House who are voting without being in their proper seats.

The Chair: It's a voice vote and, of course, we don't pay attention to it but the members have to be in their seats.

We will now deal with a Liberal motion to subsection 2(1):

"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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We will now deal with another amendment brought in by the Liberals:

"I move that clause 2(5)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We'll now deal with another amendment by the Liberals, subsection 2(5.1).

"I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`The new city holds in a reserve or reserve fund acquired from an old municipality under clause 5(b) in trust for the residents of a geographic area or jurisdiction of that old municipality and shall deal with them only for the benefit of those residents.'"

1920

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Please take your seat. The vote is deferred.

I now have an NDP motion.

"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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal again with an NDP motion, subsection 2(10).

"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 in 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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

I now have a Liberal motion.

"I move that clause 3(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`One member elected for each of the wards established under section 4.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal with a government motion.

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

"`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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal with an NDP motion.

"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) of 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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal with a Liberal motion.

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

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

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

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal with a government motion.

"I move that paragraph 1 of section 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.'"

Shall the amendment -- point of order?

Mr Silipo: Yes. This is another one of those amendments on which I indicated earlier that we may have a point of order, and I want to just raise it now. I believe this particular amendment is out of order. The reason for that, and I will be brief because I appreciate the process that we're going through: I believe there are accepted precedents in this House and in other parliaments that say very clearly that an amendment may not amend sections from the original act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee.

This amendment, as you see, tries to replace section 10 of the Municipal Elections Act with section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. I have not been able to find in the original bill any references to section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, and so I believe this is contrary to accepted practice, which does not allow an amendment to be put that would amend a clause in a bill which is not before the committee. Section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act is not before the committee; it hasn't been before the Parliament, before the committee, by virtue of not being in the original bill. I think in that instance it then needs to be ruled out of order.

The Chair: This motion is in order because the effect is not to amend a clause because, if you read, it says very clearly, "despite subsection (49)." "Despite." So it doesn't amend the clause itself.

We will proceed with the vote on this motion. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the "ayes" have it. The vote will be deferred.

We now deal with a government motion.

"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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will be deferred.

We now deal with a government motion.

"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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

1930

We are now dealing with a Liberal motion.

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

"`The Ontario Municipal Board shall, by order, divide the urban area into an even number of wards. Before establishing the number and boundaries of the wards, the Ontario Municipal Board shall hold public consultation.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

We now deal with an NDP motion.

"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 subsection 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.'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

Now to a government motion:

"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.

"`Same

"`(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 part of the 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 councils 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 a 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).'"

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): An NDP motion:

"`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 licencing.

"`2. Functions in connection with local roads.

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

"`4. Functions in connection with arts funding.

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

Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

Interjection.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Cochrane South will come to order.

An NDP motion.

"`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 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 their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Is it the wish of the committee that the amendment carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

1940

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1, 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.'"

Is it the wish of the committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out section 5 of the bill and substitute sections 5, 5.1, 5.2 be amended by striking out subsection 5.2(7)."

Is it the wish of the committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that subsection 6(2) of the bill be amended by striking out `municipal corporation' in the third and fourth lines and substituting `municipal commission.'"

Is it the wish of the committee that the motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"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.'"

Is it the wish of the committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Chair: You called the vote on a section?

The Second Deputy Chair: A whole section, yes.

Mr Silipo: But there's an amendment that we have on section 7.1. So it's a new section.

The Second Deputy Chair: The vote shall be deferred.

NDP motion:

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

"`Toronto Transit Commission

"`Commission continued

"`7.1 The Toronto Transit Commission is continued under the name of "Toronto Transit Commission" in English and "Commission de transport de Toronto" in French and is responsible for the public transit in the urban area.'"

Is it the wish of the committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall is deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"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 an 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.'

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"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).'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"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.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

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

"`Municipal assets

"`8.1. Nothing in this act gives the government of Ontario access to assets of any old municipality or the new city, including reserves and reserve funds.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? It is carried. No? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

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

"`Reserves and reserve funds

"`8.2. 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.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

NDP motion:

"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.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that the motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"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 transition 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 the 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.'"

1950

Is it the wish of this committee that the motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"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 (3).'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 9 of the bill be amended by striking clause (7)(b).'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"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 the possession or would normally be available to members of the public.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"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)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

I have an NDP motion:

"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)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out subclauses 9(8)(a)(iii) and substituting the following:

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

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"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.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

Interruption.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would you please remove that person.

NDP motion:

"Delegation to one or more members

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out sub-section (8)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out sub-section (10)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion; a little lengthy:

"I move that section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Financial advisory board

"(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 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 agreement to payments in connection with the ending of an employment relationship, as referred to in paragraph 5 of subsection 10(2);

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

"(b) may establish and publish guidelines with respect to matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the 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, employees and agents of the old municipality and members, employees and agents of each local board and of an old municipality shall,

"(a) cooperate with 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 possession of the old municipality or local board, as the case may be, that is relevant to the functions of the financial advisory board.

"Powers

"(8) Without limiting the generality of subsection (7), the financial advisory board has power to,

"(a) require and old council or a local board of an old municipality to,

"(i) furnish information, records or documents that are in its possession and are relevant to the functions of the financial advisory board,

"(ii) create a new document or record that is relevant to the functions of the financial advisory board by compiling existing information, and furnish the document or record, and

"(iii) update earlier information furnished under this subsection; and

"(b) impose a deadline for compliance with a requirement under clause (a).

"Delegation

"(9) The financial advisory board may authorize one or more of its members to act on its behalf.

"Staff, facilities and services

"(10) The financial advisory board may hire staff, arrange for facilities and obtain expert services as it considers necessary to perform its functions.

"Dissolution of board

"(11) The financial advisory board is dissolved on January 31, 1998."

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote shall be deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out clause 10(1)(b) and substituting the following:

"Restrictions on powers of old councils and local boards

"`(b) the old council's or local board's budget provides for the act.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

2000

This is an NDP motion:

"Board approval

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 6 of subsection 10(2)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Transactions during transitional period

"`10(1) During the transitional period, an old council or a local board of an old municipality shall not do an act described in subsection (2) unless,

"`(a) the act is done in accordance with a guideline established under subsection 9(5); or

"`(b) the old council's or local board's budget specifically provides for the act, has been submitted to the financial advisory board and considered by it under subsection 11(1) and (3), and has been dealt with by the old council or local board under subsection 11(5), if applicable.

"`Same

"`(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following acts:

"`1 Conveying an interest in property whose original purchase price or actual current value exceeds $100,000.

"`2 Purchasing an interest in property for a price that exceeds $100,000.

"`3 Transferring money between or among reserves or reserve funds, or changing the purpose or designation of a reserve or reserve fund.

