Legislative Assembly of Ontario

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

CONTENTS

Monday 26 October 1998

Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998, Bill 25, Mr Tsubouchi /

Loi de 1998 visant à réduire les formalités administratives,

projet de loi 25, M. Tsubouchi

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

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Rebecca Gotleib, counsel, legal services branch, Ministry of Health

Mr Tom Coape-Arnold, program liaison officer, corporate affairs branch,

Ministry of Natural Resources

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

MR MICHAEL WOOD, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

The committee met at 1533 in room 228.

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Consideration of Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Chair (Mr Jerry Ouellette): I call this committee to order to commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 25. As Chair, I'm required to ask the question: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill and, if so, to which sections?

The package that has been presented from each of the caucuses, I would assume, contains the amendments.

On section 1, amendments to be moved by Mr Kormos.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Are you speaking of amendment number 1 that's contained in the package?

The Chair: Yes. For further reference, the top right corner of the package distributed today will be dealt with 1 through 14, and we'll be dealing with amendment 1 on section 1.

Mr Kormos: It doesn't refer -- oops, as a matter of fact, it is in order, it's very much in order, because rather than referring to a schedule, it refers to the initial part of the bill. So I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: That relates to further amendments and further consideration. This was raised during the course of hearing submissions; in my view and in the view of other people who have read it, a particularly dangerous piece of legislation. That is schedule C, the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, which establishes what has been happening on a 10-year basis in this Legislature, and that is, that in the ninth year of every decade there's a bill before the Legislature which effectively creates what all of us call the RSOs, the Revised Statutes of Ontario.

Frankly, and I indicated this when I spoke to this previously about schedule C, it really does little more than what that 10th yearly bill does, except that it establishes that it will never again appear before the Legislature. In that respect, I suppose I'm grateful. I'm not real grateful about Bill 25 and I don't see how schedule C is in any way a reduction of red tape.

What happens is that ministries, throughout the course of a decade, gather pieces of legislation which have become redundant or obsolete, not in current usage, and I assume, although I'm not as aware of this as I am of simply dealing with redundant or obsolete legislation, they correct, let's say, grammatical errors.

The scary language in schedule C, which gives -- and listen, Chair, I want to tell you that in the modest 10 years that I've been here, I have acquired nothing but the highest regard for legislative counsel. Please, I want to make that absolutely clear. Unfortunately my regard for legislative counsel, absolute as it is, does not stand in the way of my opposing schedule C. It relinquishes legislative authority to the civil service.

Again with the highest regard for legislative counsel, and recognizing that this has been done every 10 years in any event, when the bill is presented before the House in the ninth year of every decade, there's an opportunity to debate it. There obviously then would be an opportunity to direct comments to what had occurred 10 years earlier or what had transpired during the course of the last 10 years about the appropriateness, or whether or not legislative counsel, in creating the RSOs and engaging in these revisions, had lived up to the mandate of the legislation.

There are the deeming sections in schedule C. If you take a look at it, folks, if you take a look at subsection 3(3), for instance, of schedule C, once an RSO is published, as amended by legislative counsel, may I dare say it, without debate, without legislative oversight, it's deemed to have been passed by the Legislature.

There appears to be literally no recourse to what legislative counsel, as an office, not as individuals or personalities -- there's no recourse. In other words, you can't refer to the bill -- please, this is incredibly important stuff -- you can't challenge effectively rewritten legislation. That's a pretty bold statement, to suggest that legislative counsel rewrite, because historically I'm confident they haven't. But let's understand that the bill gives them the authority to effectively rewrite legislation so that the legislation reflects what is considered to be the intention of the Legislature. That's a pretty heady sort of thing.

How do you determine the intention of the Legislature? Do you refer to the debate that took place during the course of the legislation? If you do, whose contribution to the debate do you refer to? Do you refer to the minister's announcement, his or her introduction to the legislation, which is designed to provide some sort of framework? Do you refer to the criticism of opposition members who say that the legislation is going to do the very contrary to what the minister said it will do?

1540

For your benefit, I'm referring to clause 2(1)(c) of schedule C. Take a look at it. Legislative counsel is entitled to change, to literally rewrite legislation. Whether they've done it in the past, and I'm confident they haven't, is not the issue. The fact is this gives them the authority to literally rewrite legislation behind closed doors, in secret, without any public consultation and without even the gazetting of it -- do you hear what I'm saying? -- without even the publication of what legislative counsel, as civil servants, as bureaucrats, have done. And because of subsection 3(3), there is no recourse.

In other words, a party to a proceeding who disputes that legislative counsel has abided by clause 2(1)(c), who says, "No, no, legislative counsel did not rewrite the legislation; they rewrote it but they didn't rewrite the legislation to express the intention of the Legislature," there's no recourse. You can't argue. What would the argument be? You can't argue that they were -- what would you say? I presume there are lawyers in here. There's a whole lot of bureaucrats and civil servants and little mandarins, both political and non-political, and some of them are well paid and some of them are not so well paid. All of them work hard, I'm confident of that. But nobody is in a position to use the courts to say that legislative counsel exceeded their mandate because of the deeming section in 3(3).

The parliamentary assistant will recall this having been raised earlier. This is really some pretty unprecedented stuff in what we call a democratic society. It's really unprecedented. You've got the power to rewrite legislation without any public consultation, without any oversight, because of course legislative counsel is independent. The Attorney General can't tell legislative counsel what to do. A wink and a nod, and the risk of politicization of the civil service -- and again I'm not suggesting that's the case, but it can happen and it quite frankly has happened at various points in this province's history, in this country's history and in the history of other elected parliaments or governing bodies, the politicization of the civil service.

Quite frankly, we see it now. We see civil servants -- and you don't have to tell them. Civil servants and bureaucrats aren't dummies. You don't have to tell them what the political goals of the government are. They understand. Many civil servants have been very unwilling. I know this. I've talked to them. Sure, they've written the legislation that's been demanded of them but they aren't happy about it. They're not confident that it's good for the province but they understand that this government has a particular direction politically and they, as civil servants, are obliged to pursue that direction. This is very dangerous.

I would love to hear from the parliamentary assistant, or anybody, to share with us other jurisdictions which claim to be democracies as well which have similar powers.

I know the contra-argument is that it's being done every 10 years, but at least the bill has gone before the Legislature so that it can be the subject matter of debate. Do you understand what I'm saying, Ms Ross? At least every 10 years you've got a chance. If there has been an egregious and totally inappropriate revision to a piece of legislation, members of the Legislature, regardless of who's in power, have the chance to stand up and say, "Hey, before we pass this bill, let me direct your attention to what legislative counsel did to subsection 5(4) of this particular bill." You've got a forum in which to dispute it.

You've got the incredible power, you've got the deeming section under section 3(3), you've got the entire absence of any public exposure during the course of this, any public consultation, and even, as I say, the gazetting. If, for instance, schedule C had a provision that proposed changes be gazetted, that would give interested parties an opportunity to say, "Hells bells, you're wrong about your revision reflecting the true intention of the Legislature." At least you would have that modest opportunity to intervene and maybe have legislative counsel -- and again, I speak of them as an office, not as individuals or personalities. A member of the Legislature, a member of the public, a member of the bar, anybody could have a chance to at least force legislative counsel to rethink it and maybe consider, "Oh, gosh, maybe we were wrong, maybe we didn't fulfil our mandate under 2(1)(c)." I'm telling you, friends, this is very scary stuff.

I appreciate that another argument would be that it's a matter of convenience. Why should this be brought before the Legislature every 10 years? In that respect, I suppose it could arguably be the elimination of red tape. Well, Lord love a duck, have we reached that point where the democratic process is to be regarded merely as red tape? Why don't we dispense with it all? Democracy is not necessarily speedy. Some of us have had an opportunity to demonstrate that over the course of our parliamentary careers. It's not necessarily a speedy exercise and it's not necessarily an inexpensive exercise. I understand that. But I'm extremely frightened by the potential that's contained in schedule C.

Once again, I want to emphasize I have the greatest respect for the legislative counsel, as I have known that office over the course of a decade, but this, my friends, is scary stuff. It is an affront to what I'm confident every Ontarian thinks democracy is, regardless of what part of the province they live in, regardless of which newspapers they read or if they read them at all. This runs so contrary to some very fundamental tenets.

I'm saying this with great sincerity. I hope you understand when I say to the members of the government caucus here that I've not been partisan at all in this commentary. I'm suggesting that any subsequent government has the power to exercise its influence over the civil service in any number of ways, however subtlely, however surreptitiously, such that the powers in this legislation could be seriously abused. That's number one.

Even without that consideration, you don't relinquish legislative writing powers to the civil service. However incompetent all 130 members of the Legislature may or may not be at given points in time, the fact is that you're elected to develop policy -- I know it becomes increasingly difficult as government becomes increasingly centralized and where the sources of policy are increasingly external to government; I've witnessed that over the course of the three governments that I've been involved with here -- and you don't relinquish that responsibility.

I reject the argument that this merely codifies what was being done every 10 years in any event. At least that came before the Legislature and, if there were issues to be debated, it could be debated.

I am telling the members of this committee they've got an obligation and a responsibility. This is one of two or three very important things that I want to address in Bill 25. I appreciate that I've been -- I'm going to shut down in a couple of moments.

1550

We have -- and when I say "we," do the opposition parties have any power in this committee? None. Zero. All we can do is speak out and raise issues as we see them. Are the issues we raise sometimes very partisan? Of course they are. When I speak to this, though, am I being partisan? I tell you, I am not. I don't think there's a single word that I've said that could be interpreted by any fair-minded or thinking person as being in any way, shape or form partisan.

