RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES
CONTENTS
Tuesday 27 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 Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum, clerk pro tem
Staff / Personnel
Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1534 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 J. Ouellette): I call this committee to order as we continue on the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 25. I ask the government members, as we indicated yesterday, to proceed with page 11.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I move that subsection 28(20) of the Conservation Authorities Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule I to the bill, be amended by,
(a) amending the definition of "development" by striking out "units" in the sixth line of clause (b) and substituting "dwelling units"; and
(b) striking out the definition of "wetland" and substituting the following:
"'wetland' means land that,
"(a) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has a water table close to or at its surface,
"(b) directly contributes to the hydrological function of a watershed through connection with a surface watercourse,
"(c) has hydric soils, the formation of which has been caused by the presence of abundant water, and
"(d) has vegetation dominated by hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants, the dominance of which has been favoured by the presence of abundant water,
"but does not include periodically soaked or wet land that is used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits a wetland characteristic referred to in clause (c) or (d). ('terre marécageuse')"
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): The clarification on this amendment is that for "dwelling units" we added the word "dwelling" to make sure there was a clarification of public safety involved in that. In the wetlands issue, it was to draw the definition of wetlands in and make it consistent with the provincial policy statement. Both of those were I think at the request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and they've reviewed that and are satisfied.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, I will call the vote on the motion as presented. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
We now move to committee motion 12.
Mrs Ross: I move that section 30.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act, as set out in section 14 of schedule I to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Restriction on entry
"30.1(1) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause 28(1)(d) or (e) shall not enter land without,
"(a) the consent of the owner of the land and, if the occupier of the land is not the owner, the consent of the occupier of the land; or
"(b) the authority of a warrant under the Provincial Offences Act.
"Exceptions
"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entry under clause 21(1)(b) or subsection 28(19.1)."
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I understand that the intention here was canvassed when we talked about the earlier amendments that purport to address the issues raised by the OFA and a property rights group that appeared here. Once again, I adamantly oppose this because the exception subsection, subsection (2), basically provides for warrantless searches. As we discussed yesterday, I find that unacceptable. It would be so easy to simply eliminate subsection (2) and it would be, in my view, a perfectly legitimate process. As it stands, it isn't, and I'm going to be voting against it and asking for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion and as a recorded vote has been requested, this shall be deferred.
We move to page 13.
Mrs Ross: I move that the definition of "woodland" in subsection 1(1) of the Forestry Act, as set out in section 20 of schedule I to the bill, be amended by striking out the portion after clause (d) and substituting the following:
"but does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees."
1540
Mr Kormos: Would the PA please explain the rationale for that? I think I understand the rationale, but I'd like to have her or one of the members put it on the record, please.
Mr Chudleigh: This was a concern expressed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that nut orchards such as walnut trees that were used in the production of walnuts may fall under the Forestry Act and be subject to those conditions, particularly when it revolved around decisions made by the conservation authority, I believe. This amendment was instituted to clarify that and remove any concerns they might have, including Christmas tree production.
Mr Kormos: I might ask why it was restricted to Christmas trees. Some people may say that sounds silly, but you know that down where I come from, as well as where you come from, there's tree farming. I understand the argument. Christmas trees would clearly fall in that category, but people also plant and grow, to various stages of maturity, huge plots of all sorts of other kinds of trees.
Mr Chudleigh: Ornamentals.
Mr Kormos: Is it the intention that they be included in the exclusion?
Mr Chudleigh: In the regulations and in the applications they are excluded, as were nut groves and Christmas trees. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture brought those two issues to us, and that's why it was done in this manner.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, I shall put the question. All those in favour of the motion presented? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
We now move to 14. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: We're not at that point yet.
The Chair: Sorry. We shall move to schedule J. Discussion on schedule J?
Mr Kormos: What you've done is given me three 20-minute segments by doing that, because we could speak first to schedule J and then once to the first section and once to the second section, right?
The Chair: However, at 4:30 --
Mr Kormos: At 4:30 you've got to call the question, and here we are at 20 to 4.
Look, I raised this when we first met to begin considering this bill. I really am concerned that government members don't understand the significance of this mere two-section act. It's the repeal of the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act. That, I tell you, has strong and significant ramifications, and I can't for the life of me understand why these Conservative government members on the committee are not using their authority here to at least stall that, because I don't think the ramifications of the repeal of that act have been canvassed by the caucus in the Conservative government or even, probably, in a meaningful way by most of cabinet.
I don't know if you people know it or not, but the history of the P and P committee -- and I'll call it that, the P and P board of cabinet -- goes back to what was called the Cronyn report. The Cronyn report was done in the course of 1970-71, commissioned by the then government. I believe it began its work when John Robarts was still Premier and then carried on into the Davis years. I'm not entirely sure, but it's through 1970-71.
