LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
CONTENTS
Tuesday 24 November 1998
Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, Bill 68, Mr Harnick /
Loi de 1998 sur les services d'aide juridique, projet de loi 68, M. Harnick
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE
Consideration of Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.
The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): I bring this standing committee on administration of justice to order to further deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act. At this time we will continue on from where we left off yesterday. For future reference, I will once again be referring to the committee motions numbers at the upper-right corner.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm wondering if the parliamentary assistant can respond to our query of yesterday regarding the application of Bill 8.
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Yes. As soon as I'm briefed on it, I certainly will brief you fully on that, Mr Kormos. I fully intend that.
Mr Kormos: The process will be over by then.
Mr Martiniuk: No. I'm sure Nancy will be here soon.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martiniuk.
We now move to committee motion 28, with explanation, please.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I move that section 12 of the Bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"All areas of law to be considered
"(3)In establishing priorities under subsection (2), the corporation shall take into account the importance of all the different areas of law for which it provides legal aid services.
"Limitation
"(4)The priorities established by the corporation under subsection (2) shall not be used to deny legal aid services to an applicant for legal aid services in the area of family law."
This addresses two issues that have come before this committee. The first is that there has to be sufficient attention given to all areas of the law and not just some as opposed to others.
Sorry, you asked for explanation?
The Chair: Yes. I'm afraid in my haste I've jumped the gun a little bit, shall we say. We need to go back to section 9 of the bill. We have not completed the voting on sections 9, 10 and 11 prior to jumping into section 12 where committee motion 28 is. Yesterday we completed committee motion 27. We now should be proceeding to voting on section 9 of the bill, as amended.
I shall put the question. All those in favour of section 9, as amended? All those opposed? Section 9 is carried.
Section 10: Discussion? Seeing no discussion, I shall put the question. Shall section 10 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 10 is carried.
Section 11: Any discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall section 11 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 11 is carried.
We move to section 12 now, to committee motion 28. I might ask of the clerk, is it necessary to repeat the --
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): No.
The Chair: You may continue on with your explanation, please.
Ms Castrilli: As I was saying, this motion seeks to address two issues that we've heard about in this committee. The first is that there's obviously a discrepancy in the way that legal aid certificates are allotted, partly because of funding, partly because of other reasons, and we heard many people say to us that this causes particular hardship.
We've heard Professor McCamus indicate that there are many individuals who are now not represented at all because they cannot get a legal aid certificate. While I appreciate it comes down to a question of funding, I think it's also important to have in an act that seeks to have a new beginning with respect to legal aid that we would emphasize that all areas of the law are worthy of being supported in this fashion.
It's all the more important because, as you know, we tried to introduce amendments dealing with areas of the law that we think are particularly vulnerable. In particular, environmental law was defeated here. We've sought some assurance with respect to aboriginal law and have not been given that. I think it's very important to have a sentence that says all areas of the law are equal.
The other point that it seeks to address comes from people who have had direct experience with family law and who came and told us that there's a particular area that needs to be looked at, and that's the area of family law, where so many people are unrepresented in the courts because there's simply no certificates. We've seen, for instance, that the number of legal aid certificates for family law has decreased astronomically in the last three years and the number of hours allotted under those legal aid certificates is a mere pittance: some 6.6 hours.
I would ask the members of the committee to view these in a favourable light and vote in favour of them.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, I shall put the question. Shall committee motion 28 pass? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Mr Martiniuk: Perhaps I could answer Mr Kormos's question. It was a very precise and interesting question and, if I may, I will present the reply.
Application of the French Language Services Act to the corporation, and we're talking about the new corporation:
Section 81 of Bill 68 provides that the FLSA will apply to the new corporation effective April 1, 1999.
Once the FLSA applies to the corporation, the corporation will be required to provide French-language services as follows:
Services in French must be available at the head or central office of the corporation.
The FLSA has designated 23 areas in the province as French-language service areas. Generally, all offices of the corporation -- eg, local offices -- located in these 23 designated areas must provide services in French subject to the following exception: If more than one office is providing the same service in a designated area, the LGIC may designate one or more of these offices to provide services in French if this will ensure reasonable access to the French-language services in that area.
Any office of the corporation located in a non-designated area but serving a designated area must provide French-language services.
Second, dealing with application of the FLSA to community legal clinics -- I believe that was the second part of your question -- community legal clinics will be legally separate from the new legal aid corporation. Although they will be funded by the corporation, they are separately incorporated legal entities and therefore will not be automatically subject to the FLSA on April 1, 1999.
Clinics located in one of the 23 designated areas only become subject to the FLSA if they have requested and have been designated under the act.
The corporation could require a clinic to apply for designation as a condition of receiving funds from the corporation.
Once the corporation takes over the administration of legal aid, it will be looking at how best to provide French-language services in every designated area. Requiring clinics to apply for designation is just one possible method of meeting this objective.
At the present time three clinics have been so designated and a fourth has applied for designation. In addition, a number of clinics located in communities with a significant francophone population have voluntarily taken initiatives to provide services in French, but have not sought formal designation.
I hope that answers your question, Mr Kormos. It seems it was somewhat more complex than I perceived.
Mr Kormos: I want to thank you for that response and particularly Ms Austin, who I'm sure assisted in the preparation of that and who has made herself available throughout the whole course of this process to all members for responses to queries and other assistance. I want to thank her particularly.
The Chair: Further discussion? Shall section 12 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 12 carried.
Section 13 of the bill: committee motion 29.
1540
Ms Castrilli: I believe, given previous motions that were defeated, this is probably out of order and I withdraw it.
The Chair: Committee motion 30, with explanation, please.
Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 13(3) of the bill be amended by adding "or" at the end of clause (c), by striking out "or" at the end of clause (d) and by striking out clause (e).
This again is consistent with our previous motions to this committee in that it broadens the scope of services to be provided by legal aid services. This is a section of prohibition which penalizes impecunious persons who would be denied access to the justice system obviously in all three cases; it would appear at least the civil justice system. Perhaps not necessarily; so it's not restricted to -- this doesn't impair the corporation's ability to, let's say, restrict the number of certificates or to indicate the nature of the actions or to set the eligibility standards, but simply avoids the prohibitions declared in subsection (3).
