GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2009 / LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SAINE GESTION PUBLIQUE
Mr. Bentley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 212, An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 212, Loi visant à promouvoir une saine gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d ask at the outset that I share my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Willowdale.

I’m pleased to stand and address some general introductory issues with respect to this bill. It is a large piece of legislation, but it should be seen in the context of what it is: It is a bill that will address good government for the province of Ontario and for the people of Ontario. It contains quite a number of amendments, some technical, some improvements in procedures and processes, quite like legislation that has been introduced by previous governments, taking us back to at least 1994.

It’s important, from time to time, to update legislation in the province of Ontario. The way we approach our business today is not the same as the way we approached business, well, even five years ago. You could ask a question, when all members are seated during those ceremonial occasions: How many people use a BlackBerry today who didn’t use a BlackBerry five years ago? Communications go in an entirely different way. The procedures that were appropriate for government just five years ago are entirely, in some cases, outdated today. Likewise the wording, the technical provisions, their application of legislation, is surpassed by the events of time.

1350

We also have a situation where some acts which look perfectly important on their face have actually been passed by, given legislative changes that this act has enacted, given changes in the law as dictated by the courts, given new ways of approaching issues that the people of Ontario told us we have to use.

Une bonne gouvernance signifie mettre en place des systèmes et des structures adéquats pour exécuter l’intention originale de la loi. Good governance requires that we have the right systems, the right procedures and the right processes in place to enact the original intent of the law.

Now, there are really two very large parts to this piece of legislation. One is the technical procedural changes, sometimes to sections, sometimes to series of sections, some that repeal acts, some that change certain enactments. Just like has happened during previous governments, what happened here is that the ministries got together-in this case there were 22 ministries involved-and they came up with a narrowed list of 600 different provisions. It sounds like a big number, but when you think of the speed of procedures, when you think of the speed with which we move in society, it really isn’t. These are technical changes, non-political changes, that will help the existing enactments work better, will help the intent of the Legislature-and it might have been a Legislature from a previous government-be achieved, which will ensure that laws can achieve their purpose, given the requirements of the day.

There are also, within the four corners of this bill, several changes to procedure and process. So they are a little different than technical amendments, but they are changes to procedure and process which I hope all members of the House, after the very complete debate, will agree are not only necessary but are appropriate and entirely within keeping of good, effective government. After all, what we wish to achieve are the right accountability mechanisms, the right mechanisms to ensure transparency, and the most effective procedures and processes for achieving governance in the province of Ontario.

I would say in advance that technical briefings have been offered to all members of the House, and that will continue. Should there be issues with respect to certain procedures, certain amendments, certain items in here, that certainly will continue. From our perspective, we want to make sure that there is a complete understanding of what’s here.

I can also say that I’m sure we will benefit, all of us, from the debate within this House. Somebody picking up the very large piece of material may say, “Well, what’s in here? What’s in here that I haven’t yet read?” I simply offer at the outset to the members what has already been offered, what has been taken up, I understand, on some occasions, and what will continue to be taken up, I’m sure: an offer to sit down and explain exactly what’s there, why it’s there and how we got there.

I would like to just address two separate changes to process and procedure, the first with respect to jury verification. Now, in the course of a criminal trial that involves the selection of a jury, the issue might arise, how do you ensure that the requirements of either the Criminal Code or the Juries Act-that people with criminal records don’t end up on juries-are achieved? I’m using a little non-technical language here. How do you ensure that that is achieved? Unfortunately, there has not been a consistent procedure or approach to achieving the very important policy objective.

Recently, we benefited from the very extensive report, examination, discussion and review by the privacy commissioner-a very important document, a very extensive document that provided some guidance on how to ensure that we could achieve the policy objective and safeguard and protect the privacy of Ontarians, both to the greatest extent possible. The changes to the approach to the selection of juries speak to the issues raised by the privacy commissioner and speak to her specific suggestions in a number of material respects. One is that the identification, the checking and the selection process be taken out of the hands of the direct courtroom participants and put into the hands of the jury centre-there’s one of those located in London, Ontario, that has been spearheading the compilation of the lists-that those checks be done independent of the participants in the courtroom. That’s what we’re going to be doing. That’s at the heart of her recommendations.

Another part of the legislative changes is that these checks could be made and the lists amended before they are given to the lawyers who are the courtroom participants about to choose the jury, so nobody would know; nobody in the courtroom will know who had a criminal record and who did not-again, a very clear determination that we want to safeguard the privacy of Ontarians.

It’s essential that we do these checks independently, according to the privacy commissioner. It’s essential that we have a recognized, coordinated structure within which to do them, as I say, so that we can achieve both the policy objective and the protection and privacy of all Ontarians.