The Cronyn report made several recommendations. There were 10 volumes published in what was called colloquially the Cronyn report, because he led the team that was commissioned by the government to do a thorough investigation of updating how government does business and making the process more in tune with the increasing demands upon government and upon cabinet and cabinet ministers; and also an effort, in my view, having read the Cronyn report, which is lengthy, but not a difficult read, to in effect democratize the process, because when you read between the lines in the Cronyn report -- the report resulted in the creation, for instance, of Management Board. That was another one of Cronyn's recommendations. But another strong recommendation was the creation of a P and P board of cabinet. As I indicated the first time we met, P and P is what creates the connection between caucus/cabinet and the Premier's office.
Have any of you read the existing legislation? Have any of you read that? It passed in December 1971, as I recall, and they had first, second and third reading over the course of two or three days. It was December 14, 15 and 16, 1971. There was all-party support for the proposition. When it was introduced on first reading, as I recall my reading of the Hansard, Mr Davis introduced it and indicated that it was the result of the Cronyn commission.
This is incredibly important, and once again I'm saying this in an entirely non-partisan way. This committee today has the power to say no to the repeal of the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act, the act that creates it, makes it a creature of statute -- incredibly dangerous. The P and P act is very simple. It simply indicates that cabinet shall have this policy and priorities board -- I'm referring to the act now, the published version of the act -- "not fewer than five and not more than six...members of the executive council," so we're talking about the cabinet. "The Premier is the chair" of P and P. When I talk about P and P being incredibly important, it's the nexus between cabinet/caucus and the Premier's office.
I don't have to tell you people that if something's going to happen, and this has been increasingly the case, it happens because the Premier's office says it's going to happen. At the end of the day, that's the bottom line, that's the story, that's as good as it gets and it ain't going to get any better. I'm not blaming your -- over the course of the last 13 years, we've seen increased centralization of power in the Premier's office. We've seen it happen concurrently over the course of the last 30 years in Ottawa, and you've read any number of books or analyses done of that increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office, the PMO, and the growth of staff at the same time in those offices acknowledged.
But you folks know that something doesn't happen unless the Premier's office says it's going to happen. If the Premier's office is not brought up to speed on it -- need I go any further than the cheque that was presented to Mount Sinai Hospital last week. We know what happened -- nobody's telling stories out of school -- between Management Board and the interplay between various ministers and the competitiveness. What happened over those emergency room fundings, I tell you, is as much an illustration of the abandonment of the utilization of P and P as anything ever could be. You see, if P and P, as policy and priorities board of cabinet, had been utilized to approve that funding, with the Premier sitting as Chair, that means it happens, Management Board or not. That means it gets put to the top of the list of Management Board.
Let me give you, according to the statute, the duties of the board. I'm talking about section 3 of the act. This is the act that you people, by schedule J, are going to repeal.
"The board shall be the committee of the executive council which shall develop, review, coordinate and advise on policy and priorities relating to,
"(a) the overall long-term and short-term goals of governmental activity in relation to the social and economic needs of the province of Ontario;
"(b) the general outline of budgetary and fiscal policy and of levels of taxation and priorities among expenditure programs in accordance with the goals;" -- do you understand why I'm saying how P and P would have been relevant in the fiasco, and it was a fiasco, over the flow of monies to emergency rooms?
"(c) recommendations submitted by policy field committees;
"(d) program proposals and other matters referred to the board;
"(e) the periodic reappraisal of existing programs; and
"(f) intergovernmental relations."
1550
I don't know how to put it any way other than this, but I think you're being conned. I think you're being taken for a ride here. I'll tell you why. One of the roles is the periodic reappraisal of existing programs. That, to me, seems like an exemplary and appropriate role for this type of committee. The repeal of the legislation means there won't be a committee to conduct that role.
As I suggested to you the first day of these hearings, what this does is confirm what has been a suspicion that has grown into an increasingly documented phenomenon of the sources of policy for government -- and in this case, this government -- increasingly coming from outside of elected officials and even outside of ministries, because ministries, through the DMs and through the structure, have access to P and P as well, because P and P has its own staff.
I want to read you some of the rationale in the Cronyn report. I'll do these in chronological order. This is from the Interim Report Number One, dated December 15, 1970. They talk about a new management style. Go through the list of people involved, set up when John Robarts was still a Premier: J.B. Cronyn was the director and executive VP of John Labatt Ltd; C.C. Hay, the director of Gulf Oil and president of Hockey Canada; G.R. Heffernan, president and general manager of Lake Ontario Steel Company; A. Powis, president of Noranda Mines Ltd; R.D. Wolfe, president of Oshawa Wholesale Ltd; Dr J.D. Fleck, associate dean of the faculty of administrative studies at York University; and then a number of -- there's Deputy Minister Bayly; the secretary of treasury board; the deputy minister of justice; the deputy treasurer of Ontario; and the secretary to the cabinet. Those are the people who constituted this commission headed by Cronyn.
