Assembly of New Brunswick
of the Legislative Assembly is for information purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.)
Wednesday, March 20, 1996.
8.30 oclock a.m.
Notices of Motions
Mr. D. Graham gave Notice of Motion 30 that on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 he would move the following resolution, seconded by Mr. Volpé:
WHEREAS, Video Lottery Owner/Operators have received more than $22 million a year in 1993/94 and 1994/95, according to the Report of the Auditor General, fiscal year ending 31 March 1995, for their role in video gambling; and
WHEREAS, the government has found it necessary to introduce program and funding reductions in the Department of Health and Community Services;
BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly recommend that the provincial government consider changes to the Lotteries Act and its regulations in order to eliminate the possibility of entering into agreements with Video Lottery Owner/Operators and consider redirecting any moneys being now paid to he Owner/Operators under the video lottery scheme into the New Brunswick Health Care System.
Hon. Mr. Frenette rose and announced the governments intention to proceed with consideration of Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Schools Act, in Committee of the Whole; and thence, to consideration of the estimates of the Department of Education in Committee of Supply. Continuing, the Government House Leader requested and leave was granted to vary the hours of this days sitting, adjusting the noon hour recess from 12.00 oclock to 1.30 oclock p.m.
Mr. Speaker delivered his reserved decision on the admissibility of the proposed amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 27, An Act Respecting the New Brunswick Extra-Mural Hospital / Hôpital extra-mural du Nouveau-Brunswick, moved by Hon. Mr. Frenette:
Yesterday several points of order were raised from each side of the House with reference to the amendment proposed by the honourable Government House Leader to the motion for second reading of Bill 27, An Act Respecting the New Brunswick Extra-Mural Hospital/Hôpital extra-mural du Nouveau-Brunswick. The amendment proposed that the said Bill be not read a second time but that it be read a second time at Fridays sitting of the House.
Initially, I accepted the amendment and allowed debate to proceed. During the debate, several points of order were raised questioning whether the said amendment was permissible at the second reading stage of a Bill. Particular reference was also made to the requirements of Standing Rule 42(2) as another basis for the objection. After hearing the comments of various honourable members, I reserved my decision.
I have had an opportunity to review the Standing Rules and practices of this House, the parliamentary authorities, and to consult with colleagues in other jurisdictions.
In the many jurisdictions that were consulted, Government Public Bills that have been ordered for second reding are placed on the Order and Notice Paper for second reading and may be called for second reading in such sequence and at such time as the Government may think fit. This is not the practice in this Assembly and in this we seem to be unique.
In New Brunswick, under Standing Rule 42(2), a Public Bill that has been read a first time stands ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House. The order for second reading is placed as the first item of business under the Orders of the Day.
Prior to the new Rules being adopted in 1985, the third and second reading of Bills were, by the rules of the House then in existence, given priority over all other business coming immediately after Prayers.
Although our new Rules are silent on this issue, since 1985, it has been the practice in this House to continue to give priority to Public Bills that have been ordered for third and second reading. Bills that have been ordered for third or second reading appear daily on the Order Paper as the first order of business under the Orders of the Day. Such orders are called automatically by the Speaker.
However, an order for second reading cannot bind the House to give the Bill second reading after the Order has been called and read by the Speaker. It is perfectly in order for a Member to introduce one of a number of amendments to the second reading motion.
I refer all Honourable Members to Citations 666, 667 and 668 of Beauchesnes Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th Edition at page 200 which sets out the three kinds of amendments that are possible at the second reading stage of a Bill. They are:
666. There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading stage of a bill. These are:
(a) the hoist (eg. three months, six months).
(b) the reasoned amendment; and
c) the discharge of the order for second reading and the referral of the subject-matter to a committee.
Upon further reflection, it is clear that the amendment proposed by the honourable Government House Leader was not intended as a hoist amendment. The amendment proposes to postpone second reading of Bill 27 until Fridays sitting of the House. It does not appear to fall within the scope of amendments contemplated at the second reading stage as outlined. I am reluctant, therefore to allow the House to proceed with the amendment as doing so would establish an undesirable precedent. For these reasons, and having regard to the practice of this House, I rule the amendment proposed by the honourable the Government House Leader out of order.
Hon. Mr. King then moved the adjournment of the debate on the motion that Bill 27, An Act Respecting the New Brunswick Extra-Mural Hospital / Hôpital extra-mural du Nouveau-Brunswick be now read a second time.