I want to very briefly address one other area that is within the bill, and that’s the whole issue of public inquiries. From time to time, people call for public inquiries. Sometimes they call for them quite often. But the legislation which supports the calling of public inquiries has not received the necessary update because when a government decides when a public inquiry is going to be called, what you’re looking for are a series of recommendations to address specific issues that can be received in time to be of benefit to society, to the government, to the Legislature. There needs to be a connection between the calling and the receipt of the recommendations in order for them to be beneficial. Some inquiries should be, of their nature, long and extensive. Others should be capable of being completed in a much shorter period of time.

Recognizing the essential independence of the commission, which would not, cannot and should not be in any way, shape or form compromised, it is important to give the necessary tools to ensure that, where appropriate, inquiries can benefit from well-accepted information and material that’s already out there-it doesn’t have to be re-created-that expertise that’s already out there can be adopted. Just as in the best courtroom management techniques, sometimes instead of calling witnesses one after the other, you can call panels of witnesses, you can have accepted facts. You can scope and shape an inquiry in order to achieve its objective. This not only helps manage the time, it helps manage the cost; but it ensures there is the type of essential rational connection between the calling and the reason for calling of the inquiry, and the receipt of the recommendations so that they can benefit the society-the Legislature-that has called for them.

1400

Just before I turn my time over to my colleague, I want to re-emphasize that we’re very anxious to hear what the suggestions and comments will be with respect to what’s in here. There has been a very extensive amount of work done by the people in the various ministries to compile these very important sections and amendments, and with respect to the more substantive pieces, it’s a matter of updating procedures and processes to ensure that they benefit and serve the people of this great province.

With that, I’m pleased to turn my time over to my colleague the MPP for Willowdale.

Mr. David Zimmer: I’m very pleased to participate in this debate and speak in support of the proposed Good Government Act, 2009. Bill 212 reflects this government’s commitment to making sure that Ontario’s statutes are up to date and effective. As the Attorney General said, the right systems and the right structures must be in place in order for legislation to serve its intended purpose.

To this end, Bill 212 includes many technical changes as well as changes to some of our systems and processes. The bill is comprehensive; comprehensive because we have been diligent about making sure that the laws of this province are up to date, accurate and in line with the needs of Ontarians.

You’ve heard from the Attorney General, who briefly outlined some of the changes proposed in Bill 212. What I’d like to do now is take a minute to highlight some of the changes that are being proposed and how they will improve clarity, increase transparency and enhance accountability in the province’s laws, regulations and systems. Let me say a few words about some general changes.

Bill 212 would, if passed, help to streamline processes and ensure Ontario’s laws are clear, current and relevant. There are over 600 items in this legislation, and that’s why we’ve provided members on all sides of this House the opportunity to be briefed on these items. We wanted to give all members a better sense of the amendments, some of which can be very, very technical in nature.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has a number of items that our ministry has included. For instance, a proposed amendment to the Evidence Act would allow witnesses to affirm, rather than swear, to the truth of their testimony. This change would acknowledge the multitude of religious views in Ontario and prevent any inquiries into why a person of a particular faith wishes to affirm rather than swear.

Sometimes it’s necessary to update statutes to incorporate new processes or tools that were not used previously. The seven proposed amendments to the Bail Act would, if passed, serve to update language in the act to account for the new province-wide electronic writs database. This is a leading-edge tool to speed up and facilitate the judicial process. That’s good for the accused, that’s good for victims, and that’s good for government expenditures.

These changes would remove outdated references to various manual requirements that are in fact no longer in practice. We’ve moved beyond that. These technical amendments are catching up to the de facto situation we find ourselves in.

Other amendments would reconcile statutes, update translation services and generally improve clarity.

Let me say something about the Provincial Offences Act. This bill makes changes to legislation that will mean more effective service for Ontarians. To further support this goal, the Good Government Act includes proposed changes to the Provincial Offences Act. Municipalities are currently responsible for administering the courts that hear provincial offence matters and for prosecuting offences under that act, such as parking tickets and various bylaw offences. Most of the proposed reforms included in this bill reflect the recommendations of a municipal and provincial working group that put forward ways to simplify court procedures and to improve services to the public.

The bill proposes a series of very practical changes, such as allowing for quicker and more efficient filing of tickets and the ability to hold routine court procedings via teleconference or video. The bill would also permit out-of-court settlements for a wide range of minor offences, which would help to focus the court and enforcement resources on the most serious offences. Many people in Ontario now charged with a minor offence want their side of the story to be heard, and to do that now necessitates a formal court appearance and all of the technical things that are included in a formal court proceeding. This procedure allows for out-of-court settlement of a variety of issues. Sometimes the person who has been charged with a technical offence really wants to talk the thing through and resolve it without having to go through the formal court process. That’s the kind of practical amendment we’re talking about in this legislation.