You folks talk about wanting to do things in a businesslike manner. That's exactly what the Cronyn commission was doing. They were talking about how to develop a system, a process, that was more efficient and more businesslike and where you didn't have brick walls. You folks know as well as anybody does what has happened to some of your proposals that you've made in caucus, or, if you've managed to snag a minister in the lounge outside of the Legislature, to a proposal you've talked to a minister about. These things disappear into orbit. They disappear into ministerial and bureaucratic orbit. They disappear into the black holes that governments are capable of creating. One of your few recourses in terms of generating and/or pushing policy is to have things like a P and P board of cabinet that has the actual power to analyze and establish priorities and goals.
Let me refer to the first volume. As I say, that was back in December 1970. Here the Cronyn report says -- I'll refer to it as the P and P committee:
"The [P and P] committee would have two major responsibilities. The first would be to advise the cabinet on overall government priorities. To accomplish this task, the committee would evaluate all major policy proposals coming from departments, task forces and cabinet committees. The evaluation of proposals would be in terms of their relative importance, their consistency with existing programs, and their financial and administrative implications. In addition to new program proposals, the committee would initiate re-evaluations of selected ongoing programs to advise cabinet on their degree of continuing importance relative to the public need and available government resources. The second major responsibility," and this is incredibly important, "would be to identify and initiate policy analyses on those issues which are not presently being examined by any department or agency."
Do you understand why I emphasize that second role, Chair? Do you understand me when I raise that? That's what I'm talking about. "The second major responsibility would be to identify and initiate policy analyses on those issues which are not presently being examined by any department or agency." If there is any semblance of democracy left in the process, it's that second role of P and P board of cabinet that gives you or you or you or any one of your caucus colleagues the chance to lobby one of the members of that board and say, "Get this on the agenda," because it's one of your two major roles, one of your two major functions, to entertain something that may never have been considered within a ministry bureaucracy or within the external sources of policy that the government utilizes.
I'll move on. There are only two more paragraphs in this brief section. This is the Cronyn report, page 7. I'm reading now from Interim Report Number Two, March 16, 1971.
"To deal with these ongoing responsibilities effectively, the committee would need to develop a long-term strategy of where the government is going and why. Such a strategy would be based on the continuing evaluation of the longer-term needs of the people of Ontario, the desired role of the government" -- the desired role of the government. I understand that governments are political -- "and its financial capabilities in the years ahead."
That was the genesis of P and P. That was the genesis of this legislation that you people are going to repeal today if you don't show some independence and say no because there's something nagging -- there's a question that should be nagging you about what motivates the government to include schedule J, because it has nothing to do with red tape. It has to do with process and access by you and others like you, as backbenchers, to the process and your ability or opportunity to raise issues.
As I say, that was Interim Report Number Two. In Interim Report Number Three, December 1971, reading specifically on page 16, it talks about policy ministers.
"As members of the [P and P] board of cabinet, policy ministers would assume a leadership role in initiating, developing, assessing and modifying new policies and programs." This next sentence is very important. "It would also be part of their function to attempt to anticipate emerging issues within their policy field....
"The policy minister would have considerable influence in the policy-making process. This influence" -- please, if Hansard would underscore this -- "This influence would stem from his [or her] membership on the policy and priorities board...."
Do you understand, once again -- and I underscore that line -- why I'm emphasizing and why I'm referring to the origins of this board, the effect of the schedule J being to repeal it?
In Report Number Ten, which is the final report submitted by Cronyn -- it was their wrap-up report, dated March 1973. In 1971 the government had already passed the first P and P board act. This is the act you want to repeal today. The Cronyn commission had talked in its report -- listen. This should be of interest to each and every one of you. The language here is 25 years old, but it's language that we've heard some of your leadership attempt to use.
"The establishment of a Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet: Since most major sources of revenues have been tapped, the emphasis must shift in the years ahead from finding new sources to making the best uses of existing ones."
That should resonate with some of you, shouldn't it? Please, Ms Ross. That was the rationale for the P and P board, that committee in cabinet, to create the efficiencies, to best utilize the personalities and to reorganize -- because remember, among other things, "the periodic reappraisal of existing programs" and the overview of programs vis-à-vis "the general outline of budgetary and fiscal policy and of levels of taxation and priorities among expenditure programs." That's the purpose of the board, and that's the act as it exists today. That's the mandate of that committee, that P and P board of cabinet, and that's what you want to repeal.
1600
The Cronyn report in volume 10, in their 10th report, reading from pages 8 and 9:
"To accomplish this, the establishment of an improved priority-setting process was recommended in Interim Report Number Two." Remember, that's the first one I read from; I told you that was the genesis of P and P. "At the centre of this process would be a senior cabinet committee called the policy and priorities board, having two major responsibilities." Please, my friends, listen carefully.