I note that the Liberal caucus has an identical amendment that they would have presented in any case.
Ms Castrilli: I concur with what Mr Kormos said. We have an identical amendment which I hope will carry.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question.
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Castrilli, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated. I believe committee motion 31 is identical, so it is withdrawn?
Ms Castrilli: Yes, I withdraw it, with regret.
The Chair: Shall section 13 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 13 is carried.
Section 14: committee motion 32, with explanation, please.
Mr Martiniuk: I move that clause 14(1)(b) of the bill be amended by adding "other than legal services" after "legal aid services" in the third line.
This is an amendment which deals with the power to issue certificates to service providers. The amendment limits the types of certificate which we may be issued to service providers. The amendment provides that while service providers may receive certificates, they will not be permitted to receive a certificate for legal services as opposed to non-legal services.
The Chair: Further discussion? Mr Kormos? No?
Mr Kormos: Just a quizzical look.
The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I shall put the question. Shall committee motion 32 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 32 carried.
Committee motion 33, with explanation, please.
Mr Martiniuk: This is an amendment to subsection 14(4) of the bill.
I move that subsection 14(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Legal services must be provided by lawyers
"(4) Legal services shall only be provided by a lawyer or a person working under the direct supervision of a lawyer."
This is merely a continuation of the clarification of paralegal or the lack of paralegal application for certificates under the bill.
Ms Castrilli: I don't disagree with the intent of the motion. I just wonder if what you mean is legal aid services as opposed to legal services. The definition section, section 1, speaks to legal aid services and I'm assuming that we're talking about legal services under the act, which are legal aid services. I just seek clarification as to how you interpret this section. I say that because the previous section talks about legal aid services other than legal services. I just want to make sure exactly what you mean.
Mr Kormos: Before the PA responds, this came up yesterday: a distinction between legal services and legal aid services. I recall that yesterday when I raised the same question Ms Austin looked at me as if I was asking the stupidest question conceivable. I acknowledge the response was that it must have been. Perhaps we can get into why the government is making the distinction between legal aid services and legal services in --
Mr Martiniuk: Excellent question, both of you. There are certain non-legal services that will be covered, ie, dispute resolution or mediation. That is a non-legal service that is a legal aid service and therefore we want to make the distinction, and therefore I believe this suggested amendment is proper.
Ms Castrilli: Let me just ask a further question. Under the act, as amended, legal services can also be provided by mediators, correct?
Mr Martiniuk: No, legal aid services can be provided.
Ms Castrilli: Legal aid services could also be provided by mediators. I guess I'm wondering how that relates to this section, because legal services could also be provided by mediators, could they not?
Mr Martiniuk: No.
Ms Castrilli: So you're excluding mediators from legal services and only including them under legal aid, which to me seems odd. I would think it would be the other way around. I would understand legal aid services to be applicable to lawyers only, but legal services might probably include mediators. I'm really only seeking clarification. I thought I was clear until I saw your last amendment.
Mr Martiniuk: OK. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it but I always thought mediators might give legal advice too. That is not the role of a mediator. A mediator is there to resolve a problem and not to provide legal advice to either party. So it's quite possible for a mediator to carry on his or her duties without giving any legal advice and, if a legal point comes up, saying, "You have to consult your lawyer." Their duty is to seek a resolution to the problem notwithstanding the legal rights of either party, which is something that I learned in discussing the matter with lawyers and paralegals, and the distinction from legal services, where a person would give legal advice. But a mediator shouldn't do that; that is not the role of the mediator.
Ms Castrilli: Except for the Legal Aid Act, I think of legal services as quite different, I suppose. To be clear, a mediator would be able to get a certificate and provide legal aid services but could not perform legal services. Is that right?
Mr Martiniuk: That's correct.
Ms Castrilli: That's what you're saying?
Mr Martiniuk: That's what we're trying to do.
Ms Castrilli: OK.
Mr Kormos: If I could just have the PA get on the record and let me know, the government is responding to the objection that we heard about paralegals, as they are now unregulated, providing legal services on a certificate basis. Am I clear that the government's amendments here are to exclude current paralegals, who cover the gamut of A to Z and very good to very bad; it's prohibiting them from providing legal aid services?
Mr Martiniuk: Free-standing; ones who are not employed by a lawyer. That is our intent. It has always been the intent of this act; we're just trying to clarify it.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question on committee motion 33. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.
Committee motion 34, with explanation, please.
Ms Castrilli: In the light of the discussion we've just had, I withdraw this.
Mr Kormos: Motion 35, in view of motion 33, withdrawn too.
1550
The Chair: Motion 35 is withdrawn. Committee motion 36.
Ms Castrilli: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Aboriginal legal services corporations
"(5) In deciding whether to provide funding to an aboriginal legal services corporation, the corporation shall not consider the comparative costs, effectiveness or efficiency of clinics or other organizations that do not provide legal aid services in the area of aboriginal law."
This was brought to our attention by the aboriginal clinic that came before us. They're concerned about how other clinics might be set up and that the measures that would be used would be inappropriate, given the nature of aboriginal law.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of committee motion 36? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 14, as amended, carried.
Section 15, committee motion 37.
Ms Castrilli: I move that section 15 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Limitation
"(4) The corporation shall not merge two or more areas into one area under subsection (3) unless as a result,
"(a) there will be no reduction in the quality of legal aid services provided; and
"(b) there will be significant cost savings to the corporation."
This was a recommendation of the area directors who were very concerned that there might be a merger of areas that would not benefit the individuals who required service in those particular areas. They want to ensure that the quality of service to individuals needing legal aid remained high despite any merger. They weren't against mergers but they wanted to make sure that the quality of the services provided was very high.
Mr Kormos: I understand the intent of the amendment. When it comes to the quality of legal aid services, I want to reiterate the problem that I foresee down in Niagara region. I'm not prepared to say that the merger of Niagara North and Niagara South is going to reduce the quality of services. It may well, but I'm not prepared to presume it. But it will reduce access to legal aid. I think we can all agree that that's encompassed in the quality of services.