These changes would balance the need for significant improvements to our very, very busy municipal courts with the rights and protections of Ontarians who are accused of provincial offences. Everybody is going to benefit from these procedures, particularly the out-of-court settlement procedures.

Let me say a few words about the Municipal Elections Act changes, because I know that’s a subject that is close to all members’ hearts when they are explaining this legislation to their local municipalities, local councillors and local media. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing reviews the municipal elections process and the Municipal Elections Act after every municipal election. The proposed changes to the Municipal Elections Act included in Bill 212 stem directly from those consultations with the public, with the municipalities, and with organizations such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. If passed, these measures would respond to issues identified by municipal candidates, voters and election administrators, and would make the municipal election process more accessible, transparent and fair. There again we have a reference to the overarching theme of this Good Government Act: improving accessibility, increasing transparency, and, above all, fairness: fairness in the technical sense and fairness in the common sense idea of fairness.

Proposed amendments to the Municipal Elections Act would, if passed, enhance the integrity of the local elections in municipalities by creating a new contribution limit of $5,000 per contributor in each jurisdiction, in addition to the existing limit of $750 per candidate. It will also, in this regard, clarify the campaign spending limits. Those of you who are following the press arising out of a number of municipal elections here in Ontario know it is always and consistently in various jurisdictions an issue that plays out in the media in the year or two following a municipal election.

1410

Bill 212 is intended to deal with those difficulties, and it deals with those difficulties, again, by transparency, accessibility and fairness. Those are the overarching themes that underpin this legislation.

In addition, the proposed reforms would, if passed, eliminate the carrying forward of surplus campaign funds by candidates from one municipal election to the next municipal election while, at the same time, strengthening compliance and enforcement measures through firm deadlines for submitting financial statements and harmonized various penalties that may arise as a result of breaches. Other changes include moving the election date forward to the fourth Monday of October, beginning October 25, 2010; an improved voters list; and requiring voters to provide proof of identity and proof of residency.

I would like to particularly recognize the work of Minister Watson and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for all of their very hard work in bringing these amendments forward. A part of that exercise in bringing these amendments forward was the very extensive consultation process that the minister undertook with the various stakeholders in the municipal world.

As the Attorney General has said, Bill 212 is designed to strengthen statutes and systems that support the services the Ontario government provides to its citizens. The bill includes changes that will improve clarity, increase transparency and enhance accountability. These are changes that will ensure that the government, the laws and the regulations of this province are truly reflective of the needs of today’s Ontario.

I call on all members to support these proposed amendments. Do keep in mind, again, that the proposed amendments are something that it’s necessary to do from time to time to ensure that Ontario is the leading jurisdiction in the way it conducts, enforces and reviews its provincial legislation.

All governments-there have been, I think, about 16 of these omnibus-type bills that review and make technical amendments and bring needed changes to make sure that the application, interpretation and expectations of Ontario’s provincial laws are very, very modern. By “modern” I mean that they meet the needs of all of the stakeholders in our province, that they meet the needs of our citizens and, indeed, that they meet the needs of our government, our bureaucracies, in ensuring that Ontario is always at the leading edge of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’ll be having an opportunity in a few minutes to speak to this bill myself. I guess the first thing I want to really put on the record here is this consultation that everyone is referring to. I don’t know what I missed out on here, but I haven’t seen this consultation. I haven’t heard from my stakeholders in my critic’s portfolio or any of my municipalities about the consultation that has taken place to get to this particular point today.

I look at a bill like this, and I acknowledge that many, many governments have passed omnibus bills, and you need these sorts of pieces of legislation to clean up a lot of outstanding problems in the different ministries. As we move forward with this, I think there’s a bit of a problem with people not being aware of these changes and how they will have an opportunity to raise their concerns at the committee level. I’ll be looking forward to hearing some responses from the minister on how we handle a bill like this at the committee level, when there are 22 ministries affected, and on how people will get a fair chance to voice their particular concerns on the legislation.

I will be speaking in a few minutes, and I look forward to bringing my points forward and commenting on the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Member from Beaches-East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: I had an opportunity to listen to the minister and his parliamentary assistant, and they kept talking about the openness of the bill and the consultations on the bill and all of that stuff. I’m a little perplexed by those statements. I am perplexed because when this bill was introduced in this House last week, the opposition was not given any indication whatsoever about what was contained in the bill. We were asking, from the morning that we heard that the minister was going to make his statement until the time the bill was passed across the House and put on the desk, what was in the bill. Nary a word was said; nary a word about anything. If that is consultation, then I am really afraid.

