Evolution of the Ontario Standing Orders since 1985 by Adam D. McDonald Westminster style government is steeped in a thousand year tradition. Many of the processes originate in historical fights or reactions to external events rather than as conscious decisions. Ontario shares this long parliamentary history but over the last few decades, the province has undergone a number of radical changes. These have, in turn, altered the operation and political culture of the Legislative Assembly. This article will discuss changes in Ontario’s Parliament since 1985 and reactions to those changes. It will also suggest ways to improve the work of the Legislature. fter the American Revolution, United Empire Responsible government also means that Parliament Loyalists fled to the British colony of Canada. has four major functions. AThey brought with them ideas about English • To form a government; representative government and set up a colonial • To fund the government; government similar to that found in London. The • To have a government-in-waiting; government in Upper Canada (now Ontario) consisted • To hold the government to account. of a governor, an appointed Legislative Council, and an elected Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council It is these tasks – all performed within a parliamentary and the governor (advised by a group known as the setting – that require rules to govern the processes of the Family Compact) had most of the political power. In fact, House. The rules are found mainly in the Standing Or- it was the excesses of the Family Compact that led to the ders. 1837 Rebellion and the introduction of responsible In the last century Ontario had a reputation for “boring government. politics”, mainly because of the 42 year rule of the Tories The establishment of responsible government in the starting in 1943. However the 1985 Liberal/NDP accord 1840s required that the executive (the Prime Minister and brought down this government and set in motion a num- his Cabinet) are responsible to the elected Legislative As- ber of procedural and behavioural changes that have sembly. They must govern from within the House and given the Assembly a reputation for boisterous and rau- with the permission of the House. For Upper Canada, cous behaviour. this was a watershed moment. For the first time, the Leg- The Hung Parliament of 1985 islative Assembly had the legitimate right to hold the government to account and to run the affairs of the col- Elections do not come much closer than Ontario’s in ony effectively. 1985. Frank Miller’s Progressive Conservative govern- ment squeaked by with 52 seats in the then-125 seat Leg- islature. The Liberal Party, led by David Peterson, won Adam D. McDonald was an Ontario Legislative Intern for 48 seats, while the New Democratic Party of Bob Rae 2004-2005. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Annual earned 25 seats. The Conservatives had just watched Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association on June 4, their most beloved leader – Bill Davis – retire at the 2005. This author is grateful to present and former MPPs as well as to height of his popularity. They had governed the province legislative staff interviewed in the preparation of this paper. AUTUMN 2005 / CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW 33 for more than 42 years and believed as Bob Rae – and In the past, there have been a number of members who many others – said, that government was theirs “by di- have risen on different occasions on what I might call vine right.”1 This minority government was a blow to the fictitious points of order or points of privilege. I hope this party. will relieve that situation. It will be my duty to call those members out of order because, in turn, they will have an The Opposition, however, had not really won the elec- opportunity to make their points during members’ tion. They were in the same spot they were in 1975 and statements. 5 1977; they could bring down the government or they could allow the Conservatives to continue to govern. Un- The other two major reforms to the Standing Orders like the Davis minorities, however, Miller’s government also changed the way in which Members conducted had lost the popular vote and held power by the slimmest House business. The first was “Responses to Ministerial of margins. It is not hard to understand why the two Op- Statements.” This new procedure allowed each Opposi- position parties reached an agreement.2 By the beginning tion party up to five minutes to respond to whatever pol- of July, the parties switched sides in the House. The Lib- icy statement the government made on a given day. It erals with help from the NDP moved to the Government allowed the Opposition parties to respond outside de- benches and the Conservatives became the Official bate to the government’s initiatives. Opposition. The final piece made an important change to parlia- These facts are actually less important than they seem mentary tradition. One of the Speaker’s jobs was to select on the surface. Minority governments are notoriously MPPs to speak. In doing so, the Speaker used his discre- unstable and the Liberal/NDP accord only had a shelf life tion with regard to both order of questions and the num- of two years. More important, however, was the cultural ber of supplementary questions each MPP may ask. shift that the new Parliament underwent in those first Although the Leader of the Opposition traditionally gets two years. Interviews with Norm Sterling, the lon- the first questions, it was the Speaker who ultimately gest-serving Progressive Conservative MPP, indicate made that judgment. that the nature of the hung Parliament made sure that the The new Standing Order read: government could not just “forge ahead” with its plans. In exercising his discretion pursuant to standing order In fact, Peterson’s minority government had to negotiate 27(d) to permit supplementary questions, the House rec- with the Opposition parties to make changes to the ommends that the Speaker permit supplementary ques- Standing Orders.3 tions as follows: Many of the changes were “housekeeping” in nature, • Official opposition — one question and two but there were some significant reforms to the way the supplementary questions; House does its business such as: • Official opposition — one question and two supplementary questions; • Ending evening sittings; • Third party — one question and two supplementary • Dedicated time for Private Members’ Business on questions; Thursday morning; • Third party — one question and two supplementary • Responses to Ministerial Statements; questions; • Member’s Statements; • All other questions — one question and one • 4 Order of Oral Questions supplementary question.6 These changes came about as a result of give and take Although the Speaker retained his right to determine between the parties but benefited the Opposition more the order of speakers and the number of supplementary than the Government. All of a sudden, private members questions, the House expressed its desire to have a cer- had time specifically allocated to deal with Private Mem- tain amount of order in its proceedings with this addition ber’s Bills. They were also able to take ninety seconds to to the Standing Orders. address any issue they liked in a ten-minute period called “Member’s Statements.” As the Speaker said on The Hot, Magical Summer of 1987 the first day of use: When David Peterson signed the accord with Bob Rae, Members’ statements give a private member, other than he knew he had two years to show Ontarians what he a party leader or a minister, an opportunity to make a statement of up to 90 seconds with a total time for such could do and what kind of Premier he would be. When statements of 10 minutes. These times will be strictly the accord expired in 1987, Peterson called an election enforced so that all members have an opportunity to and won 95 out of a possible 130 seats. Arguably, this is participate ... when rule changes in the House became more important. The 1987 election started a process whereby the parlia- 34 CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW / AUTUMN 2005 mentarians of the Tory years left the Legislature to be re- House leader — the Conservative Party did; my party placed by rookie MPPs. The 1987 election elected a did — and we said, ‘We’ll accept the entire package from the Legislative Assembly committee,’ which included massive majority for Peterson, many of whom were new reforms for all the rules. The government House leader’s to the process; the 1990 election decimated the Liberals, representative, the chief government whip, negotiated bringing to power the NDP, which had never formed a that with my whip, the member for Oshawa (Mr government; in 1995, the Harris Tories swept to power Breaugh), our representative, and the member for with its own contingent of brand new members. In each Carleton. We had a package. case many members had no sense of the traditions of a They took it to their caucus and their caucus rejected that stable parliament and little understanding of how Parlia- package. They said as a majority at that time: ‘To hell 7 ment is designed to work. with the opposition. We’ll get at the rules by imposing. Although the 1987 election did not start the series of Sean Conway, the Government House Leader, re- rule changes, it was the first Parliament in which massive sponded to Opposition comments on his rule changes by numbers of new members replaced so many long-serv- saying that the Government would get its business done ing ones. With a majority government, the Peterson Lib- and would do so without continuous obstruction from erals had a greater leeway to act in whatever way they the Opposition: chose.