I'd caution the government. I think it's pretty clear what they've got in mind. It's pretty clear that they anticipate merging regions, especially when you go on to look at the powers and restrictions on a legal aid director and the clear bias in favour of full-time legal aid directors in contrast to part-time directors. I'm just saying that's going to reduce access.
That again will be part of this government's and any subsequent government's toolbox, because what it means is that fewer people will be able to access legal aid. Fewer applications will be made and you can defund it then because there won't be that many applications before it. You'll simply be denying people access to it.
Mr Martiniuk: Just a point of clarification. Mr Kormos spoke yesterday regarding a possible bias for part-time legal aid directors, and I understand that. There is an upcoming motion of the government which would permit part-time legal aid directors to take private clients without the consent of the corporation, which I think might alter your viewpoint slightly. It will permit part-time legal aid directors to carry on a private practice without permission from the corporation. I think it even goes further. I believe it permits him or her to take legal aid matters with the consent of the corporation.
Mr Kormos: Now you've gone too far.
Mr Martiniuk: That may be. We'll get into that, but we cannot support this. Again I think the flexibility is taken from the corporation, and I'll be voting against the amendment.
Ms Castrilli: I can't imagine you'd be voting against quality of service, but you're the parliamentary assistant.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the question on committee motion 37. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 15 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 15 of the bill carried.
Section 16, committee motion 38.
Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 16(1) of the bill be amended by adding "and" at the end of clause (c) and by striking out clause (d).
It seems to me this is a pretty fundamental motion here and I can't imagine you wouldn't endorse it. What it actually says is that when people apply for legal aid, they will not be required to, as the bill currently requires them to do, pay an application fee. We're talking about individuals who come to the justice system with little or no funds and we're asking them in this bill to pay an application fee. That's a barrier to justice; it's a barrier to equality; it's a barrier to access.
I don't think it's at all supportable. That's something that has been told us as well in this committee. I hope the government will reconsider that this provision for an application fee applies not only here but in other sections of the bill. It's really not defensible in the circumstances.
Mr Kormos: Obviously I support the amendment, especially in view of motion 39. The reason people go to legal aid is because they don't have any money, because they're broke. My concern is that maybe there are people on this committee who don't understand what it means to literally not even have that -- I don't know what is anticipated -- 20 bucks, 10 bucks or five bucks in your pocket. There are people out there for whom five bucks -- the reality is that all the people here are elected members. Unfortunately, the staff here don't make salaries that are appropriate to the kind of work they do, but the elected members make significant incomes. It would be the rare elected member who couldn't reach into his or her pocket and pull out five, 10, 20 bucks at the drop of a hat or go to a bank machine and access it. But the fact is that a whole lot of people don't make the kinds of incomes that MPPs make and, once again, that's why they're applying to legal aid.
You can exploit the anathema that there is for, let's say, criminal legal aid coverage, although you've heard a lot of comments about how exploiting that anathema for criminal legal aid coverage is a denial of the presumption of innocence. But you're talking here about a single mother not being able to get, I don't know, I suppose a support order that will enable her to keep her kids fed and clothed in a modest way. Yes, there are a whole lot of single mothers out there and, if you asked them to open their wallet right now, there wouldn't even be five bucks in it.
At the end of the day, what's the motive here? Is the motive to actually constitute a copayment? If that's the motive, that's covered elsewhere in the act, where the corporation has the power to charge back to a person for the amount of legal aid rendered, and that's the case now; or to require a person to pay a portion of the legal aid tab that's surrendered by a lawyer. If that's the motive, it's already covered.
If it's to control access and again to control the number of people who apply, look whom it's controlling. It's controlling the very poorest people from access rather than the ones who might fall into the grey area. It's inhibiting the wrong people. Do you hear what I'm saying? It's inhibiting the wrong people from applying for legal aid. It just doesn't jibe.
1600
I would ask the PA for an explanation or a justification, the rationale for the consideration of an application fee to make a legal aid application. The only conclusion I can reach is, that means when you go into the office where legal aid applications are taken, you can't even get a form to fill out until you put your cash on the dash. It's a Jim Brown expression that I've picked up.
Interjection: Jim who?
Mr Kormos: A colleague of ours -- that until you lay your cash on the dash, you can't fill out the form; or if you can't fill it out, nobody is going to bother looking at it or assessing it. That's the only interpretation one can have of an application fee, because copayment is already covered and it's already in effect with the legal aid system, and reimbursement is already covered, so it can't mean either of those two things. What exactly would the government have in mind by even contemplating an application fee when you would be excluding the most eligible people -- if you want to put it in degrees on a scale from 0 to 100 -- when you'd be excluding the most eligible, not the ones who are maybe iffy? Let me put it this way: You might want to discourage people who have sufficient incomes to retain their own lawyer. Look at this. Maybe you should be trying to address the people who are making -- what do you say? -- "frivolous" applications for legal aid. In other words, if I go to a legal aid office and I make the same amount of money -- well, there are a few of us who make the lowest incomes here at Queen's Park. I don't get the perks of most members. If I go and use up X amount of time in a legal aid office, with my income I can't dispute the fact that maybe I should be compelled to pay, because it's absurd that I should be applying for a legal aid certificate with my income, or any of us with our incomes. Maybe there should be a way to charge me back for the hour and a half of time that it takes to take an application and do an assessment, however wacko that idea sounds, because how would you ever do it?
That's the sort of person, if you want to create a disincentive, because it uses up valuable staff time, who you want to discourage. This doesn't achieve that goal. If it takes five bucks, 20 bucks when you make 78 grand a year -- that's minimum wage of MPPs, $78,006 -- to come up with five, 10, 20 bucks is not a hardship. But if you're a poor single mother, if you're any number of persons who find themselves in a position to apply for legal aid for any number of reasons, even $5, $10, $20 -- or $20, $10, $5; let's go in descending order -- could be a considerable hardship, one that you simply can't meet. There's got to be a rationale for this, please.