I do acknowledge that I have had an opportunity to sit down with ministerial staff for about half an hour. They came but they were only prepared to brief me on one section of the act and then they were going off to brief other people on other sections of the act. I chose to go to those elements that dealt with municipal affairs.

I was really saddened, though, when I started to ask questions about what was contained in the bill, and even more so when I asked about what was not contained in the bill and the rationale for not including other provisions along with those that had been suggested. I was told time and time again by a staffer that that was a political question and it would not be answered. Even though it was a technical briefing, on such things as whether or not the loopholes were being closed-I like to call it the Volpe amendment-so that five-year-olds can’t make donations, I was told, “That’s a political matter. That’s not a technical briefing of the act.” They would not answer any questions as to whether or not that could be included.

I don’t know, when the minister and the parliamentary assistant talk about being open and forthcoming to the opposition and others, that it in fact actually happens.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Member from Brant.

Mr. Dave Levac: I’d like to take just a moment to express my gratitude to the Attorney General, Minister Bentley, for the work that he has to do to oversee this particular act, the Good Government Act, and to the parliamentary assistant, who, time after time, when challenged with coverage of a bill, does an exemplary job. The member from Willowdale and the Attorney General will be doing a very good job of bringing this bill forward.

Let’s be clear in terms of the difference between staff and the minister’s offer to have a discussion with elected members. The members opposite know that staff at the ministry levels are trained to identify a question that could be considered to be political and not to answer it, because the government and governance are the responsibility of the elected members. Let’s make sure we understand the differential between the two.

If he were to ask a specific technical question and it were not classified as being political, then he would get an answer from staff. I would respectfully suggest that that is why the AG and the parliamentary assistant have made their offers to talk to the members in person.

Since 1997 there have been 16 good-government bills passed by the Legislature. The first of its kind was passed under the NDP government in 1994. The most recent bill, in 2006, contained nearly 550 technical amendments from 16 different ministries.

This is a technique that has been adopted over the decades by all stripes of government at all levels in order to clean up some of the stuff that, through modern technology or different verbiage, needs to be corrected. We assume that everyone understands that those are the processes we need to go through in order to improve our legislation. That’s the intent here.

I recall reading a book that outlined some of the legislation that still existed at the municipal level that said you had to tie up your horses in front of the store at the stump post. Quite frankly, this is the kind of thing that we’re doing with this piece of legislation.

1420

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Carleton-Mississippi Mills.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I was interested in hearing the member from Beaches-East York talk about the consultation, or the attempt at consultation, with regard to an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill covers many, many different acts. I think there are 60 different acts in this particular case.

The previous member, from Brantford, just talked about the fact that there had been omnibus, or large, acts before. But there’s a difference in the process that your government is taking and that our government took. When our government was there, we went to the opposition benches and said, “Are there any sections that you object to?” And if there were sections that the opposition objected to, we withdrew them from the bill. We did that before we tabled the bill in this Legislature, so we actually gave the opposition parties a real opportunity to have a say with regard to an omnibus bill. We didn’t want to sneak anything in, under the carpet, when there are so many sections to deal with, so many acts to deal with. We wanted to be fair with the opposition, and we were fair.

Mr. Mike Colle: Ha.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Well, we were, quite frankly, in the process. Why don’t you come forward to us, the opposition, with this bill and say that you, the government, will withdraw any sections which we object to? Will you do that? If you don’t do it, then you are not as open as we were when we were in power.

It’s unfortunate that this government continues to try to ram legislation through, and in this case, a huge omnibus bill. There is a great danger that when an omnibus bill is introduced and passed in this Legislature, some significant change in the law will take place without adequate notice to the public.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The Attorney General has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I would like to thank the members from Simcoe North, Beaches-East York, Brant and Carleton-Mississippi Mills for their comments and observations. We will, of course, have the chance to debate these issues.

Technical briefings have already been offered, undertaken, and are ongoing. I would say to the member from Beaches-East York, I know he was in attendance at a technical briefing; the technical briefing continued after, without the member present, I understand, for some several hours, and will continue to the extent that he requires it.

I say that to all members. Of course there’s a lot here. We want to make sure that everybody understands exactly what is here. It’s interesting that the comments so far are about the process and not the substance. I’m sure we’ll get into the substance at some point.

I would say with respect to consultation and the issue about changes to the municipal elections, I remember that we started a consultative process that has AMO involved at every level. With respect to the provincial offence matters, I would remind people that we have had a working group with municipalities for some period of time. I would say with respect to the general consultative process-and this is the difference between a political and a public service or ministry issue-you will find inherent in the suggestions and changes that are part of the 600-odd that some of these issues have been around for years, but they just never found their way into the appropriate technical briefing. They have to be done. They need to be done. Everybody agrees that they need to be done.