"`4 Entering into a contract or incurring a financial liability or obligation that extends beyond the end of the transitional year.

"`5 Making or agreeing to make a payment in connection with the ending of an employment relationship, except in accordance with a contract or collective agreement entered into before the day this section comes into force.

"`6 Appointing a person to a position, hiring a new employee or promoting an existing employee.

"`Exception

"`(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent an old board or a local board of an old municipality from,

"`(a) doing anything that it is otherwise required to do by law;

"`(b) taking action in an emergency.

"`Same

"`(4) Subsection (1) does not prevent the performance of a contract entered into before the day this section comes into force.

"`Same

"`(5) Subsection (1) does not prevent an act that is,

"`(a) approved by the financial advisory board; or

"`(b) provided for by a bylaw or resolution that also contains a provision to the effect that it shall not come into force until the approval of the financial advisory board has been obtained.

"`Time for approval, conditions

"`(6) The financial advisory board may approve an act under clause (5)(a) in advance or retroactivity, and in either case may impose conditions on the approval.

"`Retroactive effects

"`(7) Guidelines made under subsection 9(5) may, if they so provide, apply to acts done before the guidelines are published.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry?

I declare the motion carried.

Interjections: No.

The Second Deputy Chair: I said, "Shall it carry?" and it carried. I didn't see or hear a "No." Was there a "No"? There was a "No." If there was a "No," I stand corrected.

All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 10 of the bill be struck out."

I'm ruling that this is out of order, as the procedure exists to simply vote against it instead of striking out the section.

This is a Liberal motion:

"The Liberal members of the committee recommend that the committee vote against section 10."

I'm ruling this out of order, as it's not an amendment, but a reminder simply to vote against section 10.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Annual operating and capital budgets

"`11. Each year during the transitional period, each local council and each local board of an old municipality shall provide the board of advisers with a copy of its operating and capital budget for the year.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote shall be deferred.

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"`I move that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`1997 budgets

"`11(1) Each old council and each local board of an old municipality shall, by a date fixed by the financial advisory board, submit to the board,

"`(a) the old council's or local board's final operating and capital budgets for 1997;

"`(b) a statement of its actual operating capital expenditures for the first quarter of 1997; and

"`(c) a forecast of its operating expenditures for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1997.

"`Quarterly spending report

"`(2) Within 14 days after the end of each of the second, third and fourth quarters of 1997, each old council and local board shall submit to the financial advisory board a report,

"`(a) comparing actual operating expenditures for that quarter to the amount forecast in the budget; and

"`(b) stating capital expenditures for that quarter.

"`Consideration of budgets and reports

"`(3) When material submitted under subsection (1) or (2), the financial advisory board shall consider it and give the old council or local board a written response indicating,

"`(a) what concerns the financial advisory board has in connection with the material submitted; or

"`(b) that it has no concerns, if that is the case.

"`Example

"`(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), when the financial advisory board considers a budget it shall consider the extent to which planned spending includes appropriations from reserves and reserve funds.

"`Duty of old council or local board

"`(5) If the financial advisory board expresses concerns under subsection (3) in connection with the material submitted under subsection (1), the old council or local board shall consider them and,

"`(a) change the budget in response to the concerns; or

"`(b) confirm the budget as submitted to the financial advisory board.

"`Same

"`(6) If the financial advisory board expresses no concerns under subsection (3), the old council or local board need take no further action.

"`Meeting open to public

"`(7) Any decisions required by subsection (5) shall be made at a meeting that is open to the public.

"`Local board without own budget

"`(8) A local board whose budget forms part of the overall budget of an old council is not required to submit material under subsection (1) or (2).

"`Extension of time

"`(9) The financial advisory board may, at the request of an old council or local board, extend a time limit fixed under subsection (1) or a time limit set out in subsection (2), may do so retroactively and may impose conditions on the extension.

"`Alternate reporting periods

"`(10) An old council or local board may, if it obtains the approval of the financial advisory board in advance, express the statements, forecasts and reports required by subsections (1) and (2) in terms of a specified reporting period other than a quarter.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"The government recommends that members of the committee vote against section 12."

I'm not sure whose amendment. Whose motion is it? I don't care whose it is, it's out of order.

This is a Liberal motion:

"Liberal members of the committee recommend the committee vote against section 12."

This is out of order.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 12 of the bill be struck out."

I'm ruling it out of order.

This is a Liberal motion on section 12:

"I move that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Application of JRPA and SPPA

"`12. The Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply to the board of trustees."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote shall be deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"The Liberal members of the committee recommend the committee vote against section 13."

I'm ruling it out of order.

Interjections.

It does so say "Liberal motion."

"I move that section 13 of the bill be struck out."

I'm ruling it out of order.

Shall section 13 carry? All those in favour of section 13 carrying say "aye." Those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

2010

The government recommends that members of committee vote against section 14, and I'm ruling that out of order.

This is a Liberal motion to section 14:

"I move that section 14 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Expenses

"`14. Expenses of the board of advisors, including the remuneration expenses of its board, shall be paid by the government of Ontario.'"

I am ruling this out of order as it directs public funds.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Chair: In that motion you said the expenses of its board shall be paid; it reads "expenses of its members shall be paid."

The Second Deputy Chair: This says "expenses of the board," but I'm ruling it out of order.

Shall section 14 of the bill carry? The section does not carry.

This is a government motion:

"I move that section 15 of the bill be amended by striking out `board of trustees' in the second line of subsection (1) and in clause (2)(a) and substituting in both cases `financial advisory board'."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 16 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Transition team

"`16(1) There shall be a transition team consisting of one or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"`Duties

"`The transition team shall,

"`(a) consider what further legislation may be required to implement this act, and make detailed recommendations to the minister;

"`(b) work with the old councils and the local boards of the old municipalities to ensure a smooth transition to ensure that levels of service remain consistent during the transitional period;

"`(c) hold public consultations on the implementation of this act;

"`(d) make recommendations to the new council;

"`(e) report to the minister at his or her request;

"`(f) cooperate with the board of trustees.

"`Primacy of locally elected officials

"`(2) The transition team has no power to override local decision-making or interfere with activities of locally elected officials.

"`Dissolution

"`(3) The transition team is dissolved on January 31 in the year 2001.'"