I say this committee has a great deal of power. Rarely do committees exercise that power, because committees are whipped. I've been on the other side -- now, mind you, I was hard to be whipped and it made me unwelcome at --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Well, it did, to the point where the last government wouldn't appoint me to any committees because they couldn't be assured that I would necessarily vote as I was whipped. Because I did it; I did what I thought was right. Parliament is a circus in there. You folks know it. It's televised; it's show time. If there's any real role --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Well, it is. I know it is. If you don't utilize it, you're a damn fool as a member of the Legislature, and any one of you has, when given the opportunity. But the place where you can really have some impact is here in committee, because what you can do here is, having listened to submissions -- and we've heard submissions on this bill; not on this specific point, but I raised it at the very onset of these hearings and I speak very, very emphatically to it today.

You people, my colleagues who are members of the government caucus on this committee, can send this one back to the drawing board. You'll still pass Bill 25 -- I have no hesitation in saying that; I understand that -- but you can say no to schedule C. You can have conducted yourselves in a very non-partisan way and have the supervision of this bill.

I understand it's in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Poor Ms Ross is here as the PA, and far be it from anybody to expect her to -- it covers such a wide range of things that it doesn't just cover Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Perhaps ideally the AG's ministry would be best represented in addressing schedule C.

If the government wants to reintroduce this bill -- it is in fact a whole bill, schedule C -- let them do it. Let them do it next month, but don't let them do it without you having expressed your concern about the onerous powers that are being relinquished, the abdication of legislative responsibility that's inherent in approving schedule C.

I should indicate that I'll be supporting my amendment which would effectively prohibit the enactment of schedule C, because what 1(2) does is say that schedule C is enacted. So my amendment will kill schedule C. That doesn't prevent the government from reintroducing schedule C as an independent bill. It doesn't preclude it from doing that. I'm asking you -- and again, if there's contra-arguments, please tell me. If I've been wrong in my analysis, please tell me.

I've read this schedule very, very carefully. I've read it as a member of this Legislature. I've also read it -- and I don't throw this around very often because, heck, I guess lawyers aren't the most popular thing in the world -- but I've read it as somebody who's been a lawyer for a good number of years before I came here. So I've read it from both perspectives, and I've also read it as somebody who, as a member of the community, would be shocked to understand that this legislation exists, who would be shocked to think that the Parliament doesn't have the final say in what a piece of legislation reads and that this goes far beyond merely telling legislative counsel they can correct grammatical errors, you know, if it says "a" instead of "an." That wouldn't bother me. This goes far beyond that. Very scary stuff, my friends.

I'm not suggesting anybody has been less than forthright and that the motives might have been good in the first instance -- but very, very scary stuff. I'm not imputing motive; I'm not. I'm simply saying that's the net effect of this. It doesn't belong in a democratic, parliamentary system. Thank you, Chair, for your patience.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I just want to support the comments of my colleague from Welland-Thorold. I ask that we all consider seriously what he said. If you just simply refer to section 1 of schedule C, it says:

"The chief legislative counsel for the Province of Ontario may prepare,

(a) a revision of any or all of the statues of Ontario; and

(b) a revision of any or all of the regulations of Ontario."

My colleague has given you the reasons why we should be concerned about that and the rest of schedule C.

I don't know whether anyone, either in the area of the chief legislative counsel or in the area of government, consciously said, "We want to give this kind of authority to the chief legislative counsel" -- I don't know -- or whether it just happened to have been drafted as an effort to reduce red tape, as has been mentioned. But I think what we have to keep in mind is the word "accountability." In the end the accountability should always be with the Legislature and should not be with any unelected body or part of the government.

Therefore, I ask that you consider what has been suggested and at the very least that we vote down this subsection 1(2) of the bill and that it be reconsidered in view of what the real objective was with this section, and hopefully that it would be revised to meet those objectives and brought back at a later date if so necessary.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Mr Kormos raised the issue that by voting for this, in effect it eliminates schedule C. Statutes are revised, you're right, every 10 to 15 years. Legislative counsel have been doing this for over 100 years, so they have some good background behind it.

A lot of the changes that they bring forward, he's quite right, are grammatical errors. They change the numbering. An instance is the Municipal Act: 500 provisions have been changed in the Municipal Act since 1990. If someone wants to go through that, they have to go through 12 separate printed volumes, many of which contain several different amending statutes, so it's a huge process to go through it to try to understand a single piece of legislation.

This will allow legislative counsel to go through it on a regular basis so that they don't have to wait 10 years, number one. It allows the public or whoever wants to access this information faster and more accurate access to official revisions of legislation that has been revised. Even after all that, it still has to be reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

As a member of the bar, I would think that Mr Kormos would agree that you have to put a certain amount of faith and trust in legislative council to do the job that they've been hired to do. I think it's the objective here that we would like to vote against this motion.

Mr Kormos: Very briefly, because I have no more time, the government caucus has just been whipped. Please, I understand what you're saying about renumbering. I acknowledged that. "Make changes...to clarify what is considered to be...the intention of the Legislature." That goes far beyond renumbering, it goes far beyond correcting grammatical errors. It remains a very dangerous piece of legislation, Mrs Ross.

Mrs Ross: If I could just make one more comment, the powers that are in here are no greater than what they currently have. They currently have the ability to do that. All it's saying is they can do it on an ongoing basis, they don't have to wait for 10 years to do it. That's what this legislation is doing.

1600

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none --

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please, Chair.

The Chair: A recorded vote. This shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put. The vote comes not right now; it comes a little later.

Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, I thought we were going to vote on the amendment, my motion to amend. My apologies.

The Chair: Section 2: Any comments, questions or amendments on section 2?

Mr Kormos: Briefly, obviously I'm opposed to section 2 because the enactment of this bill would then enact, among other things, schedule C, as well as schedule J, which is another very frightening piece of legislation which I'm not confident everybody understands the impact of. Unfortunately, that puts me in a position of having to be opposed to section 2 as well, which effectively enables the enactment of the whole bill, Bill 25.

The Chair: Further discussion on section 2? Seeing none, all those in favour of section 2?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: It will be deferred.

Mr Kormos: Chair, on a point of order, if I may: Can we assume that everything is going to be deferred, so we don't have to go through the formalities?

The Chair: With a recorded vote, it is deferred to --

Mr Kormos: OK, thank you.

The Chair: Discussion on section 3?

Mr Kormos: I understand the PR exercise of this so-called red tape stuff. Quite frankly, there have been a couple of bills that purport to be part of the elimination of red tape that have been passed by the Legislature without much ado. This isn't the case with all of this. I'm speaking to the matter of the title, Red Tape Reduction Act. That's what section 3 is all about, isn't it? Let's understand what happened.

What is it when something happens every 10 years? Help me -- something that happens every 10 years; not the annual, not the biannual.

Mr Michael Wood: Decennial.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, legislative counsel. The decennial phenomenon of reviewing the existing statutes that we've talked about in terms of schedule C. What happens is that all ministries, if they have the time, if they've been able to do it, prepare on an annual basis legislation that is going to be presented to legislative counsel. Legislative counsel doesn't sit down and read every statute in the RSOs, for Pete's sake. There's a whole pile of legislative counsel here, but they're far too busy to do that. They don't sit down and read them all and say, "Oh, we'd better check court records and see whether this obscure piece of legislation has been used for a long time." Various ministries prepare a list of stuff that's to be reconsidered by legislative counsel, and that happens in the normal course of ministries.

So to suggest that somehow a group of people on what's called a Red Tape Commission -- I remember, oh boy, a fanfare -- sat down and read all of the statutes of the province of Ontario is hooey. I know better than that. I know all of the people on that commission. They did not read all of the statutes of Ontario --

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: -- and you know it too. You know darn well they didn't. They solicited proposals from ministries as to any number of statutes, one, which could be repealed. To repeal it simply means that you decrease the size of the volume of the RSOs, because if a statute isn't being used, nobody pays attention to it anyway. So you're not eliminating red tape by repealing a statute that's defunct. You're simply making the volume of the RSOs thinner and, I suppose, a little cheaper to publish, although you wouldn't know it in view of what the Ontario government charges. Do you know what it costs to buy a set of RSOs? Zonkers, it's expensive. You wouldn't know that repealing reduces it, because it certainly hasn't reduced the price. That's number one.

Number two, ministries, through the course of their daily operation, have encountered difficulties as a result of litigation, perhaps prosecutions under a particular statute that have failed because some JP or some judge noted a shortcoming in the drafting. Then the ministry goes nuts: "We better cure that or else we'll never be able to prosecute again."

They also get input from their people out in the field. I have no hesitation in saying that. Some of the amendments in various schedules that we're going to talk to, I suggest, are the result of that.

Now the interesting part is that where they've been lobbied, where there are clearly interests that have been able to lobby the government to effect certain changes contained here, it doesn't result in an elimination of red tape, it adds to the red tape.

Take a look at, for instance, the amendments here which deal with the conservation act. Remember the submissions made about that by two parties who appeared before this committee? They weren't talking about this bill eliminating red tape. They were critical of the government, saying, "You guys are making things even harder for us, particularly farmers, agricultural people here in this province." At least one of my colleagues here will recall as well that it was reinforced at a recent Niagara South Federation of Agriculture annual general meeting and dinner just the other night, when specifically the conservation act amendments were highlighted as a report to that group of farmers down in Niagara.

Red tape reduction? Baloney. If we eliminate statutes that are not in use, that doesn't constitute red tape reduction, because those statutes aren't being used anyway. It amends certain statutes to create more onerous provisions and bigger hurdles for some of the people being impacted. That's not the elimination of red tape, that's the creation of red tape.

The other thing that it does is it relieves respective ministries of the requirement that they go through the regulation-making power. Please, Mrs Ross, I mentioned this before, sitting on the regs committee -- is that the name of the regulations committee? The committee that reviews regulations.

The Chair: The Red Tape Commission?

Mr Kormos: No, the committee that reviews regulations.

Mr Michael Wood: The legislation and regulations committee.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. The legislation and regulations committee. People are put on that committee as punishment.

Laughter.