"The first would be to advise the cabinet on overall government priorities. To accomplish this task, the board evaluates all major proposals coming from ministries, task forces, and cabinet committees. In addition to new program proposals, the board initiates re-evaluations of selected ongoing programs in order to advise cabinet on the degree of their continuing importance relative to the public need and available government resources." I emphasize once again, "and available government resources."
"The second major responsibility of the board would be to identify and initiate policy analysis on those issues which were not being examined currently by any ministry or agency."
Once again, do you understand how important that is to you as backbenchers? Without a P and P committee of cabinet, you have no access, no input. You haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of being part of initiating some policy development. Sure, you can talk till you're blue in the face, but you know it ain't gonna to go nowhere. It's going to disappear into what I call that ministerial orbit, into the black holes that Premiers' offices are. Look, I'm telling you, been there, done that, I know what I'm talking about. It'll disappear into those black holes.
I repeat this again. I've only got one minute, but I'll have more chances to speak as we approach this on clause-by-clause. I repeat, "The second major responsibility of the board would be to identify and initiate policy analysis on those issues which were not being examined currently by any ministry or agency."
Do you understand how important that is and how that process won't be a process, won't happen if you repeal the P and P committee legislation? You've killed -- you're being duped, you're being used to kill one of the most effective links in the chain, or at least the most important link in the chain. I called it the nexus. Talk to some people here with some lengthier history. Talk to some of the Liberals, some of the New Democrats; talk to members who have retired from here but who had experience, hopefully, with government before P and P and after P and P in 1971 and understand.
I understand my time is up, but I'll have a chance to speak when we deal with clause-by-clause, Chair.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mrs Ross: My understanding -- and the member talked about it -- is that P and P was recommended as a board of cabinet. But it never did specify that it be established by legislation. As a matter of fact, legislation is not necessary to create policy and priorities board of cabinet. Cabinet can create whatever committees they want to create. Policy and priorities is a very important part of cabinet, and this doesn't eliminate the policy and priorities board. It eliminates the legislation because the legislation isn't necessary. Cabinet should be allowed some flexibility to organize committees that they feel would address needs as government sees fit. They should be able to determine what priorities they want to address and how to organize those committees. It shouldn't be up to the Legislature to determine how cabinet's going to operate. It doesn't eliminate policy and priorities, it only eliminates the legislation. Policy and priorities will still be there. It still will continue to function as a valuable cabinet committee.
That's the reasoning behind it.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Ross. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: OK. I'll speak to section 1 now.
The Chair: Section 1?
Mr Kormos: It's a two-section act --
The Chair: Well, we're dealing with schedule J right now.
Mr Kormos: Quite right, and I want to speak to section 1.
The Chair: Of schedule J?
Mr Kormos: Yes. This is clause-by-clause, Chair. We're on schedule J, and there are two sections in schedule J. Now I want to speak to section 1, because this is clause-by-clause and that's how clause-by-clause progresses.
The Chair: Yes, you may, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. We'll start the clock again. Ms Ross, look, I hear what you're saying, and I quite frankly anticipated that. What would the rationale be for eliminating the legislation? The legislation ensures -- you're right. The cabinet can have any kind of committee structure it wants. But this is legislation that guarantees that at the very least, there will be a P and P committee. It's not something that occurred frivolously. Again, have you read the 10 reports of the Cronyn commission? I have.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: No, I have, Ms Ross. I'm telling you. I read you the names of the people on that commission, the Cronyn-led commission. You're talking about the corporate leaders of this country of their day. We're not talking back in the 1920s; we're talking well within our lifetimes, the early 1970s, when there was a major transformation. Government had grown -- look, you folks should know that the Premier's office this year has spent $900,000 more than any single year of the last government. When you look at eliminating legislation establishing the P and P committee and you realize that the Premier's office is spending more, you wonder if they're achieving more. If they're achieving anything, are they doing it with any input from government members?
I understand that as an opposition member my job is, in many respects, different from yours. I understand that. When some of you are in the opposition, you'll understand. I was fortunate, because I was here in opposition, then government, then back in opposition. I'll be quite candid with you: Some of our members who were elected directly to government endured some culture shock, if you will, being in opposition. They didn't understand the opposition culture. I think all of our members have done quite well, quite frankly, in adapting. They seem to have adapted well. So I appreciate that my role is not identical to yours. As I say, when some of you are in opposition, you will understand that. And I wish you well, I really do.
As government members, understand. You're being asked to repeal the bill. The argument that cabinet should have a right to form -- it does have the right to form whatever committees it wants, right? In fact, what happens is that the Premier decides what committees will be formed. At the end of the day, Mike calls the shots. That's the way it works. I understand that.