Is it the wish of this House that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that subsection 16(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Duties

"`(4) The transition team shall,

"`(a) consider what further legislation may be required to implement this act, and make detailed recommendations to the minister;

"`(b) establish the key elements of the new city's organizational structure and hire, in accordance with section 17, the municipal officers required by statute and any other employees of executive rank whom the transition team considers necessary to ensure the good management of the new city;

"`(c) hold public consultations on,

"`(i) the functions to be assigned for neighbourhood committees and the method of choosing their members,

"`(ii) the functions to be assigned to the community councils and the executive committee, and

"`(iii) the rationalization and integration of municipal services across the new city and associated opportunities for savings;

"`(d) give the old councils opportunities to meet with the transition team to discuss the matters described in subclauses (c)(i), (ii) and (iii);

"`(e) before December 31, 1997, make detailed recommendations to the new council on,

"`(i) the matters referred to in subclauses (c)(i), (ii) and (iii),

"`(ii) a procedure bylaw for the purposes of subsection 55(2) of the Municipal Act,

"`(iii) the remuneration of the mayor, the community chairs and the other members of council, and

"`(iv) transitional issues;

"`(f) prepare and submit to the new council for its consideration a proposed operating and capital budget for 1998 that provides for property tax stability and continuity of service delivery;

"`(g) report to the minister at his or her request;

"`(h) cooperate with the financial advisory board;

"`(i) carry out any other prescribed duties.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace subsection 16(4) of the bill be amended by striking out clause 16(4)(i)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote shall be deferred.

A government motion:

"I move that clause 16(5)(b) of the bill be amended by adding `and that is relevant to the functions of the transition team' at the end."

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

An NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out and replace clauses 16(a) and (d) of the bill be amended by striking out subclause (6)(d)(iii)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote is deferred.

A government motion to clauses 16(a) and (d):

"I move that clauses 16(6)(a) and (d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`(a) require an old council or a local board of an old municipality to submit a report,

"`(i) identifying the assets and liability of the old municipality or local board, or specified categories of those assets and lability, or

`(ii) naming the members and employees of the old municipality or local board and stating their positions, terms of employment, remuneration and benefits;

"`(d) require an old council or a local board of an old municipality to,

"`(i) furnish information, records or documents that are in its possession or control and are relevant to the functions of the transition team,

"`(ii) create a new document or record that is relevant to the functions of the transition team by compiling existing information, and furnish the document or record, or

"`(iii) submit a report concerning any matter the transition team specifies that is relevant to its functions.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that subsection 16(12) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Dissolution of transition team

"`(12) The transition team is dissolved on January 31, 1998.'"

Is it the wish of this House that the government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

A Liberal motion:

"The Liberal members of the committee recommend the committee vote against section 17." I am ruling this out of order.

A Liberal motion:

"I move that section 17 of the bill be struck out." I'm ruling this out of order.

Shall section 17 carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

Section 18:

"The government recommends the members of the committee vote against section 18." I am ruling this out of order.

A Liberal motion:

"The Liberal members of the committee recommend the committee vote against section 18." I'm ruling this out of order.

A Liberal motion:

"I move that section 18 of the bill be struck out." I'm ruling this out of order.

2020

A Liberal motion, section 18:

"I move that section 18 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Application of JRPA and SPPA

"`18. The Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply to the transition team.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this Liberal motion carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"The Liberal members of the committee recommend that the committee vote against section 19."

I am ruling that out of order.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 19 of the bill be struck out."

I'm ruling that out of order.

Shall section 19 carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote is deferred.

"The government recommends that the members of the committee vote against section 20."

I am ruling this out of order.

A Liberal motion:

"I move that section 20 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Expenses

"`20. Expenses of the transition team, including the remuneration expenses of its members, shall be paid by the government of Ontario.'"

I am ruling that out of order as it directs the expenditure of public funds.

Shall section 20 stand as printed? The section is lost.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could you please offer an explanation for what has just occurred, because I'm afraid I didn't understand what the issue was around section 20.

The Second Deputy Chair: I asked for a vote on section 20, if section 20 would carry, if it would stand as printed.

Mrs Boyd: Why you ruled it out of order.

Interjection: No, he didn't. It was the section before it.

Mrs Boyd: I see.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall section 21 stand as part of the bill? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that section 22 of the bill be amended,

"(a) by striking out `transitional year' in the third line of subsection (1) and substituting `transitional period'; and

"(b) by striking out `section 10 of the Municipal Elections Act' in the second and third lines of subsection (2) and substituting `section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996'."

Is it the wish of this committee this government motion carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote shall be deferred.

A Liberal motion:

"I move that section 22 of the bill be amended,

"(a) by striking out `November 30, 1997,' in the second line of paragraph 1 and substituting `November 30, 2000,'; and

"(b) by striking out `section 10 of the Municipal Elections Act' in subsection (2) and substituting `section 6 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996'."

Is it the wish of this committee this Liberal motion carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote shall be deferred.

This is a government motion, section 23, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4:

"I move that paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of section 23 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`1. The election shall be conducted as if sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 were already in force.

"`2. The minister shall designate a person to conduct the 1997 regular election.

"`4. The costs of the election that are payable in 1997 shall be included in the 1997 operating budget of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and paid by that municipality as directed by the person designated under paragraph 2.

"`4.1 Each area municipality under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act shall include in its 1997 operating budget an amount equal to the amount it would have budgeted for the costs of the 1997 regular election had this act not been passed, and shall pay that amount to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on or before July 1, 1997.

"`4.2 The amount referred to in paragraph 4.1 shall be paid, first, from any reserve or reserve fund previously established by the area municipality for the costs of the 1997 regular election. For greater certainty, paragraph 3 of subsection 10(2) does not apply in respect of the payment.'"

Is it the wish of this committee this government motion carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote is deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 23 of the bill be amended,

"(a) by striking out `1997 regular election' in the first paragraph in the second line and in the third and fourth lines of paragraph 2 and substituting in both cases `2000 regular election'; and

"(b) by striking out `1997' in the second paragraph and last line of paragraph 4 and substituting in both cases `2000'; and

"(c) by striking out `1998' in paragraph 5 and substituting `2001'."

Is it the wish of this committee this Liberal motion carry? All those in favour, say "aye." All those opposed, say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

A NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of section 23 of the bill and substitute paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 4.1 and 4.2 be amended by striking out paragraphs 4, 4.1 and 4.2 and substituting the following:

"`4. The costs of the election that are payable in 1997 shall be paid by the government of Ontario.'"

I am ruling this out of order because it is directing funds.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out paragraphs 1, 2, and 4" --

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I want to understand how in fact this motion is deemed to be out of order because, as you said, it directs the expenditure of funds, but the section within the bill in fact also does the same.

The Second Deputy Chair: Because it is directing expenditure of funds, it must be moved by a minister. Since that is unlikely for an NDP motion, I am ruling it out of order.

2030

Mr Silipo: I accept your ruling. I would just differ with the fact that it may be unlikely that a government minister may move it just because an NDP member has proposed it.