Mr Kormos: They are. That's how I ended up on the committee. Rae was ticked off thoroughly and he had the House leader put me on the legislation and regs committee. Yes, it was punishment. I didn't atone. I mean, it wasn't enough. I don't think there could have been enough. I didn't feel sorry for anything I'd done, just because I was made to sit on the regs committee. But at least on the regs committee all three caucuses are represented so that a regulation undergoes -- what would you call it? -- some oversight by elected officials, and it's public.

Most of the time the regs just go through because, first of all, they're very boring, they're very tedious, they're fragmented so you really can't put them in context, but from time to time -- I don't know if any of you folks have sat on the legislation and regulations committee --

Mrs Ross: We haven't been punished yet.

1610

Mr Kormos: Somebody in your caucus is, because they've got to have Tories there. Right?

Mrs Ross: It's true.

Mr Kormos: But from time to time, members of that committee will spot a regulation that has something that, for instance, runs contrary to public policy as they think it should be, and it will be halted, it will be interrupted there. Although it's a tedious process -- if you think it's tedious sitting on the committee, think about the poor people who have to write these darned things. They've got to sit down and write these regs, never mind just read them and pass them in committee. There is some, dare I say it, political oversight in the course of the legislation and reg committee.

This bill eliminates much of -- I suppose it's red tape again; it's democracy. It's just like schedule C. Democracy is oh so bothersome to have, it seems, because if you don't have these things going through a reg committee, what it does is -- you know what I'm talking about, Mrs Ross -- it gives fiat power to the minister to simply do it -- bingo, bang, done -- and it doesn't have to be done by regulation. We've seen it in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and it was the subject matter of a lot of debate and a lot of criticism when we were talking about the new workfare bill that came into law -- what? -- in the spring of this year.

What happens is, again, no gazetting. Right? The rules could be changing perpetually. Now, far be it from me to express any mistrust in this government. I'm loathe to do that here, because I've done it often enough and vociferously enough outside of this committee.

But, parliamentary assistant, it's very dangerous stuff, once again. You may call it eliminating red tape; I call it eliminating democracy. I'm not trying to engage in hyperbole when I say that, because at the end of the day the government can pass any reg it wants anyway, especially a majority government. The next government may not have that luxury of being a majority government, if indeed it's a luxury, but a majority government -- boom -- can pass it, and with regulations, since they only go through committee, where the government has a majority, it's not a matter even, let's say in a minority government, of it being the subject matter of debate and risking defeat in the House, in the chamber. If the committee passes it, it then goes to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which means cabinet.

None of you folks have sat in cabinet. I've been in cabinet rooms -- not for a long time, but long enough to understand how that works as well. You know as well as I do that the politics of the cabinet room are such that you don't become obstructionist in cabinet; if you do, you find yourself out of cabinet and sitting on the regulation committee. When I speak to schedule J, the repeal of the P&P act, we're going to talk about this more.

Listen, this bill, where it purports to eliminate red tape, really all it does is isolate power increasingly in the minister, which means in the Premier's office. You've seen what happens when ministers have said things out of turn. Far be it from me, but the Treasurer last week made a commitment about capping commercial taxes to the tune of 10% in the first year and 5% in each subsequent year, and I suspect that some bureaucrats said: "What the hell is he saying? We haven't even come close to considering the kind of legislation that would effect that result." All of a sudden you've got some scurrying going on in one ministry, saying, "Holy zonkers, the minister made a very political" -- it's not inappropriate politically -- "response to some pressure in scrumming," and all Hades has broken loose.

So, Ms Parliamentary Assistant, this is frightening, and it has nothing to do with the elimination of red tape. It is the increasing trend to abandon regulation-making power, which is subject to the leg and regs committee and subject to gazetting. It has been done before, but it really is prominent in this bill. It's simply making it an administrative act by a minister, which means effectively by the Premier's office at the end of the day.

I refuse to support a section that calls this the Red Tape Reduction Act. I'm going to vote against it, and I'm going to be asking for a recorded vote, which means that it will be deferred.

The Chair: Further discussion? You've already called for a recorded vote, which will be deferred.

Mr Kormos: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Shall schedule A carry? Discussion?

Mr Kormos: Let's be cautious here. The repeal of the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act, I read the act. I went and looked at the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act because, I confess, I hadn't read it before. Have you folks read the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act? The act itself is not an offensive piece of legislation. As I recall it -- you can't speak out from the audience, but if I'm wrong in my recollection, blink twice -- it had to do with charging tariffs in the course of the sale of sheep to fund the sheep and wool marketing body or board, what have you. In itself, it wasn't an offensive proposition, but obviously it hadn't been in use, and there simply isn't that kind of board that utilizes that kind of money or at least raises it that way. Good. Do I object to repealing the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act? No, and again I hope I'm not wrong, because I was reminded of this when I was down at the Niagara South Federation of Agriculture AGM, when once again they had concerns about two particular issues in this legislation; one of them was the amendments to the Drainage Act, and you can correct me if I'm wrong about that. I recall their submission to the committee, and also I was reminded of it, most fortunately.

It's because of those provisions dealing with the amendments to the Drainage Act and the failure of the government, Ms Parliamentary Assistant, to respond -- I mean, the government simply hasn't responded by way of amendment. I can't find any to schedule A that would address those concerns, particularly of farmers. On this one, I'm with the farmers. I'm going to be voting against schedule A, and I will be asking for a recorded vote in that regard too.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, and as a recorded vote has been requested, it shall be deferred.

Discussion on schedule B?

Mr Kormos: I've got to tell you, I have little quarrel with schedule B. I may well be subject to criticism down the road for not having been more astute in finding something hidden away here, but the matter dealing with the Trustee Act obviously was applauded by people involved in it. I've got to tell you, I'm a little bit frightened by -- what would you call it? -- liberalizing or expanding the powers of investment for trustees. If it means mutual funds, however balanced, there would be a whole lot of beneficiaries of trusts who would be shy a few bucks over the course of the last month and a half, but clearly the interested parties support it. I will be supporting schedule B and not seeking a recorded vote. I'm prepared to have it put to vote now.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question. Shall schedule B carry? Carried.

Schedule C. We'll ask Mr Kormos if he would care to bring forward his second motion.

Mr Kormos: This is obviously with respect to schedule C. I move that clause 2(1)(c) of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, as set out in schedule C of the bill, be amended by inserting "minor" before "changes" in the first line.

The Chair: Discussion?

1620

Mr Kormos: Having been unsuccessful at persuading the government caucus to recognize the danger of schedule C, it now falls on us to try to mitigate, I suppose, the risk this poses.

This inserts the word "minor" before "changes." If you take a look at 2(1)(c), that's the clause or paragraph I referred to earlier when I talked about subsection 1(2) of the bill, effectively, I suppose, the preamble to the bill, though it's not technically a preamble. Instead of making changes, which is a broad concept, this amends it to say, "make minor changes that are necessary to clarify."

That, in my view, might provide some modest protection against the abuses or -- and "abuse" is a pretty loaded word in terms of having a lot of implications, and maybe I shouldn't say it -- yes, abuses, but probably, in greater likelihood, inappropriate changes, where one or two or three participants in legislative counsel may think they're giving effect to the intention of the Legislature but they may be way off base in terms of a broader-based view. This amends it to say "minor changes" and effectively qualifies the impact of the legislation.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Ross: I just wanted to comment on that and say that the word "minor" can be open to interpretation, depending on how people interpret that. I just want to give an example. In 1985, there were 49 separate county and district courts in the province. They were amalgamated by legislation into a single court called the district court of Ontario. Then in 1989, with further legislation, the district court of Ontario was combined with the High Court of Justice to create the Ontario Court. As a result of that, of course, the many references that referred to the district court had to be changed. So if you look at that, those were important changes, but are they considered minor or important changes that had to be made? Again, they would be automatically made by legislative counsel in their role to look at revising, amalgamating and consolidating statutes.

Mr Kormos: That's exactly the point.

Mrs Ross: It's an automatic thing.

Mr Kormos: What you're talking about is a scenario where legislation effectively made the reference in prior bills, any number of them, obsolete. I was here. I recall that. It made it necessary to either move bills to amend each of those other statutes to comply with the overriding legislation -- right? The bill in the late 1980s overrode 1985 legislation, because the whole structure of the court and the names changed. The government of the day could have presented however many, 10 or 15 bills, to amend each and every act where they made the earlier reference or, since they passed the one bill, then it becomes relevant and applicable. There were no longer courts as described in the earlier legislation.

That doesn't have anything to do with the intention of the Legislature. That's a change that reflects something that in fact was passed by the Legislature. If anything, that's surely a minor change, because it doesn't require legislative counsel to think about the intention of the Legislature; it constitutes a minor change, the effect of which had little to do with the function of, let's say, any of those courts.

Let me put to you that, had that change not taken place, that wouldn't have nullified the power of any of those courts just because the earlier legislation hadn't been amended. Those judges and those courts would have had the same jurisdiction and the same powers. Nobody is going to argue, "You guys didn't amend your legislation to comply with, effectively, this new Ontario Court (General Division) nomenclature when they changed over from county courts, then to district courts and then to Ontario Court (General Division) so, therefore, take off your sash" -- what colour of sashes do they wear? A purple sash or whatever; I don't know what county court judges wear -- "and don't hear my case."

In other words, if the legislative counsel hadn't changed that, it wouldn't have changed anything. Do you see what I'm saying, Mrs Ross? It wouldn't have nullified anything. They didn't change the law. They didn't seek out the intention of the Legislature. All they did was clean it up. That's a minor change. I'm worried about major changes, when you say "change" and when you have that subjective test of the intention of the Legislature. But what's scarier is when you can never contest it. Do you understand why that's significant?