Mr Martiniuk: We've been discussing throughout this bill the desire of the government to provide to this corporation all possible tools. If the question to me is, do I advocate application fees, the answer personally is, "Absolutely not under the present circumstances as I see the system working." However, I could not give you the same answer five or 10 years from now. The corporation in its wisdom may feel, in some certain circumstance in the future, that this is a requirement. We are providing the tools. The idea is to make this corporation flexible rather than fettering it. We've had this discussion before and that is the intent. It is not mandatory. It is merely a tool that the corporation may choose to use or may choose not to use.
Ms Castrilli: I was going to let my comments stand until the parliamentary assistant had spoken. I appreciate what he's saying and I agree with what he's saying: that you want to give flexibility to the corporation. Let me ask you then, if your objective is to give that kind of flexibility, why you would not make this section permissive? It is not permissive. It says:
"An individual is eligible to receive legal aid services, by the method that the corporation considers appropriate, having regard to its policies and priorities established under section 12, if...he or she pays the application fee."
This is the problem, because it's not to say "may," and I understand that it says "if any" afterwards, but it's a pretty clear direction that you'll want an application fee and it's only in exceptional circumstances that you're not going to have an application fee. If that's not the case, I'd like you to say it on the record. It'll be small comfort to people who will have to pay an application fee, but the way this is written, you're sending a very clear signal that you want to make legal aid less and less accessible to people who need it.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, shall committee motion 38 carry?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Castrilli, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Mr Kormos: Chair, motion 39, identical to motion 38, is withdrawn.
The Chair: It's very close. Thank you, Mr Kormos.
Shall section 16 of the bill carry?
Ayes
Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Castrilli, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 16 of the bill carried.
Section 17: committee motion 40.
Mr Martiniuk: Chair, it would seem that both the government and the opposition had the same excellent thoughts and I would ask, as a matter of procedure, that we proceed with Liberal motion 41, and after that has passed, if it is passed, I will withdraw 40.
The Chair: I can only do that with the consent of all parties.
Ms Castrilli: We consent.
The Chair: OK.
Ms Castrilli: Thank you.
I move that subsection 17(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "such other information as the corporation may request in order to assess" in the fifth and sixth lines and substituting "such other information as is necessary for the corporation to assess."
As Mr Martiniuk has pointed out, the government obviously concurs. What we've heard here is that it's important that the corporation certainly require information, but it's only information that's necessary to the particular case and not every information that will be under the scrutiny of the corporation.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Castrilli, Kormos, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 41 carried.
Mr Martiniuk: Committee motion 40 is withdrawn.
The Chair: Withdrawn.
Shall section 17, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 17, as amended, carried.
Section 18: committee motion 42.
Mr Martiniuk: I move that subsection 18(2) of the bill be amended by adding "and only to the extent that the claim is covered by any insurance held by the law society" at the end.
Mr Kormos: I trust that this is companion to motion 43, in which the law society apparently got really worked up over the wording of parts of section 18. I trust that this is a response to them getting themselves into a little bit of a lather.
Mr Martiniuk: I'm not aware of that, but obviously the object is that the new corporation would accept the liabilities of the plan except those covered by any insurance policy carried by the law society, and that would seem fair. Was there a problem? I was not aware of a problem.
Mr Kormos: Weren't there submissions made with respect to this? Was this part of the law society's?
Mr Martiniuk: No.
Mr Kormos: There were no submissions made to it, so it wasn't drawn to the government's attention during the course of the committee hearings. It was just novel for the government to have unilaterally embarked on this amendment.
Mr Martiniuk: There are a number of technical amendments that will clarify the act after.
Mr Kormos: Don't you read these things before they get first reading?
Mr Martiniuk: We certainly do, Mr Kormos.
Ms Castrilli: I don't know where this came from, as Mr Kormos has said, but it makes eminent sense and I'm glad to see it included in this bill.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the question on committee motion 42. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 42 carried.
Committee motion 43, with an explanation, please.
Mr Martiniuk: I move that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Corporation's liability for claims other than professional accounts
"(5.1) The corporation is liable in respect of claims in relation to the legal aid plan or the legal aid fund, or to any other matter chargeable to the legal aid fund, arising before this part comes into force, only to the extent that the claim is not covered by any insurance held by the law society."
This a companion of the matter just passed and deals with the liability of the corporation for claims relating to the time period that the legal aid plan was being administrated by the law society.
1610
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the question on committee motion 43. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 43 carried.
Shall section 18, as amended, carry?
Mr Martiniuk: I'm sorry. There's a 44.
The Chair: It's a new section.
Mr Martiniuk: You're quite right, Mr Chair, sorry.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Castrilli: I want to go on record as thanking the parliamentary assistant for making sure that our Liberal motions don't get ignored.
The Chair: Shall section 18 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 18, as amended, carried.
New section: 18.1, committee motion 44, with explanation, please.
Ms Castrilli: Sections 18.1 and 18.2 are together. Do you want to deal with them together or separately?
The Chair: So we shall, together, please.
Ms Castrilli: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:
"Complaints process
"18.1(1) The corporation shall establish a process for the prompt investigation and resolution of complaints about the legal aid services provided to applicants and about the amounts persons may be required to contribute to the corporation towards the costs of any legal aid services provided by the corporation.
"Ombudsman
"(2) The corporation may appoint an independent ombudsman to review the complaints.
"Appeals
"18.2(1) A person may appeal to the Divisional Court the corporation's refusal to provide him or her with legal aid services.
"Same
"(2) An applicant may appeal to the Divisional Court the amount that the corporation requires the person to contribute towards the costs of legal aid services provided by the corporation."
The reason this motion is being advanced is because there is a real concern as to what happens when one is denied. We've got a situation here in Ontario where the number of legal aid certificates has decreased dramatically even though there has been a surplus in the legal aid plan. People have been asking us why that is, why they can't get representation in family court, in environmental law, in aboriginal cases, and this is simply a procedure of fairness, natural justice, if you will. It provides a mechanism to allow people to have their case reviewed and dealt with in a fair manner.