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It's always been that way.
Mr Kormos: Exactly, Mr Rollins. I understand that. Do you want to abandon the one legislated body -- because the legislation guarantees you that it'll be there, doesn't it? You're assured, then: the one legislated body. You know, $900,000 more this year by the Premier's office than any year in the history of the last government, and I bet you that would hold true for previous governments, because over the course of the years, governments have increasingly spent more and Premiers' offices have spent more. I'm prepared to say that.
Your argument doesn't hold water. How does eliminating the statute eliminate red tape? How does eliminating the statute eliminate any costs or make things work more efficiently? Eliminating this statute makes this operation even less democratic. Other than Toni Skarica, whom I knew as a crown attorney and for whom I had the highest regard as a crown and a lawyer -- a tough crown, but I enjoyed working with him -- I don't think there's a single member of your caucus whom I knew before you got elected, but I'll venture to say this: The vast majority of you, the ones who really were interested -- granted, when you have sweeps, I don't care if it's a Liberal sweep, an NDP sweep or a Tory sweep, you get people elected who have no business being in the Legislature. I have no hesitation in telling you that. You really do. In a sweep, people get elected who have no business being here. Mind you, it usually all comes out in the wash, because come next round, they're gone.
Mr Colle is here. That happened. I saw it in the Liberal government of 1987, I saw it in the NDP government -- I was critical of some of those same people at the time -- and I see it now in this government. But look, the people who are here -- you, Ms Ross. I sit beside you in the Legislature, and I've come to like you.
Interjection.
1610
Mr Kormos: Well, I have. I've come to like you. What I can read -- this is what I'm prepared to speculate. I think you thought you could make a difference. I really believe that. When you were elected back in the summer of 1995, I believe you were as enthusiastic and sincere as anybody could be and you thought, "By God, I'm going to go to Queen's Park and I'm going to kick some tail." Now, you may not have put it that way.
But I also know this: that in short order, you went, "Holy zonkers, this isn't the way I thought it was going to be." You're a parliamentary assistant, and you thought you were going to be able to sit around and engage in polemics with your colleagues and be specifically involved in developing policy. You've tried it, I'm sure you've tried it any number of times, but you either got shushed up or shooed away or you got the not-so-subtle message, "Mind your P's and Q's, because after all, there are other people who want to be parliamentary assistants too." I don't begrudge you the extra income, the 11 or 12 grand a year, but there are other people in your caucus who aren't parliamentary assistants --
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Bill Murdoch.
Mr Kormos: Look, I'm not trying to be on the attack here -- who would take your job in a New York minute. As a matter of fact, you know what happens. Let me tell you what happens in cabinet.
You've got backbenchers who are hoping and praying for a cabinet minister to stumble and fall. You do. You've got backbenchers who are dreaming of any number of cabinet ministers fouling up big time, because they know that then, they're getting a little farther up in the line in terms of entry into cabinet. I'm not telling stories out of school. I know exactly what's going on. They're champing at the bit. They look at the papers in the morning to see who got caught with what or whom, in what circumstances. Oh, of course publicly they have to do the sorrowful face.
All I'm trying to tell you is that this place isn't what you thought it was going to be. You could respond to me and say: "It's not true. We have a very democratic caucus. All of us are heard equally, and when we raise things at caucus meetings the Premier makes notes and he listens, and we have access to ministers etc, etc."
Some of your backbenchers have been at events with ministers and their names haven't even been mentioned when the minister speaks. You know how I know that? I've been with them. I've been with them when some of your ministers have been out in the public with the Tory member from the area. I understand that the minister isn't going to say, "Oh, here's Peter Kormos, the maverick rebel MPP from Welland." I'd understand why a Tory minister wouldn't do that, although some have. But I've seen cabinet ministers not even mention the member who is in that riding. That's how backbenchers get treated.
Why do I raise that? I raise it because we should be honest about this. As I say, you could respond with the whole flashy line about how it ain't so, but you wouldn't be telling the truth, Ms Ross, and I know you're not a liar. If you were to respond that way, you wouldn't be telling the truth, and I know you're not a liar. I know you'd rather remain silent on the issue than lie.
You've got a chance today. You know what? If you vote against this schedule, you might lose your PA job. I'm telling you that right now. As a matter of fact, I'm not just telling you, I'm guaranteeing it. I'm serious. You will lose your PA job.
I saw it happen. I saw it happen during the Bill 84 hearings when we were dealing with firefighters. When the then PA was starting to show some sympathy for the issues around firefighters and for their arguments, that PA was gone, out of here, history.
OK. You might lose your job as parliamentary assistant, so you'll lose that 11 or 12 grand a year. You'll still make 78 Gs a year, which is far more than most working people in this province make.