Look at subsection 3(3). Nobody has any power to review what legislative counsel does. Oh, you're right, it goes through cabinet. Again, they don't sit around engaging in polemics about the wording of something presented to them by legislative counsel. They simply -- is that a quorum call? I'll be darned -- don't do that in cabinet. You get these things and, boom, they're processed and they get to far headier things, like debating about whether there is going to be such a thing as legislation to cap commercial tax increases at 10% without taking from residential property taxpayers. They talk about the political fallout from that and how people in various constituencies are going to have a huge price to pay. That's what they talk about in cabinet. You know that.

Mrs Ross: Have you ever sat at the cabinet table?

Mr Kormos: There are enough leaks. You know that. Don't play coy with me. You get leaks out of cabinet. But that's exactly the point. Why can't you live with "minor changes"? What you described is precisely that, a minor change.

Mrs Ross: I just want to go back to the point that this gives legislative counsel the same powers they've always had. They have never had the ability to change the law. It doesn't give them the ability to change the law; it gives them the ability to look at what's there in the statutes and regulations and make sure that they change the language and punctuation to achieve uniformity, to consolidate bills where it makes sense. Again, I go back to where I said the Municipal Act has 500 provisions. It allows them to do it on a regular, ongoing basis instead of waiting 10 years to do it.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Seeing that a recorded vote has been requested, it shall be deferred.

Next amendment.

Mr Kormos: This is an amendment to schedule C to the bill.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'd like to move a recess, Chair.

Mr Kormos: Chair, please, I have the floor.

The Chair: Mr Kormos has the floor.

Mr Kormos: Give no quarter, take no quarter. It's tough out there. It's called payback, friends.

Schedule C to the bill: subsection 2(2.1) of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998. There's a typo, because it clearly refers to section 2 earlier in the headline.

I move that section 2 of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, as set out in schedule C to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Effect of revision

"(2.1) The chief legislative counsel is not authorized to change the substance of an act or regulation when revising it."

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Had but one more member rushed to quorum call, I would have called the question on that, as you can well imagine.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): You wouldn't do that.

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots I would. But I commend them for showing the discipline to make sure that they maintained a majority here. Let's make a note of who was here to hold the fort. Mrs Ross stayed here to hold the fort; Mr Rollins stayed here to hold the fort; Mr Boushy stayed here to hold the fort, to prevent an ambush by rebellious opposition members. I think that should be noted. I think you people should be rewarded appropriately for not having succumbed to the siren call of the bells but rather staying here to protect the government from the prospect of a successful amendment by the opposition. We'll have no more of those Cafon Courts, will we? But you never can tell.

1630

This is merely further qualifying or controlling the power of legislative counsel. It augments subsection 3(3) when it talks about changes that are necessary to clarify. If Ms Ross, the parliamentary assistant, says what she means and means what she says, she will speak out strongly in favour of this amendment, because she insists that the bill, in her mind, isn't intended to permit any substantial change to legislation, although it doesn't say that yet in the bill, in schedule C. This precludes or forbids legislative counsel from changing the substance of an act or regulation. I think that would be a healthy safeguard built in there and I think Ms Ross would be an enthusiastic supporter of it.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question on Mr Kormos's motion.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: As a recorded vote has been requested, it shall be deferred.

The next motion, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I move that section 3 of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, as set out in schedule C to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Enactment of revised statutes

"3. A revised statute does not come into force until a statute confirming it is enacted by the Legislature."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: Very briefly, Ms Ross, as parliamentary assistant, is whipping her members on the government side of this committee who outnumber the opposition by, heck, more than two to one. There's no question about it. Ms Ross talks about how schedule C of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act merely does what is permitted every 10 years. It's only permitted every 10 years because of a bill that comes before the House. As I say, what that does is give an opportunity for legislators to review what may well have happened during the course of the last revision, (1) to review it, (2) to raise concerns, and (3) to point out things that might well be considered by legislative counsel. One thing legislative counsel does is monitor -- not all of it -- what goes on in the House. Surely legislative counsel would be monitoring the debate that goes on in the ninth year of every decade about the RSOs.

Mr Rollins: Why not do it every year?

Mr Kormos: Mr Rollins says, "Do it every year." Then you should join with me in defeating schedule C, because it means it never comes to the House. Do you understand what I'm saying, Mr Rollins? Schedule C means (1) the House never gets a chance to review what legislative counsel has done over the course of the previous decade -- they have no opportunity to review it because there's no legislation before the House -- and (2) there's no focused debate on perhaps the need for legislative counsel to consider things. Once schedule C passes as a bill, the Legislature will never again be involved in legislative counsel's changes to legislation -- never again.

Ms Ross says, "Well, it happens every 10 years." Of course it does. I think that's a good thing. I think it's important that every 10 years -- that means it doesn't happen frequently. Mr Rollins wants it to happen every year. God bless him. I would endorse that proposition. But what this does is give effect to what Ms Ross can merely assure us of. I appreciate she's not insincere in her assurance that the effect of this bill will not be such that legislative counsel can change the substance, but she can't assure us that the Legislature will have any opportunity to review.

What this amendment does is permit legislative counsel to do what the act says they can do, but it also requires that that revision be the subject matter of approval by the Legislature. That's called a safeguard. In a democracy, surely you need those kinds of safeguards, don't you, Ms Ross? I'm sure you believe in democracy. You wouldn't have run in this parliamentary system if you didn't have some faith and some confidence in democracy. This democratizes schedule C.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask the question. All those in favour of Mr Kormos's amendment?

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. It shall be deferred.

We'll move to the next NDP motion, listed as number 5.

Mr Kormos: I move that section 4 of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, as set out in schedule C to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Enactment of revised regulations

"4. A revised regulation does not come into force until it is made in accordance with the act that authorized the regulation which is being revised."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: Similarly, this permits legislative counsel to make the revisions that are contemplated but then requires that those revisions be turned into regulations pursuant to the act, which would mean reference to the regulations and private bills committee and consideration by them. This again is a safeguard which is the most modest of safeguards. It permits legislative counsel to do their job but it also provides for there to be some oversight, if you will, by elected representatives.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please, if indeed you want to call the question.

The Chair: Seeing that there is no further discussion and a recorded vote has been requested, it shall be deferred.

We'll move to number 6.

Mr Kormos: Number 6 is entirely out of order. As a motion, number 6 reads: "The New Democratic Party recommends voting against section 5 of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, as set out in schedule C to the bill." That's an entirely out-of-order motion but I was happy to see it included as part of a package. I would have been disappointed were it not, because we have no intention of voting for section 5. We intend to vote against it, and I would encourage fair-minded and free-thinking members of the government caucus to do the same.

The Chair: Shall schedule D carry? Discussion?

Mr Kormos: I've got to tell you, I find nothing offensive about schedule D. It effectively repeals legislation sections which are certainly of no current usage. That's exactly what I was talking about when I talked to you earlier. They could have stayed there and no harm would have been done, but if this government wants to repeal them, good. God bless them.

The Chair: Further discussion? I shall put the question. All those in favour of schedule D? Carried.

Shall schedule E carry? Discussion?

Mr Kormos: We've got to have discussion. This is quite right. Once again, you heard what I had to say at the onset. Let's take a little look, a speedy one, at what this schedule does. Again, it's another omnibus bill. But look at the consistencies: "The minister may by order require the payment of fees for licences or permits, or a fee or a charge for the holding of an amateur boxing or wrestling contest...and may approve the amount of those fees."

1640

What's interesting is I only just read in the newspapers at the end of last week and during the weekend about the brilliant litigation on the issue of probate fees, which was very interesting. The lawyer, whose name I should remember, and I apologize to that lawyer --

Mr Michael Wood: Fallis.

Mr Kormos: Peter Fallis, yes. Quite right, Peter Fallis. A brilliant argument, a very creative one. He suggests, and others have joined with him, that this decision -- you folks are all aware of it. What's interesting is that the government said that they're just going to keep doing it. The government said, "We're going to keep doing what we've been doing anyway," because of a time frame that's been permitted.

Boy, you talk about scofflaws. People have been critical of me. Please, give me a break. This government has no regard for orders of the court. There's the pay equity issue. It insists on still calling the teachers' work action under Bill 160 illegal, when in fact the court ruled that there was nothing illegal about it. Had it been illegal, prima facie, there would have been an injunction granted. Maybe I'm stretching it a little bit far there.

I find it very interesting why the members of the government on this committee would vote for schedule E when it in effect gives this non-legislative power of taxation. You talk about user fees.

Let's put it in the context of amateur boxing. Down where I come from, we've produced some top-notch boxers, some young people. Tommy Glesby is one of them, who participated in the Olympics twice now and is in professional boxing and has been down in Vegas and is in Windsor right now training, preparing to get back into the ring. I've known Tommy since he was a kid. Tommy started as a young boxer with Degazio's boxing club.

There was Degazio's club, and that's not operating any more, but there's also Ray Napper's club, which is still over on Park Street, in the hall there. Ray died a couple of years ago but his family is still maintaining the club.

We're talking about young kids. I've got to confess I'm not familiar with amateur wrestling exhibits taking place as frequently or as commonly as boxing does at the high school level and at college and university. I'm not aware, at least not in the Niagara. We don't have any sort of wrestling clubs the way we have Napper's Boxing Club.

You've got kids in those clubs. I just spoke with one of them the other day, Adam Kernaghan, a young fellow who lives over on West Main Street in Welland, just around the corner from me on Bald Street -- lives with a single mom -- for whom getting involved with Napper's -- I was very impressed. I saw him over at Sang Ahn's corner store. It used to be a Becker's but Sang Ahn bought it a year and a half ago; a Korean family, people from Korea. I saw Adam over there. From time to time, I've had him do some yard work and work like that and he asked me if there was going to be any work in November and I said, "Yeah, I think we've got constituency week." That was before I got the fax saying that the justice committee is sitting during constituency week. So much for that. Adam's going to be far more disappointed than I am. But Adam said, "I'm eager to work for you again."

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It's the week after constituency week.