With respect to the Carleton-Mississippi Mills member’s remembrance of the omnibus bills they introduced and the consultation, I would say that differs greatly from that of many members of this House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further debate? The member from Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m asking for unanimous consent of the House to defer the lead of the PC caucus until a later date.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Mr. Dunlop asked for unanimous consent to stand down the lead for the Progressive Conservatives, the loyal opposition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 212, An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts. I think it goes by the name of the Good Government Act, 2009. I understand it was introduced in the House last Wednesday afternoon. This is the first time-I myself just got a copy of the bill this morning. When I came to my desk there was one in my folder here. I can tell you right now that although some of the things have been on the Web and I understand that there have been technical briefings offered to members of the House, we really haven’t had a chance to caucus this or even look at any of the details in the bill.

Apparently, the minister said that there were 22 ministries affected, some 600 amendments or corrections to make. I know that although that seems like a lot, he sort of downplayed the fact that there were 600, and he didn’t feel it was a major concern. That is a lot of information for a caucus like the Progressive Conservative caucus or the New Democratic caucus to look at.

We talked about the consultation that has taken place with this legislation. Again, I wouldn’t have known until I read the bill that there was a good government bill coming down at all. Obviously we have omnibus bills around, and we’ve had a number of them in this House. I understand all the different parties have passed them. However, this has been quite a surprise to us. We won’t even have an opportunity to discuss this as a caucus until tomorrow afternoon, when we meet and decide how we will approach our stakeholders. I think it’s important.

When you have 22 ministries affected and this many changes, a “shall” or a “may” in any particular amendment can have a major effect on a lot of different stakeholders. That’s my concern. What is in here may be well-intentioned as far as the ministries are concerned but may have a negative impact or a positive impact on someone else when the amendments are made, and could have a financial impact or whatever.

I don’t know; I’m hoping that no ministry would want to sneak in some phrase that they would like to have seen for years. I’m not so sure that that type of thing happens in an omnibus bill. However, I want to make sure, particularly in my portfolio-and I’m going to go through the points in my portfolio here in a moment-that all of the stakeholders I deal with in community safety and correctional services know, each and every step of the way, what changes have been made.

You know yourself, Madam Speaker, that quite often when we have committee hearings on any bill-we had a subcommittee meeting here a little bit earlier on Bill 203, the interprovincial policing bill. It doesn’t look like a very complex bill right now; in fact, it could probably fit in any one or two pages of this omnibus bill.

Even with this bill, it doesn’t appear to be complex; however, we have to look forward and make sure we notify all of our stakeholders so that they know what the impacts are and whether or not there will be an impact on their particular organization, association or on the individuals, whatever it may be.

As we move towards that, although the minister said that there’s been a lot of consultation on this legislation, I’m concerned that there has not been enough consultation, and each and every one of us in our critic portfolios will have to go out and approach a lot of people to see if they have any concerns with it, get it on the website, send them copies etc., so that as we move forward, we’ll know that they have been adequately served by this House, even with what the minister would refer to as these housekeeping types of corrections to the legislation.

I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, in my particular case, which is schedule 9. There are a number of changes here, and a lot of them will have an impact.

“Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994

“The act is updated to reflect changes in the related federal legislation.”

1430

For that particular amendment right there, I would want to contact all of my hunters’ and anglers’ organizations within my riding to make sure they know that this has changed and it’s not going to have any kind of a negative impact on how they do business in their particular association.

It was the same thing when we moved forward with Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry) 2000. Corrections are made to the French version of this act. That seems fairly reasonable.

The Coroners Act: “Under current subsection 40(3) of the act, a judge may issue a bench warrant directed to a sheriff or police officer; this is amended so that the bench warrant is directed only to a police officer. Current clause 56(1)(c) of the act allows for regulations prescribing the composition of the oversight council; this is re-enacted to allow the regulations to also prescribe the composition of the complaints committee of the oversight council.”

Unless I’m mistaken, I thought that’s what Bill 115 was all about. We just finished passing Bill 115 in this House, and I thought we would have made those types of corrections on Bill 115. Correct me if I’m wrong on how we’re actually going about this, but the Coroners Act was quite controversial. It goes back to Justice LeSage’s report. I’m curious how we’re now making an amendment to an act that we just amended just within the last year.

The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act: “Section 10 of the act is amended to exempt operations or service continuity plans from the requirement that emergency plans be made publicly available.” Again, this affects every municipality in the province of Ontario. Although it seems like a minor amendment, I want to make sure that our stakeholders and our municipalities are aware of that.