The Second Deputy Chair: It would have to be moved by a government minister.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I was not quibbling or disagreeing with your ruling; I just wanted to understand it. All I was saying was that at the end of the ruling you said it was unlikely that a government minister would move it because it was an NDP amendment. I would just say you shouldn't assume that.

The Second Deputy Chair: It's 8:30 and that's good enough for me.

This is an NDP alternative motion:

"I move that the government motion to strike out paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of section 23 of the bill and substitute paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 4.1 and 4.2 be amended by striking out paragraphs 4, 4.1 and 4.2 and substituting the following:

"`4. The costs of the election that are payable in 1998 shall be paid by the government of Ontario.'"

I am ruling that out of order.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that paragraph 5 of section 23 of the bill be struck out."

Is it the wish of this committee that this NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote shall be deferred.

This is an independent motion:

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

"`Election contributions, candidate for head of council

"`23.1 Despite subsections 71(1) and (2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the maximum total contribution a contributor may make to a candidate for the office of mayor of the new city is $2,500.'"

Is it the wish of this committee --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just to be clear here, you're saying this is an independent motion? The last time I checked, there is one member as an independent, Mr North, and the rest are parties. Can you tell us where that independent motion comes from? Is it from Mr North or is it from some other member of the assembly?

The Second Deputy Chair: This motion has been moved by the independent member, Mr North.

Mr Bisson: We wanted to make sure that if Mr North --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Very good, thank you.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the wish of this committee that this independent motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote is deferred.

Mr Bradley: This allows people to donate more money --

The Second Deputy Chair: Come to order. Will the member for St Catharines come to order, please.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move the government motion to amend the bill by adding [failure of sound system]."

This is a government motion:

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

"`Election contributions, candidate for head of council

"`23.1 Despite subsections 71(1) and (2) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the maximum total contribution a contributor may make to a candidate for the office of mayor of the new city is $1,500.'"

Is it the wish of this House that this government motion carry? I move this government motion lost.

Mr Bradley: Well, I'm in favour of it.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: You're too late.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that subsection 24(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (a)."

Is it the wish of this committee that the NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that subsection 24(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (b)."

Is it the wish of this committee that this motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

This is a government motion: clauses 24(1)(a) and (b):

"I move that subsection 24(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clauses (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

"`(a) Exempt a local board from the application of any provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote is deferred.

This is a Liberal motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`Regulations

"`The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation

"`(a) deal with the transition members in connection with the 2000 regular election of the new city,

"`(b) provide for any other transition matters as necessary or desirable for the effective implementation of this act.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this Liberal motion carry? I declare it lost.

This is a government motion:

"I move that clause 24(1)(e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"`(e) prescribe,

"`(i) functions for the purpose of subsection 5.2(4) (additional functions, community councils),

"`(ii) duties for the purpose of clause 9(4)(e) (financial advisory board),

"`(iii) duties for the purpose of clause 16(4)(i) (transitional team), and

"`(iv) anything else referred to in this act as being prescribed.'"

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? I declare this motion carried.

Mrs Boyd: I said no.

The Deputy Chair: I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote, then, is deferred.

Government motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Examples, transitional matters, 1997 regular election

"`(1.1) Without limiting the generality of clause (1)(c), the minister may make regulations,

"`(a) authorizing the use of voting and vote-counting equipment and of alternative voting methods, as described in section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996;

"`(b) establishing one or more dates for an advanced vote and opening hours of voting places on that date or dates, as described in section 43 of that act;

"`(c) providing for the payment of rebates to persons who made contributions to candidates for office on city councils.'"

Is it the wish of this committee this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it. This vote is deferred.

2040

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that the government motion to amend section 24 of the bill by adding subsection (1.1) be amended by striking out clause (1.1)(c)."

Is it the wish of the committee that this NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Mandatory regulations, contributing rebates

"`(1.2) The minister shall, by regulation, provide for the payment of rebates to persons who made contributions to candidates for office on city council.'"

Is it the wish of this House that this NDP motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it. This vote is deferred.

This is a government motion:

"I move that subsection 24(3) of the bill be struck out."

Is it the wish of this committee that this government motion carry? All those in favour say "aye." All those opposed say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it. This vote is deferred.

This is an NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbeywood Trail living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbeywood Trail living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Is it the wish of the committee that this NDP motion carry?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Second Deputy Chair: I'd like to take a vote on it, but if it's on the vote --

Hon Mr Leach: It's on the vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: Your point of order?

Hon Mr Leach: I move that this is out of order. It's a money motion because it deals with telling members of the public where and how to obtain it without charge, meaning that there would be an effect on general revenue if this passed. So it's a money motion and I would move that it's out of order.

The Second Deputy Chair: I'm ruling that it is in order, because although it may cost, it doesn't take funds from the general revenue fund.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, on another point of order: I understand there is a series of several thousand of these motions and the only thing that has changed between them is that there's a different street.

Mr Laughren: It's important.

Hon David Johnson: You know, let's give our head a shake. I think the third party has put forward some 10,000 of these motions, word for word identical. In fact the only difference is that the street has changed in each one. According to standing order 23(m), I'm being advised here, if I can find 23(m) --

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Here it is, David.

Hon David Johnson: It relates to the introduction of "any matter in debate that in the option of the Speaker offends the practices and precedents of the House," number one; number two, I would refer to Erskine May and Beauchesne, "Any amendment brought forward in the spirit of mockery" and here we have some 10,000 of these word for word, except that every street in Metropolitan Toronto has been named in one of these. This is obviously in the spirit of mockery. The other word put forward by Beauchesne is "frivolous," I believe.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "Trifling."

Hon David Johnson: "Trifling." Again, 10,000 of these, word for word the same, except that a different street has been substituted in every one. What's involved is a notice that could easily be applied in terms of one motion.

I would suggest to you, Mr Chair, that put forward in this fashion, this is put forward in a spirit of mockery or in a trifling fashion in the sense that there are 10,000 of them -- 10,000 of them word for word except for the street being changed.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Johnson, on your point of order: I'm ruling that this motion is in order. I can't deal with any other ones except this one at this time and I'm ruling that this motion is in order.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Chair, I'd like to challenge your ruling, with due respect, under rule 100(b).

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Dufferin-Peel has appealed my ruling. We will await the Speaker to hear that appeal.

Interjections.

The committee recessed from 2049 to 2108.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Speaker, the committee is now reporting.

APPEAL OF CHAIR'S RULING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Speaker, Mr David Johnson has asked me to make a ruling that this NDP motion might be out of order. He is suggesting that it was frivolous and vexatious and trifling and that it made a mockery of the legislative process. I have ruled that this motion is in order and that we should proceed with it, and my ruling was challenged by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel. So this is being appealed to you. I'm sure you'll want to familiarize yourself with the information.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, two proposals were put forward by the government House leader. The first one had to do with the fact that there have been filed over 8,000 similar amendments to the one that has been brought forward now.