Mr Kormos: The complaints process is important. I think it's in the interests of the corporation as well to be required to establish that process, because that will remind it to ensure that there are fewer complaints than there would be otherwise. Quite frankly, the Divisional Court access may well be merely codifying what already exists. I suppose there are avenues of judicial review that could be undertaken. Yes, of course, there would be; the extraordinary remedies that are often sought. You would still have court access. This codifies it to the Divisional Court, which I think is in everybody's interest. I couldn't for the life of me think of government members not supporting this.
Mr Martiniuk: The concern is, of course, that the proposed amendment would add a legislative complaints process and introduce the Divisional Court upon Legal Aid Ontario refusal. I must say the government is opposed to this proposal. Under the bill as it stands, Legal Aid Ontario would have authority to set the policy for complaints, and, more important, there is a quality assurance program in sections 59 and 91, which hopefully will ensure the best quality legal aid service to the public.
I don't think we want to complicate it by (1) setting up a bureaucracy, which an Ombudsman would be, and (2) introducing the courts into the process. We all know the length of time it takes for the courts to deal with matters on occasion, and this might even be a right without a remedy. We definitely are against the proposed amendment.
Mr Kormos: The quality assurance that's referred to deals with the services provided; that is to say, the legal aid services provided. Does it deal with the arbitrary denial, for instance, of those services? I think the PA is grasping there, number one.
Number two, to suggest that somehow Ms Castrilli is introducing the Divisional Court similarly is out of line, because all she is talking about is codifying what is probably there already, and that is, the right to seek extraordinary remedies. That's a long-time right, and you probably go to Divisional Court to do that. I think lawyers would tell you that.
Ms Castrilli: I believe that to be the case. I don't think we're introducing a new element at all. I think anyone who is refused could in fact apply. What we're trying to do is simplify, actually, the complaints process so that you don't have to take those extraordinary measures. Sometimes people who have no money can't insist on their rights.
What I worry about and what I've seen happen in the last while is that simple tribunals where people can go to have matters resolved have been eliminated right, left and centre, so there are very few avenues for people to insist on their rights outside of the courts. The courts always exist there as a last resort.
If you look at what has happened, for instance, with police, the police complaints tribunal has been eliminated. So now if you have a complaint that isn't dealt with by the police, you have to go to court. The powers of the Ombudsman have been reduced so that she can take very few cases and your only option is to go to court. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has had its budget cut quite dramatically, and so if you can't get justice there, you have to go to court.
Ordinary people can't afford to go to court all the time. You've got to have some quick and easy complaints procedures to allow them to deal with their particular grievance. That's all we're trying to do here. We've heard the complaint that there are some real deficiencies with respect to how legal aid certificates are given out, and this is a quick and easy way to deal with them and give credibility to the corporation.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the question on committee motion 44.
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Castrilli, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 44 defeated.
Section 19: Discussion on section 19? Seeing no discussion, shall section 19 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 19 of the bill carried.
Section 20: committee motion 45, with explanation, please.
Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 20(2) of the bill be amended by inserting "and meet such service standards" after "functions." Just to make this a little clearer, the subsection would read, "A lawyer who acts as duty counsel shall perform such functions and meet such service standards as may be prescribed."
This is to give the corporation additional flexibility to set some standards of service. I know the government is interested in that, because it has dealt with some of that in other parts of the act, so I don't see any difficulty in clarifying that lawyers should meet such service standards as the corporation may prescribe under this section.
1620
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question on committee motion 45. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 45 defeated.
Shall section 20 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 20 of the bill carried.
Section 21 of the bill: Discussion? Seeing no discussion, I shall put the question. Shall section 21 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 21 carried.
Section 22: committee motion 46, with discussion, please.
Mr Martiniuk: I move that subsection 22(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "person" in the second line and substituting "applicant."
This amendment applies to, as we discussed, the type of legal services which area directors may perform.
Mr Kormos: The problem is that it doesn't; it doesn't solve or address the issue in the way that Mr Martiniuk would have us believe. Let me point out what it does. It changes the word "person" to "applicant." When we refer to the definition, "'applicant' means a person who applies for or receives legal aid services." The proper amendment should have read, "An area director shall not render legal aid services," because an applicant is a person who has applied for or receives a legal aid certificate. That means that if I have applied for a legal aid certificate to defend myself on a charge of theft, I cannot go to the area director to prepare my will, because it doesn't say "legal aid services," it says "legal services," and "legal services" wasn't defined in the original bill and remains generic; legal services are everything from soup to nuts to preparing a will to what have you.
I understand what the government is trying to do here; I think I understand what they're trying to do. I don't think they achieve it. I think the far better amendment would have been to simply say "legal aid services," which is defined in the definition, because it goes beyond mere legal services. Do you see what I'm saying, Chair? It includes those mediation services, for instance. The Chair understands. I wish Mr Martiniuk would be as understanding.
Mr Martiniuk: I'm very understanding.
Mr Kormos: Look, I think we have a problem here, and I'm pleased to accommodate. I'll do anything I have to to accommodate the government, even to giving unanimous consent for a reworded amendment, because I really think that what should be done here is to amend it to read "legal aid services" and keep in the word "person." Otherwise, you create some problems there.
Ms Castrilli: If I may, Chair, we came to the same conclusion. That's why we introduced motion 47, which does just that. It talks about legal aid services and doesn't get us into the argument of applicant or person. I suggest to you that might be a better amendment. I think it achieves the same thing; at least, it achieves the intent you want to achieve, and it's a far clearer amendment.
Mr Martiniuk: I'm sorry, I really cannot agree. I don't see your point. By changing it to any applicant, it means an area director is now free to service non-applicants; in other words, carry on a private practice. If there is at any time any reason to provide legal services to an applicant, that would require the permission of the board. I think it's a neat solution, and I think it does work, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Kormos: Of course there is. Let me clarify this, let me assist. This prohibits a legal aid director from even doing pro bono work for a person who is in the status of being an applicant, who is in the status of either applying for legal aid or in possession of a legal aid certificate. It prohibits the legal aid director from doing freebies, in whatever area -- I don't know, the sky's the limit; the imagination is the only limit here -- for an applicant with respect to anything, and "applicant" is clearly defined; it's a person who has applied for or is in receipt of -- I use the word "certificate" because it's probably the more usual circumstance.