Mr Kormos: What week is constituency week?

Mr Chudleigh: The week of the 9th.

Mrs Ross: It's the 9th.

Mr Kormos: Oh, really? Remembrance Day falls in the middle of constituency week. Good. OK, fine.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Look, you guys may be far more interested in your time off. For me, it's work, work, work. You don't think about these things. I thought: "Oh yeah, great. My House leader doesn't mind committing me to committee work during constituency week. No, other members of caucus don't have it, just me in justice." OK, so that's good. This is the week after constituency week.

Mr Rollins: Are you looking for an excuse?

Mr Kormos: No.

Adam said, "Look, Mr Kormos, in November I want to do some work for you," because he makes a few bucks. As I say, it's a single-parent family and they struggle; good people, good folks. His mother is just a marvellous woman.

I hope Mr Crozier gets back soon. Adam said, "Don't do it during the first week in November, because we've got the Golden Gloves," the amateur boxing.

So here's a kid -- I don't want to centre out Adam; Adam knows I wouldn't do that -- a good kid. I know his older brothers, I've known the family, all of them, since they were little. But for Adam, I couldn't have been happier to hear that he's over at Napper's Boxing Club engaging in that.

Is he going to become a brute and go around thumping people out? On the contrary. The young people I know who have been involved in boxing clubs and doing that sort of thing in fact acquire a discipline which makes them far less likely to get involved in impromptu fights out there on the street. They acquire discipline, they acquire some self-esteem and some real pride.

So look what you've got. You've got the prospect here -- Mr Crozier, God bless, thank you very much -- you've got the power isolated in the minister to set fees, of all things, for amateur boxing events. Please. Are there fees? Of course there are. I know you've got commissioners who have to come down and supervise the fights, you've got to make sure that these kids -- I say "kids"; they're young adults as well -- make sure there are doctors present, make sure they don't box more frequently than what the regulations provide, make sure kids who have been injured aren't in a fight again the next week etc. I understand there are some costs involved. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You're giving the minister fiat power to set fees.

Let's keep on moving down because this is repeated, this is a theme that goes on and on and on through virtually all of the bill wherein there's a fee-setting procedure. Take a look: "The minister may make regulations prescribing forms.... The minister may by order require the payment of fees and may approve the amount of those fees...." I'm looking at section 271.1.

I would like to point out -- and I haven't read the decision, I've only read the newspaper reports, the case by Mr Fallis. These may all be, and I hope they are, challenged. I hope they are challenged, because this, among other things, puts the big L word -- you know the L word, three-letter word? Rhymes with "by" and "high" and "sigh" and "die" and "my." You know the word. It rhymes with nigh also. It's the word I can't say but it's the L word, three letters, rhymes with "sigh" and "nigh" and "by" and "high." This whole business about "We don't tax, no new user fees," puts it to the big L word, because what this schedule is about in the largest part -- and there's other stuff in here too, please, the Business Corporations Act. Please, give me a break. I'm not raising an issue about that.

I seized on the business of amateur boxing because I had seen young Adam just before the weekend and was so pleased. Again, the prospect of enhanced fees for what I consider a very healthy activity for young people in our communities, I find that repugnant. It seems to me a far better investment and we should be supporting these clubs. They don't get any government money, you know that, don't you? When Ray Napper ran the club he was out of pocket. He worked at GM. It cost him a fortune. I know that for a fact. It cost him a fortune to run Napper's boxing; out of pocket, boom, boom, boom constantly.

1650

Red tape? I guess when you eliminate any democratic consideration of new fees, it eliminates the red tape, the need to go through the rigmarole of, let's say, regulations. But I'm not going to support a section that creates yet more power for a minister -- not Lieutenant Governor in Council, not through the process of regulation, but a minister to set fees without justification, without public debate.

You know the argument with the issue of probate fees, that they raise far more money than it actually costs, that it's a profit-making exercise. It was pointed out in some of the press coverage that that was applicable to a few other areas. As a matter of fact we saw it during estimates a couple of years ago. Remember when all the new user fees came in? We in the opposition had a heyday saying to ministers here, "It only costs you X dollars to run registry offices, but your fees from registry" -- this is, what do you call it, state capitalism. You guys are making profits.

Mr Crozier: Profit centres.

Mr Kormos: That's right, and you're calling them user fees. They're not user fees, guys. It's called taxes on the most unwitting. I'm voting against this schedule for that reason, recognizing that there's stuff in here that could be pointed out, if the government wants to take the time, that in itself is relatively inoffensive: "Change of Name Act," "registrar general," "made by order," "set and collect fees" -- that's not even the minister any more, is it?

Mrs Ross: Yes, the minister.

Mr Kormos: Registrar general? Does the minister know?

Mrs Ross: Yes.

Mr Kormos: OK.

Mrs Ross: Always has been.

Mr Kormos: No.

Mrs Ross: Yes.

Mr Kormos: I'm not going to get into an argument with you. I know I tried to exercise my powers with the registrar general for a brief period and got into big - it's a long story, I'll tell you about it. As a matter of fact it had to do with Bambi Bembenek. It's a good story. It'll be in the book.

Mrs Ross: It will be in the book?

Mr Kormos: It'll be in the book. It's a fascinating story, though, about that ministry and Bambi's application for a marriage licence, as a matter of fact. But there was horrible registrar general status and supervisor status. But I take your word for it -

It's even worse then. It isn't an independent civil servant; it's the minister himself or herself. Yikes, what did you throw the fly into the ointment for? I was prepared to give a little credit and say, if it's the registrar general, who's just a civil servant, he or she might actually be fair and calculate real user fees instead of making profits. There's another illustration.

Sorry, Ms Ross, I'm not going to support this schedule for those very reasons, understanding that there's some stuff in here that -- but, again, the bulk of it I find very offensive.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mrs Ross: I just want to make a comment about the fees. The fees that the minister would set have already been approved by the estimates process or through management board. So there is political accountability there and, of course, through cabinet as well. That is the only point I really want to make; the fees have been approved by another body first.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion -

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please, sir.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested, and as such shall be deferred.

Schedule F: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: This one is interesting. Let me tell you why. There's a repeal of legislation and so on, but "an alternative methodology should be used for approving or fixing just and reasonable rates and other charges."

Look at the qualification we've got here, "just and reasonable rates." I hope you guys aren't fearful, now that I've raised this, that somehow this sneaked through, that some bureaucrat did a number on you. Because in view of all the other sections which permit fee charging without any justification, here we have the requirement of "just and reasonable rates." I'm prepared to have the question put now.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, shall schedule F carry? Carried.

Schedule G: Government motion as listed on committee paper 7.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsections 15(1) and (2) of schedule G to the bill be struck out.

Mr Hudak: Just to reflect on that for a moment, this comes from the College of Nurses as well as a number of other colleges which felt that the status quo before this change to Bill 25 was probably a better way of going about it. So reflecting what we heard before the committee, we're moving this amendment.

Mr Kormos: I was here when that submission was made. People might recall that I questioned them in the limited time available. If I recall correctly, they sought the deletion of these sections. I'm satisfied that no person will be unduly prejudiced by extending the time limitation. There are so many good reasons why a person, any one of us, could find themselves outside a limitation period. The second qualification gives reasonable grounds for delays in making submissions. I appreciate the government's responding to the submission by the college. But it strikes me that these are exceptional circumstances: There has to be no prejudice by permitting the delay. You're talking about the prospect of a delay of one day, Mr Hudak. One day beyond the time frame and you're out of the ballpark, right? You're talking about having to prove there's no prejudice to either party by virtue of the delay and, more importantly, reasonable grounds for your delay. Again, the imagination could run wild. I appreciate that the college sought this. Their argument was so that things wouldn't get protracted, so you could start getting down to the nitty-gritty and making rulings.

This came from the College of Nurses. I didn't hear, for instance, from ONA on the issue and, with respect, and I appreciate that this amendment reflects the submission made by the college. I really am very uncomfortable supporting it. In the limited time available, I asked the college why they felt that way. They responded, and I have no quarrel with their response.

Think about it: One day's delay could put you out of the ballpark, even if it doesn't cause prejudice. If it causes prejudice, I understand, and surely the amount of prejudice would be determined by the length of the delay. If you're talking about six months later, then you'd be hard pressed to make your case for the extension of a limitation period, right? At six months, you're talking substantial, but the prospect of missing out on one day --

I can't think of any other area of litigation or administrative appeal, those sorts of things, where there isn't a provision giving the board or the commission or a judge power to extend time limitations -- OK, I guess under the Limitations Act per se, but there's even been some recent litigation on the Limitations Act. I think I recall some litigation where limitations acts are not always as hard and fast as they used to be, where courts have taken into consideration some of the really extenuating circumstances.

Clearly there's one area where that's come up specifically, where people are child victims and how unfair the Limitations Act is to a child victim. Because how can a child, especially if the child is victimized by a parent or a person who's in the role of a parent, who normally would be the person used to engage in the litigation -- again, there's a legal name for that where the adult is called upon to sue or litigate in the child's name. Is that guardian ad litem?

Mr Bob Wood: Used to be.

1700

Mr Kormos: OK, guardian ad litem, where the child has to rely upon their own parent, who may be the perpetrator of the crime, the perpetrator of an assault. So the courts have commented on how unfair it is to expect a child to meet a limitation period.

Mr Hudak, I presume this amendment in response to the college comes from your minister's ministry. With respect, I disagree with the college on this and do not find their argument persuasive. I congratulate whoever drafted the original section. You have to show no prejudice and you have to give a reasonable excuse for your delay. It's a tough one to overcome. I'm not sure whether you really think it's fair in the original form or fairer in the new form.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. It shall be deferred.

I ask that the government member bring forward committee motion 8.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 83(5) of schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as set out in section 19 of schedule G to the bill, be amended by inserting "Without limiting the generality of section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991," at the beginning.