Mr Bradley: You mean the one that has been tabled.

Mr Tilson: The one that has been tabled. I'm sorry.

Mr Bradley: Not rejected, but tabled.

Mr Tilson: Indeed. With respect to a specific amendment to subsection 24(4), the amendment which is put forward by the third party has to do with notice being given to residents of certain areas. The amendment is about a page long -- I will not read it -- and the only difference in these 8,000 amendments is the name of a street. I'll just read the first section.

"Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of" -- in the case of the resolution that was read, it was Abbeywood Trail -- "the residents of Abbeywood Trail living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:"

The first is, "The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbeywood Trail living in the urban area." Then it continues for five more sections.

Mr Speaker, the next 8,000 amendments that have been tabled are identical except for the name of a street, about 8,000 streets. Basically, as has been put forward by the government House leader, about 8,000 similar amendments are about to be read that propose the public consultations to be introduced to the regulations under this section of the act, which is section 24. The only difference between amendment 1 and amendment 8,000 is the name of a street. According to both Erskine May and Beauchesne, any amendment -- and this is the authority I am relying on with respect to challenging the ruling of the Chair -- brought forward in the spirit of mockery or found to be frivolous in substance is out of order.

My friends on the other side will say that putting forward 8,000 amendments simply changing the name of the street is not in the spirit of mockery or is certainly not frivolous. But Mr Speaker, it is that point that I would submit to you, that reading 8,000 amendments, which will last I don't know how long, simply naming off each individual street, all 8,000 of them, is clearly in my view mischievous and I would say it's frivolous to list off every one of those streets.

The Chair would duly respect as in order any amendment which sincerely attempted to bring about a purposeful and rational change to Bill 103, but I would ask, Mr Speaker, as has the government House leader, that you rule that the specific enumeration of over 8,000 amendments, each asking for Bill 103 to apply to a different street, was clearly tabled in the spirit of mockery and that all those amendments should therefore be ruled out of order.

That's the first reason for challenging the validity of this amendment, Mr Speaker. The second reason we're suggesting this is out of order is that in subsection 24(4), subparagraph ii of paragraph 5, it talks about the notice that's going to be given. It says -- I don't know whether this is before you or not, Mr Speaker. I'm sure someone will make it available to you.

"The notice under paragraph 1 shall..." and then it says, "(ii) tell members of the public where and how to obtain, without charge, a copy of this act together with background material," any member of the public listed on these 8,000 streets passed under section 24.

Requiring a copy of the act to be provided without charge directs the allocation of public funds. Money has to come from somewhere. The members are saying, "Oh, oh." Money has to come from somewhere. Where is this money going to come from? It's going to come from public funds. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 56, all amendments which would specifically direct the allocation of public funds shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown. Standing order 56 clearly states that.

There are all kinds of precedents of Chairs, of Speakers, ruling amendments out of order where they have violated standing order 56. I would refer you to a ruling of Deputy Chair Roberts of May 25, 1988. This is found at page 3,716 of the debates. In that matter, the Deputy Chair found that even though the allocation of public funds was already contemplated by the proposed bill, an opposition amendment which purported to dictate how much would be allocated to a specific purpose was out of order because it allocated public funds in contravention of the predecessor provision of standing order 56.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: So it's ordered --

The Speaker: Point of order. They're allowed to put whatever they like in a point of order and if I'd like to hear it, you have an opportunity to put your own points of order.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, when you're looking at that paragraph 5, I would ask you to note the word, "shall." "The notice under paragraph 1, shall tell members of the public where and how to obtain, without charge, a copy of this act together with the background material." There's no choice. That money has to be spent. You have to provide this information without charge. It's got to come from somewhere. There's only one place it can come from.

So the word "shall" that I'm asking you to direct your attention to in this section -- and this is of note because the same terminology is used in this amendment which requires that all copies of the act shall be provided at no cost, clearly allocating public funds to a particular purpose.

I'd also refer you to a decision of Speaker Treleaven of February 11, 1986, which is reported at page 4055 of the debates. In that circumstance, Speaker Treleaven found that an amendment was out of order where it would undoubtedly lead to the use of additional public funds. It's my submission that the amendment to this section, section 24, clearly allocates the spending of funds, the requirement that funds have to be spent, and indeed makes a commitment to the expenditure of funds that would not otherwise be committed but for this amendment.

It's therefore my respectful submission that this amendment and all of the following 7,999 amendments are companion amendments, because it's simply changing streets -- that's the only difference, the names of streets -- that they are all out of order, and it's submitted that an amendment is also out of order as it is substantially the same as an amendment to the same motion which has been already negatived, Erskine May, 1989, at page 340.

In the absence of controlling authority, it clearly falls to consider the words "substantially the same" on their plain language meaning. Webster's defines "substantially" as "consisting of or relating to substance." I would suggest that in the same extent in form, in content.

Finally, I would direct your attention to both Beauchesne and Erskine May which state that an amendment will be out of order where it is equivalent to a negative of the bill or reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading.

2120

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: The intent of the bill, notwithstanding the shouting from the opposition, is to unify the city of Toronto. It is not to regulate regulatory balkanization on a street-by-street basis. Those are my submissions.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points in suggesting to you that this amendment is completely in order and that the ruling of the Chair should be upheld.

First of all, on the latter point that Mr Tilson made, I think you may want to clarify this with the table and with the Chair of the committee, but it's our understanding that was not the basis of the challenge, that the challenge was made on the argument that this was a frivolous amendment because there was an earlier point of order made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the basis of Mr Tilson's latter argument, that is, that this imposes a charge upon the treasury which the Chair ruled on and found that it was in order on that basis. The minister did not challenge the Chair, so there's a procedural aspect here, first of all, that I think you need to sort out.

Then the government House leader made the subsequent argument on a separate point of order, and he himself said that very clearly on a separate point of order to the Chair, that he was suggesting the amendment was out of order, not on the basis of Mr Tilson's arguments about the treasury and the impact on the treasury of this amendment, but indeed on the frivolous aspect of it. It was on that basis that the Chair again ruled this to be in order and it was on that basis that Mr Tilson challenged the ruling of the Chair.

I think that needs to be clear, Speaker. First of all, I am not sure how it is that a member whose ruling it was not was able to challenge the Chair, but if that's acceptable, that's fine. I'm not going to quibble with that. But it's very, very clear in my mind, and I would ask you to check this, as I say, with the table officers and with the Chair himself, that the challenge was only on the argument of whether it was frivolous or not.