Ms Castrilli's amendment is far more dead on. Please, the parliamentary assistant should swallow his pride and acknowledge that the amendment of the Liberal Party is what he and the government want to do, because you've got "person" replaced by "applicant," and you've got "render legal services." "Legal services" is broad-ranging, and "rendering" means precisely that, rendering, not even charging necessarily. That means a legal aid director is prohibited from doing a freebie. By all means, I don't want to prohibit lawyers from doing freebies; I encourage it, especially lawyers who receive salaries as MPPs.
Ms Castrilli: We've had a confusion throughout between legal services and legal aid services. I think the parliamentary assistant did an excellent job today of clarifying the differences and dispelling that confusion. To go with this amendment, to me, brings us right back into the confusion that we had at the beginning. It would seem to me that to get out of that quagmire, you should look at 47 as opposed to 46. You don't want a situation where an area director can't perform legal services. You do want them to perform certain types of services that don't conflict with their obligations under the act. Otherwise, you're going to find it very difficult to get area directors, because they're going to think twice about whether some other aspect of practice will not be allowed to continue.
I think we're trying to achieve the same thing. Maybe legislative counsel will help us here. I just don't think your amendment does what you want it to do. I think it puts us right back into the confusion we were in before.
Mr Kormos: We've got a whole bunch of motions. We're running up against a time limitation here. I believe we have to start doing clause-by-clause at 4:30. I am prepared to set 46 and 47 aside. I cannot state emphatically enough how I think there's a distinction between the two that makes 47 clearly preferable. You heard from area directors who said that it is desirable that an area director, especially a part-time one, be engaged in the practice of law. That was a specific thing they pointed out. They said it was a plus, it brought something to the job.
I'm prepared to do whatever has to be done by way of unanimous consent to set this motion aside and deal with it at any point, at any time, before 4:30, after 4:30, after 6:30 tomorrow, the day after, to make sure that the intent is genuinely reflected. With great sincerity and great emphasis, we've gone through the arguments. I think the arguments are clear, and 47 does what we believe the government wants to do, as compared to 46, which creates problems.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question on committee motion 46.
Ms Castrilli: Hold on. If I'm not mistaken, you asked for unanimous consent to put this aside, did you not? I just want to be clear on what we discussed.
The Chair: I should make a clarification. We have to follow the closure motion on this, and there is no allowance for such. At 4:30 by my clock, which is in about a minute and a half --
Mr Kormos: OK, let's do her, Chair. Let her rip. You screw this one up, though, it could have repercussions.
The Chair: OK. Further discussion on committee motion 46?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Ms Castrilli: I can see a bill to change this later on, can't you?
1630
The Chair: Committee motion 47: With explanation, please, Ms Castrilli.
Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 22(6) of the bill be amended by striking out "legal services" in the first and second lines and substituting "legal aid services."
I think we've had ample discussion with respect to that. I thought we had very clear lines drawn on what were legal services and what were legal aid services. I think we need to say that these are legal aid services. Otherwise, you will find yourself in quite some difficulty later on.
1630
The Chair: Seeing as it's 4:30 of the clock --
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Being as we are past 4:30 of the clock, we shall move into the voting on clause-by-clause sections.
Shall section 22 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 22 of the bill carried.
Section 23, clause 23(1)(b) of the bill, committee motion 48, government motion: All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 48 carried.
Committee motion 49, a Liberal motion, subsection 23(3) of the bill: All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 49 defeated.
Shall section 23 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 23 of the bill carried.
Shall sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the bill carried.
Section 28, committee motion 50, Liberal motion, subsection 28(4.1) of the bill: Shall committee motion 50 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 50 defeated.
Shall section 28 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 28 of the bill carried.
Section 29: Shall section 29 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 29 of the bill carried.
Section 30, committee motion 51, subsection 30(2) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 51 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 51 defeated.
Committee motion 52, subsection 30(3) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 52 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 52 carried.
Committee motion 53, subsection 30(3) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 53 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 53 defeated.
Shall section 30 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 30 of the bill carried.
Section 31: Shall section 31 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 31 of the bill carried.
Shall sections 32, 33 and 34 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 32, 33 and 34 carried.
Section 35, committee motion 54, subsection 35(6), a government motion: Shall committee motion 54 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 54 carried.
Shall section 35 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 35 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Section 36, committee motion 55, subsection 36(3) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 55 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 55 carried.
Shall section 36 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 36 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Section 37, committee motion 56: Shall subsection 37(3) of the bill, a government motion, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 56 carried.
Mr Kormos: Chair, that's a pretty long quorum bell, ding-dong.
The Chair: Are you calling for a recess?
Mr Rollins: I call a five-minute recess.
The Chair: Should I call a five-minute recess?
Mr Kormos: No, Chair, you have no authority to do that. We're under time allocation.
Mr Rollins: I'll just call a recess.
Mr Kormos: Not under time allocation and the questions are deemed to have been put.
Interjections.
The Chair: We're checking into that matter at this very moment.
Committee motion 57, subsection 37(4) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 57 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 57 carried.
Shall section 37 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 37 carried.
Section 38, committee motion 58, subsection 38(2) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 58 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 58 carried.
Committee motion 59, subsections 38(2), 38(3) and 38(4) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 59 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 59 defeated.
Shall section 38 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 38 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Section 39, committee motion 60, subsection 39(1.1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 60 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 60 carried.
Committee motion 61, subsection 39(1.1) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 61 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 61 defeated.
Committee motion 62.
Mr Kormos: Out of order, Chair.
1640
The Chair: Withdrawn?
Mr Kormos: It's out of order, because it's been voted on in 61.
The Chair: Out of order.
Committee motion 63, subsections 39(3.1) and (3.2) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 63 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 63 defeated.
Shall section 39, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 39 of the bill carried.
Shall section 40 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 40 of the bill carried.
Section 41, committee motion 64, subsection 41(1) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 64 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 64 carried.
Ms Castrilli: Number 65 is out of order. It's identical to the government motion.