Mr Hudak: The goal of section 19 of schedule G was to bring in a confidentiality requirement for quality assurance programs in order to ensure that there are good health care outcomes when professions review their work through the colleges and through their own mechanisms there.

We had some concerns raised by the College of Physicians and Surgeons as well as the Federation of Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario that the information in a QA program confidential in this way may weaken the general confidentiality provisions of section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act. We didn't intend that through this act, and this amendment that was brought forward by the CPSO at committee makes our intention most clear. We support the suggestion by the CPSO and I recommend voting for this amendment.

Mr Kormos: Please indulge me. I don't have the Regulated Health Professions Act in its original form. "Without limiting the generality of section 36" -- can you tell us the impact of 36? I understand subsection 83(5) of the proposed bill. I don't know what "Without limiting the generality of section 36" means.

Mr Hudak: Chair, there's a member of the legal branch of Health who did a good job explaining to me when I was researching this exactly what "the generality of section 36" was about. I could call her forward or we could refer to this later on, whatever procedure this committee is following.

Mr Kormos: I think it's important for the committee to -- again, I'm acknowledging I don't know what "Without limiting the generality of section 36" means. It would be helpful if we could be told that, if possible.

Mr Hudak: I call, if I could, a member from the legal branch for the benefit of the committee.

The Chair: Could you state your name for Hansard, please.

Ms Rebecca Gotlieb: Rebecca Gotlieb.

Section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act is the general confidentiality provisions that apply and govern the colleges. There is one particular subsection that makes confidential records that are acquired for the purposes of proceedings under the Regulated Health Professions Act at subsection 36(3). There are other sections under that act that place explicit obligations on the college to make confidential certain records with regard to the administration of the act. There was some concern expressed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons that if you're making specific reference to the quality assurance records, it may weaken the general phrasing of section 36, in particular subsection 36(3), which makes reference to documents collected for the purposes of certain proceedings under the act. So they wanted to make it clear that it did not weaken the general language of section 36.

Mr Kormos: If I understand that then, the relevance of this amendment is more so to the latter part of the amendment to subsection (5). We're talking about civil proceedings, right?

Ms Gotlieb: That's correct.

Mr Kormos: If somebody sues a hospital or a nursing person for negligence, the contents of the QAP -- is that the acronym for that?

Ms Gotlieb: It's the quality assurance program, QAP.

Mr Kormos: Yes, QAP, yet another acronym. That cannot be subpoenaed, right? Fair enough. That part I understand, but what you're saying to me then would appear to be more relevant because you're saying, "Without limiting the generality of section 36," which is yet another confidentiality, non-subpoena type of section, if I'm understanding it. That would apply more so to the latter part of subsection (5), correct? There seems to be an absolute prohibition of using QAP material in the course of civil proceedings. Fair enough. So then 36 would be irrelevant to this absolute bar to using QAP information in civil proceedings, as I read it. So the only reason you would not want to limit the generality of section 36, which you say is a broader section protecting information acquired, not necessarily QAP information -- is that why we're including it? Because you don't want to include just QAP, you want the broader range of information that might be acquired by the college.

Ms Gotlieb: Currently section 36 does protect certain records, but they don't make it express. Subsection 36(3) specifically says that no record of a proceeding under this act, the Health Professions Act and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act or any statement or thing prepared for etc "is admissible in a civil proceeding except for proceedings under the RHPA." There was something about malpractice actions, that sort of thing. It wasn't clear whether quality assurance programs were caught by that language, so we made a clarifying amendment in the confidentiality part dealing with quality assurance way back in the procedural code, subsection 83(5).

Mr Kormos: I want to make this very clear. You're not suggesting that litigation, for instance, for negligence would be a proceeding under the RHPA?

Ms Gotlieb: No, it's not.

Mr Kormos: That's right. That's exactly what it isn't.

Ms Gotlieb: That's right.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Again, very briefly, I have no quarrel with the amendment, except do you know how frustrating it is for a litigant -- with no disrespect to health care professionals -- do you know how hard it is to seek a remedy if you have been done wrongly within our health care system? You have got the biggest, most formidable, most significant legal battle of your life. I'll bet you there isn't a single MPP whose constituency office hasn't been involved, however peripherally, with somebody who has sought a remedy against it.

It's unfair to try to identify malpractice as being rampant. It isn't. It's the rare exception. But by God, it's an uphill battle and -- I'm just tossing this figure out -- 99% of however few victims of negligence or malpractice there are never even initiate a process because the hurdles are formidable.

1710

I understand why you want to ensure the integrity of the QAP by telling people that the contents are secret, cannot be subpoenaed as evidence, but what do you say to a person who may have been seriously and permanently injured as the result of the negligence of a practitioner -- this is purely hypothetical -- who may have been told, "You ought to see what's in that person's assessments"? I assume there might be assessments under the QAP program. "Boy, you ought to see it. It's as long as your arm, a list of things pointed out during the course of QAP."

Again, I don't know how the QAP process takes place. Can you imagine how frustrated you'd be as a litigant, saying, my God, there's good evidence sitting there that supports your case, that makes it clear you're not just another nut or wacko trying to go after deep pockets -- that's how you're going to get labelled, you know that -- and then you can't access it?

I'm not going to oppose the amendment, of course, because that has nothing to do with this argument. The argument is with subsection (5) and I'll make the argument on behalf of the proponents of subsection (5) that the integrity of any QAP depends upon what effectively here is confidentiality, but I do want to express my hesitation, my nervousness, my apprehension about barring bona fide litigants from access to that information.

I would far sooner see a situation that's parallel to what I'm told is the situation in some criminal proceedings, wherein a judge decides whether you should be able to access certain bits of evidence that would otherwise be considered confidential. In other words, if you were a litigant, you wouldn't prima facie have access to QAP information, but you could apply to have a judge determine whether there was sufficient information in there -- they call it probative and relevant; I think that's the phrase they use in court -- where at least you could make the application.

I understand the intent of subsection (5) here, the amendment. I don't agree with it in principle, because I agree that you've got to maintain the integrity and you've got to encourage candour and forthrightness. But what you don't have here is, however absurd this sounds -- and it's purely hypothetical, because one would like to think that you would never have a QAP file, or whatever it's going to be called, that shows a list as long as your arm of misdeeds by a particular practitioner, but one would hate to think that such a thing could exist and that a bona fide litigant seriously seeking compensation for injuries that might have been caused to him or her couldn't access it, ever, no matter how relevant and probative it is.

I should say I'm not going to oppose the amendment. I have indicated I don't support that subsection. I could vote against it but I'm going to be overruled, outnumbered two to one here by the Conservatives. I would ask them to think about it and I would appreciate their comments.

Think about a member of your family. Think about yourself. Think about one of your kids. If this is a little bit melodramatic, so be it, but the fact is that people who do seek remedies for injuries, however few they are, are somebody's family member, somebody's kid, somebody's parent. You receive information. You know how it happens. Sometimes it's brown envelopes or you get a call from a colleague saying, "Boy, if only you could use what's in that QAP" -- whatever it's called, file or record -- "it would prove your case."

I understand the principle here and the motive for the legislation, but it's the injustice to that person, to any one of us, to any one of our kids, to any one of our parents, of not being able to at least go before a judge and say we'll live with the judge's decision whether that evidence should be admitted.

In other words, do you know what I'm saying, Mr Hudak? Listen, please. This is the language that I think courtrooms might use: whether the probative value outweighs the interest of maintaining confidentiality. Right? That is to say that somebody should be able to rule on whether the strength of what's in there -- and it could be to the contrary.

Think about it. It could be to the contrary, because it would seem to me that this isn't a privilege that's being held by, in this case, let's say, a nurse. This isn't a privilege such that she or he can waive it. If you have privilege, you can waive it. You can say, "I give permission for the contents of my file to be utilized." This would seem to bar it from ever being utilized as evidence, because here I am trying to draw a picture of a scenario where an aggrieved person wants to access a file that may prove their case because of a pattern of negligence or a pattern of -- I didn't even want to get into the sort of things that can happen. All of us have had people in our offices who have grievances. We've heard the stories. What about the practitioner who is accused of certain types of behaviour but who says, "But if you had a chance to see my QAP file, you would see that I have been supervised in this area 20 times over the course of the existence of the QAP program and come out with flying colours each time"? What about that, Ms Ross?

Mr Rollins: Wouldn't you still win?

Mr Kormos: Mr Rollins, what about the person who's being accused of wrongdoing, whose QAP file could clear them or at least provide strong evidence that they're highly unlikely to have done what's alleged they have done because they've been supervised over a course of time and always received A-pluses? It seems to me that person might have an interest in saying to a judge: "Judge, I want you to review the QAP file. If you find that its probative value does not outweigh the need to keep QAP private, then I'll live with that. However, if you find that the probative value, in other words, the strength of that, is such that the privacy has to be overridden" -- because they don't talk here about the capacity to waive.

If you're precluded from getting hold of my OHIP records, FOI wouldn't permit it, but I am entitled to waive that. I'm entitled to access to my OHIP records, so I can waive my privilege vis-à-vis the health insurance plan. I can do it. Here it looks like even the practitioner can't do it because it's barred from being evidence. Interesting proposition. I'm concerned about it. It is not admissible in evidence in a civil proceeding. Even if the person who's the subject of the QAP wants to use it, it's not admissible.

Is that not an interesting scenario, Chair? Think about it. Seriously, think about it, if you were in that position where you could not use your QAP information to defend yourself against a false allegation because it's not admissible as evidence. Interesting.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question on the motion as presented by the government.

All those in favour of the motion as presented? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

We now move to the next amendment.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 95(1)(d) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as set out in subsection 23(1) of schedule G to the bill, be amended by striking out "subsection 18(3)" at the end and substituting "subsections 18(3) and 22(8)."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Hudak: By way of explanation, this is just correcting a drafting error from the original version of Bill 25. The intention was to include subsection 22(8). It was left out in the drafting. We thank the College of Dietitians for pointing that out to us and we move to include it through amendment.