I don't know whether I need to make arguments on the second point or not. I have some arguments that I want to make to you on the frivolous aspect. Do you want me to just proceed and put the arguments on both?

The Speaker: Yes, I think you might as well proceed. I'll deal with it as a package.

Mr Silipo: Then to continue on that, just in the event that you do entertain the argument on the second point, the challenge on the second point on the question of whether this in fact imposes a charge, I would say to you that the test has to be: Does this amendment impose a charge upon the public treasury? Again, the test, as I understand it in Beauchesne, is that would only be the case if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the royal recommendation.

Here this, first of all, is not in our view a charge upon the public treasury. There is simply an indication that the notice that's required here should tell people how they can obtain that without charge, a copy of the act together with background material. It's a way to give them information. It's not a way to establish a charge. Any charges have to do with the municipality, not with the province.

Last, I would say on this point, even though this is not an issue that's before you properly because the Chair was not challenged on this point, even if you were to find that that particular subsection is somehow out of order, that in and of itself does not render the rest of the amendment out of order. You could simply strike out, and you would have to, the offending subsection, and the rest of it would still be able to stand on its own.

I'm going to come back to the essential point that that issue isn't even before you and shouldn't be before you, because the Chair wasn't challenged on that point.

To come back to the challenge that this is a frivolous amendment: It may be that government members think that having a series of amendments that suggest that before the minister makes regulations, the residents who live on various streets in the municipalities should be advised -- to them that may be frivolous or vexatious or mocking, but in our view they are very serious and they presented in a very serious light. It is providing for people to be advised before particular actions are taken. Those actions, I remind you, would still be taken in the furtherance of the object of the act.

As you yourself ruled earlier, the objective of the act here is the amalgamation of the various municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto. This amendment, and these amendments to follow -- again I say to you we have this amendment in front of us, not the amendments that follow -- does not mean to alter the objective of the legislation. For you to find that this amendment is frivolous, you would have to find that it attempts to alter the objective of the legislation, and it does not do that.

I refer you briefly to one indication, one precedent where in the House of Commons on June 14, 1965, the then Chairman of the committee did find -- just as one example -- something that constituted an action to be frivolous, and that was an attempt to change the name of the bill to something that had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. Again, the Chair at the time, in applying that ruling, said, "I do not think there is any justification, because it does not carry out the intent of the bill" -- the amendment being, in that case, the change of the name of the bill.

The amendment does nothing to alter the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill, and I know you dealt with this with great care earlier on when we challenged the amendments the government proposed -- you found at the end of the day that our challenge was unwarranted because the amendments submitted by the government did not change the intent of the legislation, which was and remains the amalgamation of six municipalities into one. Our amendment likewise does not change the intent of the legislation. It simply sets in place, if accepted, a series of actions that would have to be taken by the minister, but to do that in a way that still respects and reflects the intent of the legislation. I think that has to be the ultimate test at the end of the day in terms of whether you find this to be in order.

In concluding, I say again that what you have in front of you is the challenge not on 8,000 amendments but a challenge on this one amendment, and your ruling has to be on this one amendment.

2130

Ms Castrilli: By the rules of parliamentary process you're bound by three things in priority: standing orders, legislative precedent and the authorities. The motion before us seeks to strike out this amendment on the basis of the authorities -- not on the basis of standing orders, not on the basis of legislative precedent. I submit to you that there is nothing in our rules which says that this motion is out of order.

The member for Dufferin-Peel's attempt to characterize this as falling within standing order 56 is simply a vain attempt, because it was not part of the original motion which you were asked to rule upon.

The legislative precedents again are silent on the motion that's before you. The only precedent that in fact has been found is one that comes from the Ontario Legislature, June 14, 1965, and in that case it was a motion to change the Medical Services Insurance Act to be called the Medical Carriers Benefit Act, a totally different concept, and the Speaker, in that case, rightly determined that the amendment was out of order because it changed the nature of the bill. That's not again the case before us. This amendment is very much in keeping with the stated purpose of the act.

That brings us to the authorities. Beauchesne has been quoted, and I'd like to take a little bit of time to talk about Beauchesne. Subsection 773(3) says, "An amendment is out of order if it is offered at the wrong place in the bill" -- which is not this case -- "if it is tendered to the committee in a spirit of mockery or if it is vague or trifling."

Now is this amendment to be considered as tendered to the committee or to this House in the spirit of mockery? I suggest to you, Speaker, that is not the case, that the members of this Legislature who have brought forward this amendment have done it in absolute earnest because they believe that the amendment is in the best interests of the people of the city of Toronto. It has been brought with all good intentions to try and have the democratic process prevail.

We'll remember that a series of referendums have in fact given the government a very clear indication that the people of Toronto environs do not want this type of legislation and the amendment is brought forward in a spirit of trying to respond to the very real concerns of people. They're worried about the fact that their neighbourhoods and the character of their neighbourhoods would be lost.

May I also say that to suggest or to try to impute the motives of any individual members or collective members in this House diminishes this assembly and therefore it does not fall under that particular section.

Is this amendment vague? I submit to you that it is not. It couldn't be more specific. It's probably one of the most specific amendments that we've had so far. That leaves us with "trifling." Again, it is not trifling when you consider that the people of Toronto and the other municipalities have said very clearly that they want their neighbourhoods preserved, they want their communities preserved and it is in that spirit that these amendments are brought forward.

In the absence of standing orders, in the absence of legislative precedents and, quite frankly, in the absence of the conditions necessary for you to observe the authorities, this motion is totally out of order.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough East.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): He has to be in his seat.

The Speaker: The member for Fort William.

Mrs McLeod: As the member for Downsview has just said, our standing orders are very clear that in committee of the whole any amendment may be placed providing it is relevant to the bill that is before the House. Certainly the amendments that are before us are relevant to the bill before the House.

But what I would like to speak very briefly to is the issue of whether or not an amendment or a motion could be ruled out of order on the basis, as Beauchesne has said, of it being tendered in a spirit of mockery. Clearly, if this House is to begin to consider, and you, Mr Speaker, are being asked to consider, ruling amendments out of order on the basis that they've been tendered in a spirit of mockery, it requires a definition of "mockery" and what constitutes mockery.

With that in mind, I would like to take as precedent for your consideration your own ruling of a few hours ago when one of the substantive government amendments was challenged as not being in order. That was the amendment on section 5 of the bill being struck out and a considerable substitution being made, which is, as you know, and I'm not going to waste time by reading it, but it had to do with the establishment of the six community councils and was supposedly tendered in response to public concern about the loss of their community council and their community decision-making, their community involvement.