The next section is the Mandatory Blood Testing Act, 2006. “The definition of ‘analyst’ is re-enacted to reflect the current name of the central public health laboratory and to allow for other laboratories to be prescribed by regulation. The French version of the definition of ‘listed communicable disease’ is corrected.”

I just want to double-check on this one. This is one that I go back to my Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police Association and the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association-they were all people who had major concerns with the Mandatory Blood Testing Act, both my private member’s bill that was passed in this House and the updated version of 2006. Again, we have concerns with that, and although they might be minor, they may have a major impact.

The Ministry of Correctional Services Act: “A number of obsolete references are deleted: the definitions of ‘provincial director’ and ‘young person,’ references to a place of open custody, secure custody or temporary detention and the Custody Review Board, references to the repealed Parole Act … and Penitentiary Act …, which are replaced with a reference to the current federal act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act…. Clause 58(c) of the act is repealed since it applied to a provision of the act that was itself previously repealed.”

There are a number of those here: “Amendments are made throughout the act to change the name of the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board.” That would seem to be insignificant.

“Subsection 10(2) of the act currently provides that personal information about an individual may be disclosed by a person designated by the regulations. This is re-enacted to permit such disclosure by a person employed by the ministry and designated by the deputy minister….

“Subsection 34.1(2) of the act, which currently provides that the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board has exclusive jurisdiction in prescribed circumstances to determine whether an inmate has earned remission, is repealed.” I know that this appears to be strictly a housekeeping portion of the act. However, again, I’ve been dealing with OPSEU recently and people on the parole board and probation board, and they’ve got some concerns with the government and how they’ve handled some of the human resource issues etc. Again, I’d want to make sure that everybody was happy with that, although that part does seem fairly reasonable.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: “A definition of the term ‘business day’ is added to the act.” When we did the OSPCA Act a year ago-I think that was Bill 105, if I’m not mistaken. We had a lot of interest and concern around that bill. Again, this wasn’t brought up at that point, and I’m curious why we wouldn’t have made those amendments when we did the Bill 105 hearings. As you know, there was controversy around the OSPCA and the Toronto Humane Society. I think, Madam Speaker, you were actually on that committee. Again, we would like to have a peek at that and the French-version changes as well.

The Police Services Act: “Subsection 18(4) … which authorizes the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police to appoint employees of the force, is repealed,” and “Clause 57(7)(c.1) of the act provides that an employee of the Ontario Provincial Police is not a member of the public and cannot make a complaint against a member of the force. This clause is repealed; since ‘member of a police force’ is defined to include an employee of the Ontario Provincial Police, the content of clause (c.1) is captured by clause 57(7)(c) of the act.”

Again, I would like to take that particular one to Karl Walsh and Jim Christie, from the Ontario Provincial Police, and let them run it by their legal people in the OPPA to make sure that there’s not some hidden clause that they have concerns with. I think that’s only fair, and it’s all part of the work we have to do as critics. I’m not 100% sure they all understand that, the members of the government.

Finally there’s the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005. You talk about your transparency. As we move forward, this is a brand new bill, and still there are all kinds of portions of that bill that haven’t been enacted. I don’t know why that was not corrected at the amendment stage during the reading of the bill and the committee hearings on that bill. The reality is that I’m getting a lot of concerns now from people who think that this bill is nothing more than a cash cow for the government. For example, people have walked in-one journalist did a story on going into the ministry offices and just getting a licence to be a security guard without any type of training whatsoever. He just gave the money, and they gave him the licence. These are the types of things that you come back to, that you worry about when you hear these weaknesses in the bill. All of a sudden, we’re here making these sort of transparent types of changes that everybody apparently has been consulted on.

As we move forward, I also wanted to talk a little bit about municipal affairs. There seems to be all kinds of applause for Minister Watson and all the consultation he has done on it. I guess I have a couple of questions I would like to have someone answer for me. First of all, the changing of the municipal election date: I’m wondering where that really came from. I deal with nine municipalities, I’m a former municipal councillor myself, and I’ve never yet had anyone ask me to change the date to the fourth Monday in October. I’m curious as to why that was done. It would be interesting to hear the reasons behind it as we move forward. Again, I don’t think it’s going to be something that everybody would jump and yell and scream at. The second Monday in November, I believe, is the date today. However, maybe it’s something to do with Halloween; maybe it’s something to do with Remembrance Day. I’m not really 100% sure of that, but it is interesting why that was brought up as a major change. Quite frankly, I’ve heard a number of members of the government, both in media interviews and in this House, mention that this was the kind of change that was needed. I was just wondering where that actually came from.