1720

Mr Kormos: It would seem that with the enthusiasm that the government members have for schedule C, they could have left that up to legislative counsel to rectify. There you go.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall put the question on the government motion as presented.

All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Discussion on schedule H?

Mr Kormos: I refer specifically to section 7: "The board shall be composed of at least 12 and no more than 20 members who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Health." Well, surprise, surprise. The interesting thing would be if the people who were being appointed were on the recommendation of some broader-based collection of constituents out there so that there could be some balance and variety of interests being reflected by the board. What "recommendation of the Minister of Health" is effectively saying is it's a ministerial appointment, as compared to a Premier's office appointment. There are two types, as you know, by protocol usually. This one is statutory. Sometimes the ministers -- except no minister is really allowed to do it without the permission of the Premier. All I'm saying is -- surprise, surprise -- "on the recommendation of the Minister of Health." If you're going to engage in that sort of protocol, why don't you have a broader-based or a more expansive source of referrals? What we're talking about are political appointments, pork-barrelling, people who are card-carrying, dues-paying faithful servants of the Conservative Party provincially and probably the Reform Party federally.

It was interesting, because we were here at the government agencies committee the other day; again, a Tory appointment, a Tory member, but he only belonged to the Tories provincially. He didn't belong to the Tory Party federally, so I didn't get a chance to ask him which leadership candidate he was going to support, not that it was any of my business. It's a secret ballot. But I figured, what the heck? Preston Manning isn't running for the leader of the Conservative Party, so he wouldn't have any interest in the process anyway.

It's interesting that Conservatives would belong provincially to one party but federally to another. Go figure. This is simply endorsing the process of a political appointment and I've always had concern about that. This doesn't do anything to quell my fears. I hope that's the right use of the word "quell." It institutionalizes pork-barrelling. Should I have expected more? Probably not.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, I shall put the question.

All those in favour of schedule H? All those opposed? Carried.

Schedule I: I ask the government members to come forward.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule I to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Powers of entry

"(19.1) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause (1)(d) or (e) may enter private property, other than a dwelling or building, without the consent of the owner or occupier and without a warrant, if,

"(a) the entry is for the purpose of considering a request related to the property for permission that is required by a regulation made under clause (1)(a), (b) or (c); or

"(b) the entry is for the purpose of enforcing a regulation made under clause (1)(a), (b) or (c) and the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention of the regulation is causing or is likely to cause significant environmental damage and that the entry is required to prevent or reduce the damage.

"Time

"(19.2) Subject to subsection (19.3), the power to enter property under subsection (19.1) may be exercised at any reasonable time.

"Notice

"(19.3) The power to enter property under subsection (19.1) shall not be exercised unless,

"(a) the authority or officer has given reasonable notice of the entry to the owner of the property and, if the occupier of the property is not the owner, to the occupier of the property; or

"(b) the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that significant environmental damage is likely to be caused during the time that would be required to give notice under clause (a).

"No use of force

"(19.4) Subsection (19.1) does not authorize the use of force.

"Offence

"(19.5) Any person who prevents or obstructs an authority or officer from entering property under subsection (19.1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000."

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: If I can put a question first. We've got (19.1), (19.2), (19.3), (19.4) and (19.5) in the amendment to section 12 of the bill, schedule I, which is section 28. I'm just wondering, are we creating more work for legislative counsel to make the numbers consistent? We're amending section 28 with sections (19.1), (19.2), (19.3), (19.4), and (19.5). Do you understand what I'm saying, Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Kormos: More work for legislative counsel. If the government were more careful when they did this, legislative counsel wouldn't have to be revising these bills all the time. If we pass this, if it's passed, legislative counsel is going to have to utilize its powers under schedule C right away to make the numbers conform. Ms Ross may want to change her motion right now, I don't know. The motion says she's amending section 28 with sections (19.1), (19.2), (19.3), (19.4) and (19.5).

Mr Chudleigh: That's the way we've always done it.

Mr Kormos: Are you sure? I don't think so. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Mrs Ross: I know you are.

Mr Chudleigh: We appreciate that.

Mr Kormos: It's about time.

Mrs Ross: Chair, could we get some clarification of what Mr Kormos has raised here with respect to the numbers?

The Chair: Are you asking legislative counsel to respond?

Mrs Ross: Yes.

1730

Mr Kormos: Chair, these are not section numbers; these are subsection numbers. OK? So it's subsection (19.1). My apologies for creating a tempest in a teapot here. These are effectively amendments to subsection 28(19). So you've got 28(19), which is already in the bill, which is the liability for certain costs.

Mr Crozier: I think they're just adding them.

Mr Kormos: Because we've got subsection (19), which is on page 166 of the bill and this is (19.1), (19.2), (19.3), before subsection (20).

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: I wondered if Ms Ross, having presented these, having moved them, was going to explain them.

Mr Chudleigh: Just briefly, this amendment clarifies the conservation authority officer's right to enter private land, other than a dwelling, for the purposes of inspecting or enforcing conservation authority regulations. It also makes provision for their access in an emergency in order to prevent environmental damage from occurring, and it clarifies that authority for them. No such clarification exists in the existing act.

Mr Kormos: This is a matter that was raised by the federation of agriculture, as well as a property rights organization based in Ottawa, if I remember correctly. I was very pleased that they had raised this. OFA, along with its regional groups, has been very concerned.

I have no quarrel with clause (b) of subsection (19.1), when you're talking about the need for emergency entry. I appreciate that the dwellings or buildings -- I assume that means structures as well. "Building" implies something other than structure. For instance, however bizarre this is -- as a matter of fact, I was up at Yungblut's farm this morning on the way up here because they had a big fire on the weekend up on Merrittville. It was tragic. I talked to Mr Yungblut and his son. They lost three cows; saved 37. The cows are all out in the pasture now. But all that's left of the barn -- it was an enormous barn, well over 100 years old, but added on to it was the silo.

The silo is not a building, probably, according to most interpretations, but it's certainly a structure. If you say that's a bizarre sort of illustration -- could one search a silo? I don't know.

Mr Chudleigh: You won't be entering a silo.

Mr Kormos: That's right, exactly, but it just comes to mind because I was down at the farm this morning on the way up here.

So I would have preferred one that said "structure" rather than "building." I have no quarrel with the provision that in emergency situations you allow a conservation officer to enter on to property. But what you've still done, Mr Chudleigh, is embrace the prospect of warrantless searches, entering on to property without a warrant. I appreciate that you've excluded dwelling and building. I would have rather seen "structure" there because "structure," to me, is more embracing. But what justification, when you don't have an emergency, is there for a warrantless search?

I appreciate that if you're talking about my little postage-stamp-size property where I live in Welland, I mean, heck, you don't have to enter on to the property to see it. You're on the sidewalk, boom, there's the property and that's all there is to it. But we've obviously got scenarios where you've got acreage upon acreage upon acreage where what you're doing with this legislation is seeing a conservation officer, without an emergency or reasonable -- and for a conservation officer, after the fact, to have to prove that there was an emergency when in fact there may not have been one, I appreciate that it's sufficient reasonable grounds. I appreciate that.

But why in the former part, clause (a), you would permit warrantless searches is beyond me. I really don't understand. It's not an onerous procedure. You're not talking about emergencies.

Mr Chudleigh: If there's not an emergency, he needs permission of the tenants or the owner.

Mr Kormos: Or occupier.

Mr Chudleigh: Pardon me? Or when the owner is not the tenant, he also needs permission from the tenant.

Mr Kormos: Then why does (19.3) talk merely about reasonable notice, not permission? Then it's further an offence to try to prevent an officer from entering. I understand why you'd want that in there. So, we're not talking about permission, we're talking about notice.

Mr Chudleigh: That's 19(3).

Mr Kormos: Quite right.

Mr Chudleigh: Now go back up to 19(1)(a).

Mr Kormos: Yes, "without the consent of the owner or occupier." Do you see what we've got here? They enter without the consent of the owner or occupier.

Mr Chudleigh: Only on those conditions

Mr Kormos: I agree with paragraph (b). I agree in the emergency. But why would paragraph (a) be there? For an investigative purpose? There may be good reason and I'm prepared to hear it. Here's a case where you don't have permission. Granted you've got to give notice, but that could be, I don't know, a phone call. Hopefully you'd like to have written notice just to prove you have it. In an emergency, I understand. But where you don't have an emergency -- and once again, I can't sit here now and give you a "for example." Who knows? But all the more reason to say to a conservation officer -- because you're talking here about somebody who has the status akin to a peace officer. Right? For instance, if a conservation officer gets assaulted, I'm not sure, but I suspect he or she may be a peace officer under the provisions of the act. You're authorizing warrantless searches, in benign situations. In an emergency situation, I agree, by all means.

Mr Chudleigh: Tom, would you like to come up and clarify this for Mr Kormos?

The Chair: If you could identify yourself for Hansard as well, please.

Mr Tom Coape-Arnold: Tom Coape-Arnold, Ministry of Natural Resources.

This motion is related to the next motion. The two motions between themselves make firstly a provision for a conservation officer to obtain the consent prior to entry, of the owner or the occupier, and if that is not acquired, that a warrant under the Provincial Offences Act be obtained. That's a standard clause that applies to all of the Conservation Authorities Act, with two exceptions. The next motion refers back to those exceptions and they are in the instances where the owner or occupier has an application before a conservation authority for a permit under the regulation and as part of that application for permit the applicant provides permission for entry for the purposes of inspection only relative to that permit, and that is (19.1)(a). That's very prescribed in terms of its powers. The other exception is (19.1)(b), where without a warrant the officer can enter in very specific circumstances of an environmental emergency. So the two amendments are connected.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate you referring to amendments 10a, 10b, 11 and more particularly 12, which is the 30.1. Okay. But my problem is with subsection (2) there, because an officer shall not enter land without the consent or the authority of a warrant but subsection (1) does not apply to entry under clause 21(1)(b) or subsection (28)(19.1). So I go back to (19.1), which is amendment 10a. This (19.1) is excluded from the requirement to obtain a warrant. Am I correct in that regard? Because it says, subsection (1) of 30.1 is the requirement for a warrant.