You were challenged that it was out of order because it was in fact a negative of the bill itself. It changed the bill. It was substantively a new bill. Your ruling looked at the amendment and, as I understood your ruling, said that although one part of the amendment says that, "There shall be six community councils," a further part of that same amendment said that, "The city council may dissolve...a community council." If I again remember correctly, your ruling said that dissolution could take place within an hour of the establishment of the community councils.

I would, first of all, suggest that if, as a member has argued, you can rule out of order something which is a negative of the intention of a bill, it would have been possible to have ruled out of order something which was a negative of the intention of the amendment within the amendment itself, and clearly dissolving a community council which in the previous clause has been established mandatorily under the legislation is a negative of the intention of the amendment itself.

I'm not arguing your previous rule. I'm holding it up as precedent. I think that if anything has been tendered in a spirit of mockery today, it is the government's substantive amendment, significantly changing a bill supposedly in response to public concern and presenting that amendment in such a way that the act it is taking, establishing with the word "shall establish six community councils" and a few clauses later saying that those same community councils established by law can be dissolved within the hour is as great a mockery of legislation presented in this House as anything could be.

I respect the ruling you made earlier. I think you felt it was relevant to the bill. Our standing orders say anything which is relevant to the bill is an amendment in good order. I therefore accepted your ruling and would ask that you take it as precedent in subsequent rulings this evening.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: My apologies, I hadn't moved after we returned out of committee of the whole House.

I won't seek to repeat the legal arguments that were made very well by my colleague from Dufferin-Peel, but I would like to emphasize the aspect of Erskine May that directs you to take exception to this amendment and the subsequent amendments under the heading of making a mockery of this chamber.

The members opposite have been prone in these last few minutes, and while we awaited your return, to cite the fact that a previous leader of the third party had one day read into the record the names of the lakes and streams of Ontario. They responded by changing standing orders as they related to those procedures in the House. I merely make this one --

The Speaker: I don't know how this is germane to the debate. I'm seeking that.

Mr Gilchrist: In the context of making those changes, they themselves made reference to the fact, to those same references in Erskine May about how trifling it was, how frivolous it was, how dilatory a tactic it was, and their own words come back today to haunt them.

Clearly, if their inference is that only the residents of one street deserve a certain treatment, that in and of itself is offensive and trifling because as they know full well, it is quite possible in this chamber for one amendment to pass or some amendments to pass and others to fail.

Surely the intent of their motion, if they really believe in the rest of that clause, is that everyone in the city of Toronto deserves that equal treatment. I'm sure our side would grant unanimous consent if they chose to amend the first of their amendments to read that all residents of the city of Toronto be treated the same way so that there is not this haphazard and very discriminatory treatment of the various residents in the various parts of Toronto. It is frivolous in the extreme, and I hope you see favour in those arguments.

Mr Wildman: Point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, the member has just made a frivolous argument.

The government House leader initially stated in presentation to the Chair of the committee of the whole House and he cited rule 23(m) and argued that this offended 23(m), which states that it's out of order if a member "Introduces any matter in debate that in the opinion of the Speaker offends the practices and precedents of the House." Therefore, it is incumbent upon the people making the argument to indicate how the amendment offends the practices and precedents of the House, and obviously the Chair of the committee of the whole House did not see any way that this amendment offends the practices and precedents. It certainly cannot offend the practices of the House in the sense that is in some way negating the bill; it doesn't negate the bill. So that's not a matter of significance.

2140

Then the question arises whether or not it is indeed a mockery or frivolous, and that is a matter you have to rule upon. The argument that an individual street name being listed makes it a mockery or frivolous I don't understand. The intent of the amendment is to say that the people in a particular location in this city are to be informed about how they can get a copy. It that is somehow to be viewed as frivolous or a mockery, then I don't understand how on earth it can be suggested that this is an attempt to make a mockery of this House. Frankly, that argument itself is a mockery. Surely we are in favour of ensuring that people get information. That's what the amendment is about.

If the government doesn't want them to get the information, all they have to do is vote against the amendment; that's all they have to do. We believe they should get the information. If the government doesn't want them to, then just vote down the amendment; that's all you have to do. To suggest that somehow this relates to a number of other amendments because of different street names -- we've only got one amendment here and we're only dealing with one amendment; that is all. There have been no other amendments put as yet. There will be.

The member for Scarborough East suggested that perhaps the government would be interested in putting an amendment which deals with all of them. Well, if the government wants such an amendment, then put it.

Mr Gilchrist: It's your amendment. I said we'd --

Mr Wildman: No, no. If the government wants to vote for such an amendment, then the government should put it. But if he doesn't really want it, then he indeed is being frivolous and making a mockery of the process.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I'm not going to repeat what I said other than to comment on two remarks that were made by the member for Downsview and the member for Fort William. The member for Downsview I believe talked about specific directions. The member for Fort William talked about how the standing orders must be very clear, must be specifically clear. I'm going to read you the section of standing order 56, Mr Speaker. I'm sure you know it, but I'm going to ask that you read with me.

Mr Wildman: In case he gets lost.

Mr Tilson: No, I have more respect for the Speaker than that.

"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

This specific amendment that's before us now and the subsequent 7,999 amendments have been proposed by a member of the New Democratic Party. This standing order is very clear. Money must be spent to enforce this amendment. I don't know where the money is going to come from. It's not going to come from the trees; it's got to come from the government. There's only one person who can do that, and that is a minister of the crown, and the person from the New Democratic Party who made that proposal is not a minister of the crown, Mr Speaker, and that is the issue I would like you to emphasize.

The Speaker: I really appreciate all the input. I think I have the gist of each party's arguments.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, to be succinct --

The Speaker: I'm not going to tell you you can't have a point of order; you can. If you want to be succinct, if there's new information, I'll be very happy to hear it.

Hon David Johnson: Just to fortify the member for Dufferin-Peel, I'm informed that if a member of the public inquires about a copy of the act, as is referred to in the motion that's before us that we're questioning in terms of whether it's in order, that member of the public would be referred to the bookstore at the present time, where there would be a charge. I think that substantiates the member's point that this a money item and should be brought forward by a minister of the crown.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I respect your desire for us to be brief, and I will be. This government has plenty of experience of posting information and background papers with respect to the megacity legislation on the Internet. That is all they would need to do and it does not call for any expenditure of moneys, and obviously, given that it says "without charge," it does not impose a tax.

Mr Bradley: The point I would make is that it's a very valid point by the member for Beaches-Woodbine: It is available on the Internet. These people here, remember, have made a change, Mr Speaker. Now if you want to get, for instance, the Hansard of the Legislature, you can no longer get it as an individual person unless it's on the Internet. That was something promoted by this government, and of course it would be free of charge to the person.