It was interesting that a government that has a group supporting them called Ontario’s Working Families Coalition would worry about election spending. I didn’t see anything in there that would stop an organization like Ontario’s Working Families Coalition from supporting a political party at the provincial level, but there seems to be lots of changes made that would help municipalities and people running for municipal elections with their funding. I know in my years on municipal council, coming from a small part of rural Ontario, we never got any support. We never asked for any money, and we never got any money from our constituents. We just financed our own campaigns, and there certainly wasn’t anybody dropping $750 or $5,000 off at our council chambers to help with our campaigns.

1440

It was also interesting to hear the Attorney General speak for quite a while in his opening remarks about the reasons to have a public inquiry. This is something that, on this side of the House, we’re really quite concerned about. This government, when they were in opposition, called for an inquiry almost every day into whatever was happening. One of the major ones that comes to my mind was of course the Walkerton inquiry, when people lost their lives. At that time, the government called an inquiry. They stalled for a couple of days, maybe two or three days, but then the government thought that was the right thing to do. People had lost their lives and there was a reason to have a public inquiry.

We feel very much that way today about the eHealth scandal. We think that is something that calls for a public inquiry, and I was really interested to hear the Attorney General’s remarks on that. I’d like to take it out of Hansard a little later on to see exactly what he meant by that. According to the Auditor General, there was almost $1 billion at stake in the eHealth program, and we feel that when you’re talking about inquiries and you’re bringing in the reasons for an inquiry, in the opening remarks on Bill 212, it really does flag the reasons why, on this side of the House, we did ask for an inquiry. We will continue to ask for that inquiry right up until the time of the next provincial election, because, as I said earlier, when they were in opposition, they asked for an inquiry almost every day. You can go into Hansard and read it-an inquiry on this, an inquiry on this. Now, when there’s $1 billion at stake, when there are concerns about how transparent the government is, when there are concerns about where $1 billion went, especially at a time when we’re running almost a $25-billion deficit, I think the general public has the right to know. Based on the fact that the previous government opened up an inquiry on Walkerton-Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report-I believe the right thing to do to be transparent and forthright with the citizens of Ontario is to actually call for an inquiry on what we call the eHealth $1-billion boondoggle.

As we move forward, again, this is a completely new omnibus bill. As far as we’re concerned, there’s a lot of consultation that has to be done. I have no idea-and it would be interesting to hear from the Attorney General and the minister and any of the comments coming from the members in the House-how much time they expect to have for committee hearings on this. Is this the type of thing that we’re going to have half a day on, or will people from all walks of life who have a concern with these 600 amendments have an opportunity to come forward and propose their amendments and changes?

As the minister said earlier, it seems like a housekeeping bill. He talked about how we’re all on BlackBerrys now, how changes are made etc. But you know what? Everyone doesn’t have a BlackBerry and everyone doesn’t have a computer. Some people like to know exactly what changes are being made and some people like to follow the proceedings of this House very carefully.

It will be interesting to watch the amount of time that’s dedicated to committee hearings on this. Is this the type of bill we’re going to see rushed through before Christmas? Is that what the intention of the government is? Or is it something that we will have committee hearings on in the winter months and then move forward to debating for third reading in the spring session?

With that, I am pleased to speak to this bill this afternoon, and I look forward to a lot of debate on the legislation. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Simcoe North and to what he had to say. Of course, this is a huge bill. This is a bill of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages. He touched on some of the aspects of the bill which I have not yet had a chance to consider, but when he focused in at the end on municipal affairs, my ears pricked up. He started to talk about municipal affairs and how he believes that this government is going to rush through the bill, ostensibly in order to meet the time frame of January 4, that being the date by which any changes must be made in order to have them within the full purview of the election year which starts on that day.

He talked about looking forward to debate in committee and the like. I can only echo his concerns when he talks about sending this to committee, because, quite frankly, this bill has not had much public attention.

As I started to say in the last two-minute go-round-and which I want to embellish and talk a bit more about when I have an opportunity to speak-this bill was brought forward, or at least the minister stood in his place and talked about the bill, on Wednesday afternoon. No advance notice was given to any members of the Legislature, at least not on the opposition side, on what the bill would contain. The 500 or 600 pages were passed across as he was speaking, and we feverishly tried to find out.

But what is even more important than that is that the bill was not generally printed and made available to the public until today, this morning. I’m waiting to hear from a whole broad group of stakeholders throughout the 22 ministries that are affected, about the hundreds of bills that are affected by the changes, because I do believe that this is something which ought not to be rushed through.

I don’t know-the speed is positively dazzling to this point: Speak about the bill on Wednesday, print it on Monday morning, have it debated today and send it to committee as rapidly as you can, with the goal of having it finished before Christmas. I hope that’s not the case.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to have a few minutes to comment on this bill. It is a large bill but I think it’s important to note that many of the amendments-I have been sitting here, flipping through it-are to correct the French translation of something; to change the name of the ministry so it’s currently accurate; to reflect some change that has been made in another act and make the two acts consistent. So while there are many amendments, a lot of them are truly technical in nature and really wouldn’t be of any interest to the public.