One of the things that surprises me about this operation -- in speeches, I used to dispel the myth, and I still do from time to time, of brown envelopes of money changing hands here, you know, the image people have? I assure people, when I speak across the province, that that doesn't happen. The only reason it doesn't happen is because you don't have to. Most politicians, you scratch them behind the ears and they'll follow you home. A cheese tray and a couple of bottles of Ontario wine will do it. That's the only reason there aren't brown envelopes of money. They don't have to.
What bothers me, Ms Ross, is not that people -- I used to be a defence lawyer. You know that. I've acted for bank robbers. I've understood why somebody would try to rob a bank: There's a lot of money. I don't approve of it. It's illegal and it's immoral and it's wrong, but I understand why somebody would want to rob a bank.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): That's where the money is.
Mr Kormos: That's right, that's where the money is. There's high risk, but there's a potential for a high take.
What I've never been able to understand is somebody who would steal $5. I'm not talking about a hungry person who needs the five bucks to buy food. You know the kind of people I'm talking about, where you leave $5 on your kitchen table, and later that day -- you've had people over -- you see the $5 is gone. You're not really sure who took it, but you're awfully disappointed, aren't you? I don't know whether that specifically happened, but I'm sure something akin to that has happened to you. I understand why, if I left $10,000 there, any person in hard times would be tempted, but why would somebody compromise their integrity for a mere five bucks?
I'm not saying 11 or 12 grand is small change, but here's your chance. At the end of the day, you're living down there in the Stoney Creek-Hamilton area, and you've still got to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and you've still got to take your garbage out to the curb like all of us do and say hi to your neighbours. Here's your chance to be what you promised yourself you were going to be when you got elected. You did. I know that as much as I know anything, that you, of all people, promised you weren't going to be like the rest. In boxing terms -- remember, we were talking yesterday about boxers, amateur boxing and some of the kids down in Niagara -- you're not going to take a dive, you're not going to bite the canvas, you're not going to throw a fight for $12,000 a year. You're not going to do it for 12 grand a year.
You're going to get fired as a parliamentary assistant if you vote against this section. You will. There's no secret about that. You tell me what's more important. Is that $12,000 a year more important to you than your integrity? If it is, you're not the person I thought you were. If that 12 grand a year is more important than your integrity, you're not the person I've come to like sitting beside me in the Legislature and for whom I've come to have some regard.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I don't wish to disturb the flow of my colleague, but surely -- I see Ms Ross, and I can see remorse and I can see pain. This is not an inquisition, is it?
The Chair: Your point of order?
Mr Pouliot: I know my friend's sincerity. You can see the perspiration. He wanted to establish the nuance, to inform us as to the power of P and P and its relationship. Are we to lose equilibrium with the Premier's office? He did mention through estimates that $900,000 had flowed in this direction. Will this $900,000 --
The Chair: And your point of order is?
Mr Pouliot: I'm trying to get him back on track. I'm trying to be humanitarian, with high respect. I do not wish you. Mrs Ross, to leave here and to leave part of yourself when you do so. I understand what you're going through. It's a matter of honesty, "Shall I do the right thing?" or "Do I need a few dineros, a few more dollars more?"
1620
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Pouliot. I will certainly bring Mr Kormos to the debate upon the floor.
Mr Kormos: Thank you very kindly. I appreciate your direction.
You know, Ms Ross, that your argument defending schedule J is pretty evil. You and I and the members of this committee have had some serious disagreements about other sections of the bill. I understand that there are some ideological differences as well. OK? Those I understand. This is not about ideology. You and your colleagues are part today of an exercise that will destroy the P and P committee. If you vote this down, the government can restore it by way of a bill -- there's no quarrel with that -- and maybe present some clearer arguments.
The problem with omnibus bills like that is that not too many of your colleagues read all the way to the final page. And when they did read repeal of the P and P committee act, very few of them went to the statutes and saw what the P and P committee act was about. I bet you none did -- none. None read the Cronyn report to understand why the Conservative government of the early 1970s would enact this legislation -- none, not one. Is that how we're supposed to do business here?
I'm not criticizing the members. They're busy. I understand that. You have a load of responsibilities. And this legislation really isn't even in your bailiwick as a PA to consumer and commercial relations. I suppose more properly it's, what, AG? I don't know. It's a strange one. Intergovernmental affairs? I have no idea where the most appropriate -- the PA to the Premier: Who's that now? Is that --
Mrs Ross: Mrs Mushinski.
Mr Kormos: Mushinski? You had a hard time remembering. Ms Mushinski should be here answering the questions, shouldn't she? Shouldn't she, Ms Ross?