But what I want to say to you, Mr Speaker, very briefly is that this particular argument, section 56, has nothing to do with the challenge made to the Chair. Nobody mentioned that at all. This came in later on when somebody, Mac Penney or somebody else, advised the member that he should bring this up. That's very good for Mr Penney to do that -- he has earned his money this evening -- but it has nothing to do with the challenge made to the Chair.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I should say to the Liberal House leader that on that particular matter the issue was not raised with the Chair of the committee of the whole House and therefore it is completely irrelevant.

Mrs McLeod: I think the member for Dufferin-Peel may have realized that the government House leader did not challenge this particular amendment being in order under that particular section of the standing orders and that in attempting to stretch that part of the standing orders to apply to this motion he's suggesting that it might involve some expenditure of moneys. Mr Speaker, I don't suspect there is a single amendment that could be brought forward by the opposition on any bill that would not, if implemented, require some expenditure in implementation. I have a number of amendments, all of which have been considered to be in order in committee, that would, for example, change the date of the election from 1997 to 2000. I'm sure in some way that might involve some lost revenue supposedly to be saved. But if we're to be challenged that we can't bring forward an amendment if it involves any kind of expenditure of any sort, then the opposition would have to pack their bags and go home.

The Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate the input and I think I'd like to take 10 minutes or so and review the important points you've made.

The House recessed from 2148 to 2203.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank the members for bringing their particular points of order to me. Let me deal with the frivolous and vexatious motion to begin with, or point of order.

First off, I'm looking at one amendment. I don't see obviously the 8,000 that follow or that number about. Having said that, frivolous and vexatious motions would be ones on the face of them that appear to be that way. It has to be obvious I think not only to the Speaker but to anyone reading the amendment that it is in fact moved in a frivolous and vexatious manner. I don't see these as being frivolous and vexatious. I see them as being motions put by honourable members, honourable.

Having said that, I'll move now to the second point of order. Let me be clear from the outset. That was not a point of order, as I understand it, that was raised during the challenge of the Chair. Therefore, it is not properly before me at this time. But in the interests of time, rather than I would imagine going back and making the arguments once again, I would be prepared to rule on it now.

I tend to agree with the member for Fort William's points of view which were made at the time of her point of order, which were practically every amendment has a cost attached to it, and that cost has to be very direct if it's going to be ruled out of order on a cost basis. In essence, it has to direct dollars and cents in a very appropriate, specific manner. Simply printing an amendment and asking that it be part of the bill, one could argue is a cost, because the bill grows longer and in fact it costs more to print, more to distribute etc. I don't see that cost as being a direct and related cost that the amendment is asking for, nor would I expect it to be an amendment that only could be approved by a minister.

I appreciate your point of order. It was well-thought-out, well put, but I find no grounds to support it.

House in committee of the whole.

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

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. Shall the NDP motion carry? All those in favour please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The motion will be deferred.

The following motion is an NDP motion.

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbotsfield Gate living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbotsfield Gate living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

2210

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbotsford Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbotsford Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbott Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbott Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This motion shall be deferred.

Mr Wildman: Thank you.

The First Deputy Chair: You're welcome.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbottswood Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbottswood Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye." Those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abbs Street living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abbs Street living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye." All those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abell Street living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abell Street living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye." Those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

2220

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aberdeen Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aberdeen Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye." Those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aberfoyle Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aberfoyle Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye." Those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aberlady Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aberlady Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abigail Place living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abigail Place living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abilene Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abilene Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abinger Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abinger Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it. The vote will be deferred.

2230

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Albemarle Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Albemarle Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abner Place living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abner Place living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Abrams Place living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Abrams Place living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acacia Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acacia Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acacia Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acacia Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

2240

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4): "I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Academy Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Academy Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acheson Boulevard living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acheson Boulevard living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ackrow Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ackrow Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acland Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acland Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acme Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acme Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acorn Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acorn Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.'"

Interjections.

2250

The First Deputy Chair: Could I have some order, please? Order, please. Thank you.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acre Heights Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acre Heights Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4) --

Interjection: Dispense.

The First Deputy Chair: Dispense? No.

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Acton Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Acton Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ada Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ada Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adair Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adair Road living in the urban area.'"

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adamede Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adamede Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

2300

NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adams Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adams Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Should the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

This is an NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adams Park Gate living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adams Park Gate living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adanac Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adanac Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

This is an NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Addington Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Addington Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

z Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

This is an NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Addington Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Addington Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

This is an NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Addington Place living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Addington Place living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

2310

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

NDP motion, subsection 24(4): "I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adelaide Street living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adelaide Street living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion please say "aye." Those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The vote will be deferred.

The Chair: The motion brought in by the NDP:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adele Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adele Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adeline Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adeline Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adelpha Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adelpha Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Chair: If I may, and perhaps by way of a query to the Chair, here we are at 11:20 at night. Is it indeed true that members of the public are invited to come here to Queen's Park this evening and tomorrow morning to witness this unique exercise in democracy? Is that true, Chair, that right here at Queen's Park tonight at 11:20 the public can attend in the galleries?

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is not a point of order.

We have another NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adencliff Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adencliff Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

2320

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aderno Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aderno Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adesso Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adesso Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adirondack Gate living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adirondack Gate living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the motion carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Another NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adler Street living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adler Street living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Admiral Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Admiral Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

2330

Here's another NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adonis Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adonis Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it once more. Deferred vote.

A new motion by the NDP.

"`I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adra Villaway living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adra Villaway living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. A deferred vote.

An NDP motion.

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adrian Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adrian Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Adriatic Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Adriatic Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be deferred.

Another interesting motion from the NDP:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Advance Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Advance Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

2340

The next one is an NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Afton Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Afton Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Agar Crescent living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Agar Crescent living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Agate Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Agate Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Agatha Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Agatha Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Agincourt Drive living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Agincourt Drive living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ahmic Lake Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ahmic Lake Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

2350

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aikenhead Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aikenhead Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aileen Avenue living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation, in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aileen Avenue living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions made by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion, subsection 24(4):

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ailsa Craig Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ailsa Craig Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ainsdale Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ainsdale Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ainsley Gardens living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ainsley Gardens living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

2400

NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Ainsworth Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Ainsworth Road living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Aintree Court living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Aintree Court living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjections: No.

The Chair: I just wanted to see if you were awake. Nice to see some life in the House.

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

An NDP motion:

"I move that section 24 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"`Public consultation

"`(4) Despite subsection (1), no regulation that may affect the residents of Airdrie Road living in the urban area shall be made unless the following conditions have first been satisfied:

"`1. The minister has given notice of the proposed regulation in a manner that will come to the attention of the residents of Airdrie living in the urban area.

"`2. The minister has considered all written submissions by members of the public that his office received within 30 days after the notice was given.

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

"`4. The minister 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 regulation,

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

"`iii. advise members of the public of their rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4,

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

Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Report continues in volume C.

Debates (Hansard)
Webcast
Contact an MPP
Participation in Committees
Watch the Legislature in Action
Use of Assembly Grounds
Petitions