The Chair: Number 65 has been withdrawn, out of order.
Ms Castrilli: I thank the government for taking our thoughts on this.
The Chair: Committee motion 66, subsection 41(2) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 66 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 66 carried.
Ms Castrilli: Number 67, Chair, is also out of order. It's identical to the government motion and I thank them for their foresight in concurring with us.
The Chair: Committee motion 67 has been withdrawn.
Shall section 41, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 41 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Shall section 42 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 42 of the bill carried.
Section 43, committee motion 68, subsection 43(2) of the bill, Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 68 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 68 defeated.
Committee motion 69, subsection 43(2.1) of the bill, Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 69 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 69 defeated.
Shall section 43 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 43 of the bill carried.
Shall sections 44 and 45 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 44 and 45 of the bill carried.
Section 46, committee motion 70, subsection 46(4) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 70 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 70 carried.
Shall section 46, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: One moment. A recorded vote.
The Chair: A deferred vote.
Mr Kormos: Recorded.
The Chair: Yes, it's deferred.
Section 47, committee motion 71, subsection 47(1) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 71 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 71 carried.
Committee motion 72, subsection 47(2) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 72 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 72 carried.
Committee motion 73, subsection 47(5) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 73 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 73 carried.
Shall section 47 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 47, as amended, carried.
Section 48, committee motion 74, subsections 48(3) and (4) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 74 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 74 carried.
Shall section 48 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 48, as amended, carried.
New section, committee motion 75, section 48.1 of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 75 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 75 carried.
Committee motion 76, section 48.1 of the bill, Liberal motion: All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 76 defeated.
Shall sections 49, 50 and 51 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 49, 50 and 51 of the bill carried.
Section 52, committee motion 77, section 52 of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 77 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 77 of the bill carried.
Shall section 52 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 52, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 53, 54 --
Mr Kormos: Chair, can we do these section by section, please?
The Chair: Yes.
Shall section 53 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 53 of the bill carried.
Section 54: Shall section 54 --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote.
Mr Kormos: You'll notice it excludes credit unions.
The Chair: Sections 55, 56 and 57: Shall sections 55, 56 and 57 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 55, 56 and 57 of the bill carried.
Section 58, committee motion 78, a Liberal motion --
Ms Castrilli: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Section 58, a Liberal motion. A recorded vote is deferred.
Committee motion 79, section 58 --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Committee motion 79 is identical to committee motion 78 and, as such, it will be called out of order.
Mr Kormos: Very good. I was tired of calling my own motions out of order.
1650
The Chair: Shall sections 59 through to 64 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Sections 59 through to and including 64 are carried.
Section 65 --
Ms Castrilli: I'd like to withdraw this motion. We talked about this problem yesterday with the haste to get -- you can't withdraw?
The Chair: Can she withdraw it?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, but there's no debate.
Ms Castrilli: All right. Very well.
The Chair: Committee motion 80 has been withdrawn. Committee motion 81.
Mr Kormos: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Withdrawn.
Shall section 65 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 65 of the bill carried.
Section 66, committee motion 82, subsection 66(1.1) of the bill, Liberal motion --
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
The Chair: Deferred.
Committee motion 83.
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote shall be deferred.
Shall sections 67, 68 and 69 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 67, 68 and 69 carried.
Section 70.
Ms Castrilli: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Mr Martiniuk: What motion was that?
The Chair: Committee motion 84.
Ms Castrilli: We've requested a recorded vote. That's it.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, there's a motion.
Mr Martiniuk: I'm sorry?
The Chair: The vote is deferred, and as such, we cannot vote on the section until we've had that vote.
Mr Kormos: Quite right. Right on.
The Chair: We've had two deferrals.
Shall sections 71 to 80, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 71 to 80, inclusive, carried.
Committee motion 85, section 81 of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 85 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 85 defeated.
Shall section 81 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 81 of the bill carried.
Shall sections 82 and 83 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 82 and 83 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 86, subsection 84(1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 86 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 86 carried.
Shall section 84 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 84, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 85, 86 and 87 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 85, 86 and 87 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 87, subsections 88(1) and (2) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 87 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 87 carried.
Committee motion 88, subsection 88(3) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 88 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 88 carried.
Shall section 88 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 88, as amended, carried.
Committee motion 89, subsection 89(1) of the bill, a government motion: All those in favour of committee motion 89? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 89 carried.
Committee motion 90, section 89 of the bill, a Liberal motion --
Ms Castrilli: A recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote.
Committee motion 91, subsection 89(2) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 91 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 91 defeated.
Shall section 90 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 90 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 92, subsections 91(1) and (1.1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 92 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 92 carried.
Committee motion 93, subsection 91(1) of the bill, Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 93 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 93 of the bill defeated.
Committee motion 94, subsection 91(2) of the bill, government motion: Shall committee motion 94 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 94 carried.
Committee motion 95, subsection 91(2) of the bill, Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 95 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 95 defeated.
Committee motion 96, subsection 91(3) of the bill: Shall committee motion 96 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 96 carried.
Committee motion 97, subsection 91(3) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 97 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 97 defeated.
Committee motion 98, subsection 91(4) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 98 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 98 carried.
Committee motion 99, subsection 91(4) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 99 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 99 defeated.
1700
Committee motion 100, subsection 91(5) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 100 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 100 defeated.
Committee motion 101, subsection 91(6) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 101 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 101 defeated.
Committee motion 102, subsection 91(7) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 102 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 102 defeated.
Committee motion 103, subsections 91(7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 103 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 103 carried.
Shall section 91 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 91, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 92 and 93 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 92 and 93 of the bill carried.
Shall section 94 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 94 of the bill carried.
New section, committee motion 104, sections 94.1 and 94.2 of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 104 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 104 defeated.
Committee motion 105, subsection 95(1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 105 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 105 carried.
Committee motion 106, subsection 95(3) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 106 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 106 carried.
Mr Kormos: After all the squealing that Harnick did in the House --
The Chair: No debate. Thank you, Mr Kormos. You gave me a moment to wet my whistle again, shall we say.