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: She's the PA to the Premier, and it's only by the Premier's design -- you see, eliminating this act has nothing to do with the elimination of red tape. I bet you dollars to doughnuts right here and now that that commission did not sit down and -- we already canvassed the fact that that little Red Tape Commission did not read all these bills. OK? They didn't. I know some of the members of that so-called commission, and I know they didn't read all of the bills and decide which ones were red tapey bills, which ones weren't. They were fed this stuff, either by ministries -- we went through that yesterday when we explained how the Red Tape Commission got all this stuff. Various ministries canvassed their legislation that was going to be dealt with by that dicennial process, in the ninth year of every decade, of creating the RSOs.
This was sneaked in here. Somebody wants the P and P committee destroyed. Somebody doesn't want the P and P committee to function any more. Who? Not the members of P and P. Not the caucus. I'll venture this: Your caucus was never presented, during a caucus meeting, with a proposition that the P and P was going to be eliminated. I'll put my money right on the table that your caucus was not advised that this government had a plan to eliminate P and P. It was stuffed in here as the very last part of this bill, with the proper anticipation that nobody was going to get that far when they read the bill; and that if they did, they weren't going to look up the act that was being repealed; and that if they did, they weren't going to read the origins of the act by virtue of the Cronyn commission's report.
Think about this, please, and consider this proposition. You can vote this down today, which means it gives you a chance to ask some of the questions that I think, in all fairness, you might want to ask of any number of people about the rationalization for eliminating P and P. I know you're not going to be satisfied with the argument, "Oh, cabinet can have any kind of committee structure it wants." I know you won't be satisfied with that kind of response, I know that, and you shouldn't be. I've been a government backbencher and I know what it's like to be fed the pap on a daily basis, the old: "Trust me. Just follow me and we're going to do OK."
I'm suggesting to you, Ms Ross, that you're doing something very critical here. It's something that will have long-term impact through the course of your government and successive governments. I'm saying we can vote this down today, and if your government is really adamant about it, they can bring it back by way of a bill -- it will be a two-section bill -- and they can use time allocation and ram 'er through.
We're only dealing with section 1; we're going to move on to section 2 in a minute. Please, consider doing the right thing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Further debate?
Mrs Ross: I feel I must comment after all that.
The member did say I came here to make a difference. I think he would agree that as member of this government I have made a difference and that the province has certainly seen a difference, and a good difference, I think, as we turn the province around. He's right, it isn't quite what I thought it would be, but I'm pretty proud of the work this government is doing.
Part of the Red Tape Commission's mandate was to eliminate unnecessary legislation, and this is a piece of unnecessary legislation, because cabinet does not require legislation to form any committees. Cabinet should have the flexibility to organize the committees as they wish, and that's why the government is in favour of schedule J.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Kormos spoke at some length, trying to convey a sense of what was happening here. Sometimes you -- not you, but "you" collectively -- because of busy schedules, people resent the time they spend reading bills, unless it's the pension bill, because that is much easier reading. Maybe the parallel has some semblance of validity: It resembles a stipend, the $12,000 that we throw in the balance, and it makes the job more pleasant, more interesting.
Under the previous administration, my friend and colleague Mr Kormos and I had the opportunity to serve the province in a different capacity. I had the chance to occupy four ministries and Mr Kormos one, but he did run out of time. When I first came here 14 years ago, I said, "If only we could be a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we would perhaps be positioned to be an alternative." And we achieved this. Then I said, "Perhaps if we were fortunate and formed the government, we would be the decision maker," and again we achieved that. And then we waited for the call, where the Premier would call and offer you the opportunity to be in cabinet. By a stroke of good fortune, we reached there too, n'est-ce pas, Peter? We said, "Now we can really have an influence."
If you could be a member of P and P, then you would really have the Premier's ear. You would have arrived. You would have about you a distinctive walk. You would have to be more prolific and more selective in your reading because you have become a person of authority. You are now consequential.
If you do that, then you say, "If only, one day, I could be a member of the Premier's office." If you go to a political science class, there would be a test: "What are the duties? Define what P and P does, and the Premier's office."
Our system is one of checks, as you know, one of balance, one of a constant search for equilibrium, and it's not constant. One, at times, facilitates the others. It's a liaison. One will do less well without the others. It's constantly shifting, but what we've seen over the years -- and this is the appeal we make -- is that we feel this is not very much that. We used to say plus ça change, plus ç'est la même chose. It was a semblant, it was different stripes, a bit different ideology, a different approach, a different perception.
1630
But now you see this big, bold move that takes away from the legislators. You are there to make the decisions and you are also there to guarantee that it's the right process. You're not only there to legislate, to process what somebody else tells you to process. This is what the erosion is. This is what is being taken away, a little bit here, a little bit there. It's OK when you read the title. It says it's because of red tape, which means blame, blame, blame. That's not what it's all about. It's about us. It's about the reason we are elected. It's about serving the public, representing them, not leaving it to others.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That takes us up to about 20 seconds to the 4:30 mark.