Mr Coape-Arnold: That's correct.

1740

Mr Kormos: Right. Then it goes on to exclude (19.1) from subsection (1) of 30.1, so we're back to where we started. Again, I may well be wrong and I appreciate your help on this. We go back to where we started, where you've still got in clause (b) you've got an entry, "in a case of urgency or emergency." I'm paraphrasing it. I'm using simple language. Right? But in paragraph (a), are we not talking about investigative searches there?

Mr Coape-Arnold: No. We're talking about searches that are related to an application for a permit under the act and under the regulations. The individual would go in, apply to undertake a certain activity and as part of that permit there may be an inspection required. That permit would include permission or entry.

Mr Kormos: But, you see, it's "without the consent." Fair enough. If I'm applying for a plumbing permit for my house and I don't let Dick Proctor, from Welland -- the same name as the fellow who caught Andy Scott on the airplane; a different person -- come into my house to inspect my plumbing, no way am I going to get a permit. Right? Appreciating what you're saying, why would you have "without the consent"? All I'm saying is that you're creating here, for somebody like me, who tends to be suspicious of authority -- I grew up in the 1960s. Everything I suspected then, has been proven to be true, but then, I only suspected. Why are we confusing it here? Why are we mixing this up, "without the consent"? Why wouldn't there be consent if it is for the purpose of considering a request? Why would you want to put a conservation officer in that weird sort of limbo?

Do you know what I'm saying? If I, as the owner, don't let him on to my property, then obviously I'm not going to get my permission. Right? In other words, if I apply for a plumbing permit, the plumbing inspector doesn't acquire a right to go into my house just because I've applied for a permit to do basically a warrantless search. I don't get the licence if I don't let him in. I appreciate what has happened here is that the Bill 25 was written, schedule I -- are we sitting again tomorrow?

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Okay, because I want to talk about schedule J.

Mr Chudleigh: Not necessarily.

Mr Kormos: Look, unfortunately we're going to be, because I'm going to talk about schedule J, which is the repeal.

I appreciate what you're doing is after the original schedule I was written, so you're trying to respond, and I appreciate your trying to respond to the very important issue -- and I think you are -- of warrantless searches, warrantless entries that were complained about by OFA and by the property rights group out of Ottawa area. Why are we confusing it, though, by permitting warrantless searches -- sorry, I keep getting obsessed with that -- warrantless entries without consent? That's what it says, "without the consent of the owner," and warrantless if it's in the course of an application for a permit.

All I'm saying is that this creates weird and strange areas. How do you respond? I'm not arguing with you. I appreciate that you and others have tried to respond to the OFA issue. But what's the difference between this and me applying for a plumbing permit for my old house on Bald Street but then telling the plumbing inspector, "You can't come into my house"? Surely then I don't get the plumbing permit and surely we don't want a plumbing inspector, even in the pursuit of investigating my plumbing or status, to be able to, willy-nilly, without consent, enter my property. I guess I'm arguing for the paramountcy of property rights here. Some people might say that's a peculiar thing coming from a person of my political stripe, because usually it's the right wing that's associated with entrenching property rights in the charter and all that sort of stuff.

All I'm telling you is that obviously I'm extremely sensitive to the issue of warrantless and permissionless entries or non-consensual entries. I appreciate what you're saying, Mr Chudleigh, but why are we adding this in? We're basically permitting a warrantless, non-consensual entry because somebody has applied for a permit. I say clear it up, avoid non-consensual entries, because the clear ramification is that the person doesn't get a permit if she or he doesn't accommodate the officer conducting the investigation or inspection for the purpose of applying for permission.

Mr Chudleigh: You're suggesting that (19.1)(a) doesn't need it.

Mr Kormos: Yes, exactly.

Mr Chudleigh: That was put in there as a point of clarification to ensure that it was very clear for OFA and to settle some of their concerns so that there was indeed a great deal of understanding about how people would enter on private properties, which of course is a very sensitive issue to all of agriculture in Ontario.

Mr Kormos: To any property owner, I think. But do you understand my argument?

Mr Chudleigh: I understand your argument. I don't necessarily accept it, but I do understand it.

Mr Kormos: I'm being more pro-private property than the Conservatives.

Mr Chudleigh: Yes. I wondered if this is the beginning of a conversion.

Mr Kormos: No, I've always felt that way. The left wing that I'm a member of believes very much in people owning what they've earned, as compared to what they've stolen from their non-unionized workers. You provoked that little bit of --

Mr Chudleigh: That's okay.

Mr Kormos: You are creating non-consensual, warrantless entries here and I know you understand that. You're saying it's only in the context of an investigation, as a follow-up to a permit application. I'm saying there should never be such a thing in our law anywhere of a warrantless, non-consensual entry other than in the case of emergencies. Whether I've applied for my plumbing permit or not, I still don't want the plumbing inspector to have a right to enter my home, my property -- because you're not talking about buildings here; I appreciate that -- without my consent or without a warrant, because it's my property. There you are.

Mr Chudleigh: I understand.

Mr Kormos: I think this creates confusion. I think it creates some ambiguity here. At some point, conservation officers are going to enter on to properties without consent and without a warrant, right? There is no provision for notice in the bill, as I understand it.

Mr Chudleigh: Subsection (19.2).

Mr Kormos: For the type of notice --

Mr Chudleigh: There is a notice requirement.

Mr Kormos: But there is none of the boiler plate stuff, the registered mail service. There's none of that stuff, right? All I'm saying is that some day a conservation officer is going to engage in a warrantless, non-consensual entry. He or she may well have given some form of notice but you're going to be plagued by the adequacy of the notice, not in the case of the inspector or officer merely pursuing the physical location of the thing that's being done that requires the permit.

Let me tell you what's going to happen, Mr Chudleigh. You are going to have an officer enter on to private property without a warrant, non-consensual, and someday, somewhere, discover something that's a violation of the act. Since his or her purview wasn't restricted to the subject matter of the permit, they're going to raise all sorts of questions and arguments about admissibility etc -- what do they call that, poisoned fruits or something? -- because of the way it's worded.

1750

Mrs Ross: It was just brought to my attention that, on the government motion I just read into the record, there is a drafting error under (19.1)(a). At the end of that sentence where it reads, "by a regulation made under clause (1)(a), (b) or (c)," that (a) should not appear there because there is no request required under (1)(a). I would ask for unanimous consent that we remove (a) where it appears there.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent from the committee?

Mr Kormos: One moment, please. I just want to take a look at this.

Mr Chudleigh: It refers to itself.

Mrs Ross: It's on page 163.

Mr Kormos: Clause 28(1)(a) -- regulation having been approved by the minister. If I may, it's only clause (c) that talks about regulations, because clause (b), you notice, doesn't refer to regs only having been approved by the minister; perhaps pursuant to regulations, but it talks about mere approval by the minister, and that parallels the language in 8. I'm not sure, Mrs Ross, that that's what you want --

Mrs Ross: Can we get legislative counsel to clarify this?

Mr Kormos: I think we'd better.

Mrs Ross: I think so too.

Mr Michael Wood: I wonder if I could provide some information on this.

The Chair: Could you identify yourself for Hansard, please.

Mr Michael Wood: Michael Wood, legislative counsel. In the new subsection (19.1), in clause (a), as you know there is a reference to "clause (1)(a), (b) or (c)." Specifically, there is a reference to obtaining the permission that is required by a regulation made under clause (1)(a), (b) or (c). We then have to look back at subsection 28(1), clauses (a), (b) and (c) on page 163 of the bill. There is no reference in clause (a) to permission; there is a reference in clauses (b) and (c) to permission. So the reference in the new clause (19.1)(a) back to (1)(a) doesn't accomplish anything.

Mr Kormos: I'm looking at the offence section, 28(1) of the original bill, not of schedule I. "Every person who" -- am I there?

Mr Michael Wood: That's not what's referred to. Page 163 of the bill.

Mr Kormos: You're talking about 28 of the act?

Mr Michael Wood: Section 28 of the act as set out in schedule I of the bill, on page 163 of the bill.

Mr Kormos: Legislative counsel has been very helpful. I just don't want them writing laws. I appreciate their help, I just don't want them writing legislation. OK, you want unanimous consent to delete the letter (a).

Mrs Ross: That's correct.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Kormos: Does that similarly apply to clause (b), which refers to (1)(a), (b) or (c)?

Mr Michael Wood: No, actually it does not because --

Mr Kormos: It refers to regulations rather than permissions.

Mr Michael Wood: That's right. In clause (b) the reference is to regulations and there is authority to make regulations under all those clauses of 28(1) of the bill.

The Chair: Further discussion on the motion?

Mr Kormos: Once again, I agree that the motion attempts to address the issue as raised by OFA. Unfortunately, I feel very strongly -- not unfortunately that I feel strongly, but I feel very strongly -- about the phenomenon of warrantless searches in the absence of emergencies. I'm therefore compelled to vote against the amendment but also, of course, to vote against schedule I, because I don't believe the amendment addresses that fundamental issue of property rights and warrantless searches. I appreciate the work done by staff in attempting to respond, but they know what my beef is with this particular amendment.

Mr Crozier: Just a comment. I have the luxury of being able to sit here and listen to the arguments and not be told how to vote, so I'll support Mr Kormos on this motion as well.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

The Chair: Since there has been a recorded vote requested, the vote will be deferred.

Being that it's almost 6 of the clock, this committee will sit recessed until 1530 of the clock tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1757.