Mr. Speaker put the question and it was carried on the following recorded division:
Hon. Mr. Blanchard Mrs. Jarrett Mr. Kavanaugh
Hon. Mr. Frenette Mr. McAdam Mr. Olmstead
Hon. Mr. Graham Hon. Mr. MacIntyre Mr. Flynn
Hon. Mr. Lee Hon. Mr. Richard Mr. DeGrâce
Hon. Mr. King Hon. Mrs. Day Mr. MacDonald
Hon. Mr. Blaney Mr. Allaby Mr. Byrne
Mr. McKay Mr. Steeves Mr. MacLeod
Hon. B. Thériault Mr. Wilson Mr. Doyle
Hon. C. Thériault Mr. LeBlanc Mr. D. Landry
Hon. Mr. Tyler Mr. Jamieson Mr. Armstrong
Hon. Mr. Smith Mr. A. Landry Mrs. Kingston
Hon. Mrs. Trenholme
Mr. Robichaud Mr. Mockler Mr. D. Graham
The following Bills were read the second time and ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House:
Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Police Act.
Bill 31, Statute Law Amendment Act 1996.
And the debate being ended and the question being put on the proposed amendment, the Honourable the Government House Leader rose to speak in debate.
Hon. Mr. Valcourt rose on a point of order, his point of order being that it was his understanding of the rules, that debate is not allowed after the question is put by the Chair,
Mr. Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
Mr. Speaker again put the question on the proposed amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 28 and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
Mr. Robichaud Mr. Mockler Mr. D. Graham
Hon. Mr. Frenette Hon. Mrs. Day Mr. Olmstead
Hon. Mr. Lee Mr. Allaby Mr. Flynn
Hon. Mr. Blaney Mr. Steeves Mr. MacDonald
Mr. McKay Mr. Wilson Mr. MacLeod
Hon. Mr. B. Thériault Mr. LeBlanc Mr. Doyle
Hon. Mr. Smith Mr. Jamieson Mr. D. Landry
Hon. Mrs. Trenholme Mr. A. Landry Mr. Armstrong
Mrs. Jarrett Mr. Johnson Mr. Devereux
Mr. McAdam Ms. de Ste. Croix Mrs. Kingston
Hon. Mr. MacIntyre
Accordingly, Bill 28, An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act , was read a second time and ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole with Mr. MacDonald in the chair.
During deliberations, Mr. Chairman noted the presence in the Gallery of Mr. Omer Léger, a Progressive Conservative Member of the Legislative Assembly for Kent County from 1971 to 1974 and for Kent South from 1974 to 1987.
Unanimous consent having been previously granted to vary the hours of sitting, Mr. Chairman declared it to be 12.00 oclock, p.m. and left the chair, to resume again at 1.30 oclock p.m.
And after some further time spent in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and Mr. MacDonald, the Chairman, after requesting that Mr. Speaker revert to the order of Presentations of Committee Reports, reported:
That the Committee had directed him to report the following Bill as agreed to:
Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Schools Act.
And the Committee asked leave to make a further rport.
Pursuant to Standing Rule 78.1, Mr. Speaker then put the question on the motion deemed to be before the House, that the report be concurred in, and it was resolved in the affirmative on the following recorded division:
Hon. Mr. Frenette Hon. Mr. Richard Mr. Olmstead
Hon. Mr. Graham Hon. Mrs. Day Mr. Flynn
Hon. Mrs. Barry Mr. Allaby Mr. DeGrâce
Mr. McKay Mr. Steeves Mr. MacDonald
Hon. B. Thériault Mr. Wilson Mr. Byrne
Hon. C. Thériault Mr. LeBlanc Mr. MacLeod
Hon. Mr. Tyler Mr. Jamieson Mr. Doyle
Hon. Mr. Smith Mr. A. Landry Mr. D. Landry
Hon. Mrs. Trenholme Mr. Johnson Mr. Armstrong
Hon. Mr. Savoie Ms. de Ste. Croix Mr. Devereux
Mr. Robichaud Ms. Weir Mr. D. Graham
Hon. Mr. Valcourt
The House according to Order, resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with Mr. MacDonald in the chair.
And after some time spent therein, Mr. Chairman declared it to be 6 o'clock p.m. and left the chair, to resume again at 8 o'clock p.m.
And after some further time spent in Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and Mr. MacDonald, the Chairman, after requesting that Mr. Speaker revert to Presentations of Committee Reports, reported that the Committee had had under consideration the matters referred to them, had made some progress therein, and asked leave to sit again.
Pursuant to Standing Rule 78.1, Mr. Speaker then put the question on the motion deemed to be before the House, that the report be concurred in, and it was resolved in the affirmative.
Annual Report Human Rights Commission 94-95 March 5, 1996
Annual Report Environment 94-95 March 7, 1996
Annual Report Economic Development
and Tourism 94-95 March 15, 1996
Annual Report Provincial Holdings Ltd. 94-95 March 15, 1996