Mr Kormos: Again, I'll be asking for a recorded vote on schedule J, please, Chair.
The Chair: OK. Seeing as it's not quite 4:30 yet, according to the various clocks around here, a recorded vote has been asked for on schedule J. It shall be deferred.
At this time, we'll be moving into the deferred votes.
On section 1, shall Mr Kormos's motion to amend subsection 1(2) of the bill carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? The section is carried.
Shall section 2 carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 2 is carried.
On section 3, there's a recorded vote as well. Shall section 3 carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: Section 3 carries.
On schedule A, there's a recorded vote again. Shall schedule A carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Crozier, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: Schedule A carries.
Shall section 1 of schedule C carry?
Mr Kormos: Excuse me, Chair, shouldn't we be dealing with schedule B?
The Chair: It was carried during the last vote. There was a number of them where a vote did go through.
Mr Kormos: OK.
The Chair: To return to schedule C, shall section 1 of schedule C carry? It's not a recorded vote. All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule C is carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mr Kormos's motion to amend schedule C, clause 2(1)(c) of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
A recorded vote again: Shall Mr Kormos's motion to amend schedule C, subsection 2(2.1) of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 2 of schedule C carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 2 of schedule C carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mr Kormos's motion to amend schedule C, section 3, of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 3 of schedule C carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 3 of schedule C carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mr Kormos's motion to amend schedule C, section 4, of the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, 1998, carry?
Ayes
Crozier, Kormos.
Nays
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.
Shall section 4 of schedule C carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 4 of schedule C carried.
A recorded vote: Shall section 5 of schedule C carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 5 of schedule C carried.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Chair: There are no amendments to any further sections of schedule C, as I'm aware of it. I would be pleased, there being no other amendments, if the Chair would put to the committee, "Shall schedule C carry?"
The Chair: We only have two questions remaining on this, so I'll just do those. Shall sections 6 to 12, inclusive, of schedule C carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: It was not requested at the time.
Mr Kormos: It wasn't requested at the time because it wasn't moved at the time. This is the first time you've moved it.
The Chair: Yes, you may request it.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir.
The Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare sections 6 to 12, inclusive, of schedule C carried.
Shall schedule C carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare schedule C carried.
On schedule E, a recorded vote: Shall schedule E carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
1640
The Chair: I declare schedule E carried.
Shall sections 1 through 14 of schedule G carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare sections 1 through 14 of schedule G carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mrs Ross's motion to amend schedule G, subsections 15(1) and (2), carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Crozier, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: I declare Mrs Ross's motion to amend schedule G, subsections 15(1) and (2), carried.
Shall section 15 of schedule G, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Crozier, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: I declare the amended section 15 of schedule G carried.
Shall sections 16 to 18, inclusive, of schedule G carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 16 to 18, inclusive, of schedule G carried.
Shall section 19 of schedule G, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Crozier, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 19 of schedule G, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 20 to 22 of schedule G carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 20 to 22 of schedule G carried.
Shall section 23 of schedule G, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 23 of schedule G, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 24 to 74, inclusive, of schedule G carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 24 to 74, inclusive, of schedule G carried.
Shall schedule G, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule G, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 1 to 11, inclusive, of schedule I carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 1 to 11, inclusive, of schedule I carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mrs Ross's amended motion to amend schedule I, section 12, subsections 28(19.1) to (19.5) of the Conservation Authorities Act carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare Mrs Ross's amended motion to amend schedule I, section 12, subsections 28(19.1) to (19.5) of the Conservation Authorities Act carried.
Shall section 12 of schedule I, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 12 of schedule I, as amended, carried.
Shall section 13 of schedule I carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 13 of schedule I carried.
A recorded vote: Shall Mrs Ross's motion to amend schedule I, section 14, section 30.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act, carry?
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare Mrs Ross's motion to amend schedule I, section 14, section 30.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act, carried.
Shall section 14 of schedule I, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare section 14 of schedule I, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 15 to 19, inclusive, of schedule I carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare sections 15 to 19, inclusive, of schedule I carried.
Shall section 20 of schedule I, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 20 of schedule I, as amended, carried.
Shall sections 21 to 66, inclusive, of schedule I carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare sections 21 to 66, inclusive, of schedule I carried.
Shall schedule I, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare schedule I, as amended, carried.
Shall schedule J carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare schedule J carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: The long title of the bill carries.
Shall Bill 25, as amended, carry?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, Chair.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare Bill 25, as amended, carried.
Shall Bill 25, as amended, be reported to the House?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Boushy, Chudleigh, Rollins, Ross, Bob Wood.
Nays
Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair: I declare that Bill 25, as amended, shall be reported to the House.
That concludes the hearings on Bill 25. I want to thank everyone for their participation on the bill. The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1649.