Committee motion 107, subsection 95(3) of the bill, a Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: Chair, I think this motion is out of order since you struck out the section this was supposed to amend.
The Chair: Committee motion 107 is out of order and withdrawn.
Shall section 95 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 95 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Section 96, committee motion 108, clause 96(1)(b) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 108 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 108 defeated.
Committee motion 109, clause 96(1)(d) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 109 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 109 defeated.
Committee motion 110, clause 96(1)(n) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 110 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 110 carried.
The next one is identical and, as such, is out of order and withdrawn.
Ms Castrilli: Only because the government saw the wisdom of our amendment.
The Chair: Committee motion 112, clause 96(1)(o.1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 112 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 112 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 113, clause 96(1)(p.1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 113 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 113 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 114, clause 96(1)(p.1) of the bill, a Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote and, as such, it is deferred.
Committee motion 115, clause 96(1)(r.1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 115 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 115 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 116, clause 96(2)(b) of the bill, a Liberal motion: Shall committee motion 116 of the bill carry? All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote and, as such, it is deferred.
Committee motion 117 is identical to 116 and, as such, is out of order and withdrawn.
Mr Kormos: Chair, it wasn't really out of order when the previous motion hadn't been voted on yet. So it's not a matter of having already --
The Chair: It's because we're waiting to vote on it so the outcome will be determined at a later day.
Mr Kormos: But is it out of order yet? It's only out of order when the previous motion is voted on.
The Chair: OK. Committee motion 118 --
Mr Kormos: To get back to 117, you've ruled it out of order. I'm saying to you that it's not out of order.
The Chair: I've determined it's out of order.
Mr Kormos: You're walking where angels fear to tread, you know that.
Mr Rollins: Yes, but he's got a black halo.
The Chair: Committee motion 118 relied on committee motion 44.
Ms Castrilli: I withdraw it because we defeated a previous motion.
The Chair: As such it is out order and is withdrawn.
Section 97 of the bill: Shall section 97 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 97 of the bill carried.
Section 98, committee motion 119, subsection 98(1) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 119 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 119 carried.
Committee motion 120, subsection 98(2) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 120 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 120 carried.
Committee motion 121, subsection 98(3) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 121 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 121 carried.
Shall section 98 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 98 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 99, 100 and 101 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 99, 100 and 101 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 122, section 102 of the bill, subsection 67(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a government motion: Shall committee motion 122 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 122 of the bill carried.
1710
Shall section 102 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 102 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Shall section 103 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 103 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 123, section 104 --
Ms Castrilli: On a point of order, Chair: I've really struggled with this section. Clause (b) in fact doesn't exist. I don't know what it refers to in terms of the --
The Chair: There's no debate.
Ms Castrilli: All right. Just so you know, it doesn't make sense.
The Chair: Thank you. Committee motion 123, section 104 of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 123 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 123 of the bill carried.
Shall section 104 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 104 of the bill, as amended, is carried.
Shall sections 105, 106 and 107 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 105, 106 and 107 of the bill carried.
Section 108, committee motion 124, subsection 108(4) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 124 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 124 of the bill carried.
Shall section 108 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 108, as amended, carried.
Section 109, committee motion 125, subsection 109(2) of the bill, a government motion: Shall committee motion 125 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 125 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 126, subsection 109(3) of the bill, a government motion: Shall government motion 126 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 126 of the bill carried.
Shall section 109 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 109, as amended, carried.
Shall section 110 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 110 of the bill carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare that the long title of the bill is carried.
Now I move to the deferred and recorded votes. Shall section 46, as amended --
Mr Kormos: Section 46?
The Chair: Yes. A recorded vote was requested.
Interjections.
Ms Castrilli: Wasn't 70 deferred?
Clerk of the Committee: No. The question was a deferred vote on section 46. The amendment on page 70 was carried.
Ms Castrilli: All right. I wasn't aware of that.
The Chair: Shall section 46 of the bill, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 46 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Shall section 54 of the bill carry?
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 54 carried.
Shall committee motion 78, section 58 of the bill, carry?
Ayes
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 78 defeated.
As such, committee motion 79 is out of order.
We shall call for a recorded vote on section 58 of the bill.
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 58 carried.
Section 66, committee motion 82.
Ayes
Castrilli, Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 82 defeated.
Shall committee motion 83 of the bill carry?
Interjection: Can you read it?
The Chair: Subsection 66(1.1) and (1.2) of the bill --
Ms Castrilli: Chair, I have to absent myself to speak in the House. I may not be back in time. I want to thank everyone involved in this process. You've been wonderful. Your civility and grace have been fabulous. I even want to thank the parliamentary assistant, who's been so gracious today; Ms Austin, who's been incredible in her technical expertise, particularly the technical people. If I could, I'd like to single out our legal counsel, who did a mammoth job with virtually no time at all.
The Chair: Thank you for giving me that little bit of a break.
Mr Kormos: As Isabel Bassett said about Dalton McGuinty --
The Chair: Order, please. Back on to committee motion 83. We were having a recorded vote.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 66 of the bill carry? Recorded vote as well.
Mr Kormos: Chair, why is it a recorded vote? There was no call for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall 66 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 66 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 84, subsection 70(2)of the bill.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 84 defeated.
Shall section 70 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 70 of the bill carried.
Committee motion 90, section 89 of the bill, a Liberal motion.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 90 defeated.
Shall section 89 of the bill, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: Did we call for a recorded vote?
The Chair: No. Shall section 89 of the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 89 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Committee motion 114, clause 96(1)(p.1) of the bill, a Liberal motion.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 114 defeated.
Committee motion 116, clause 96(2)(b) of the bill, a Liberal motion.
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare committee motion 116 defeated.
Shall section 96 of the bill, as amended, carry?
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 96 of the bill, as amended, carried.
Shall Bill 68, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare Bill 68, as amended, carried.
Shall Bill 68, as amended, be reported to the House?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Martiniuk, O'Toole, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare that Bill 68, as amended, shall be reported to the House.
Thank you. This concludes the standing committee on administration of justice hearing of Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act.
The committee adjourned at 1725.