I noticed that there are some substantive changes to the Municipal Elections Act. There has been some comment on changing the municipal and school board elections from the second Monday in November to the fourth Monday in October. My understanding is that that is because a number of candidates-as somebody who used to campaign in municipal elections-have noted that a lot of the campaigning you did in November was after the fall-back calendar change that we just went through and you end up canvassing in the dark. By moving the election date forward a little bit, the campaigning is done early. That may not be of any concern to the gentlemen in the crowd but it certainly is of concern to many women candidates that you’re not trotting around in the dark.

The issue around the voters list for municipal elections: People may not realize that the process is different for federal and provincial elections versus municipal. For the first time this would allow municipalities to use information from the Registrar General, which includes who is dead-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. The member from Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen intently to the member from Simcoe North, who dealt with section 9. I think the most important thing that he said was, in a précis here: The devil is in the details here. When you change the subtlety of words from “may” to “shall” and other legal terms, it’s something that should be a wake-up call.

This actually comes down to whether or not you trust the Premier. If you promise one thing and you do another, you often lose the trust of the people of Ontario. That’s really what’s at score here.

There are some 26 sections in this and each of us, as critics, has a portion of the bill. I think there are 22 different ministries involved as well.

I’ll just read the subtlety of one little section in the brief. It relates to the observation by the member from Simcoe North. This is in schedule number 16. It’s the Perpetuities Act: “The rules of law and statutory enactments relating to perpetuities do not apply and are deemed never to have applied to a trust fund required by subsection 9(1) of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act…”-what does that mean? Nuclear fuels-in my riding of Durham, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act is a huge, ongoing, forward-moving liability, because there is no solution for nuclear waste. But that Perpetuities Act changes a word, which could be tested in the courts. That is just one example of one very small section in a 300-page piece of legislation.

The very next section deals with the Taxation Act. This one here is also a very important subliminal change of taxation. Schedule 17, which we’ve gone over, talks about subordinate pension funds for the public sector. So all this language is the issue, and I’m curious as to why they’re putting this huge legal bill into such a big document.

1450

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Mike Colle: I wanted to comment on the presentation just made and say that the member from Durham mentioned 26 sections of this bill, and it brought back nightmarish memories of an infamous bill here called Bill 26, which was the mother of all omnibus bills. It changed the whole health care system; it changed the municipal system. It was an incredible bill. If you want to see how this is so different from that incredible nightmare, Bill 26, and how it was rammed through and probably made the most significant changes in Ontario history-it was considered the biggest omnibus bill in Ontario history. So Bill 26-look it up.

Anyway, just to this bill, I think there are rational things done here to improve some of the technical aspects of government and also to refine some changes that have taken place, because as legislation is written-in Ontario, the tradition is to write it in both French and English-there have to be changes in both official languages. So that is one technicality.

But there are some areas that the Attorney General mentioned that he wants feedback on from the opposition. He’s willing to listen and he’s offered all kinds of opportunities for technical briefings. So I hope the members of the opposition will do that, and I hope the stakeholders in the general public will forward any questions they have about the impact of this bill in their general area, and that’s legitimate and fair. Hopefully we can get that feedback in place and make this good governance bill one that essentially makes government-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. The member from Simcoe North has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to thank the members from Beaches-East York, Guelph, Durham and Eglinton-Lawrence for their comments.

I really just want to say, as I mentioned a number of times during my comments earlier, that this is a complex bill. It’s not that a lot of these amendments aren’t necessary. I think that’s a foregone conclusion; there are omnibus bills around and have been in the past. But I am concerned about how many people-although they say there’s been a lot of consultation on this piece of legislation, it’s the first I’ve heard about it. Okay? The first I heard about it was last Wednesday. I normally understand this type of legislation when it’s coming forward or know something is actually happening, like the Barrie-Innisfil act or even the cross-border policing act. With these types of things, your mind is sort of waiting for them to take place. This one we didn’t expect.

There are amendments to the City of Toronto Act-there are a couple here-not major amendments like the member from Eglinton-Lawrence was expecting. I think he wanted to go back and reverse the whole City of Toronto Act, and I’m amazed that it wasn’t in it. The reality is, you have an opportunity to put a private member’s bill through. Why-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Order. The member for Eglinton-Lawrence, please.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: If the City of Toronto Act was so bad, can you tell me why they haven’t reversed it or revoked it? We hit a nerve there, eh? The reality is, you can talk and babble on all you want, but the bill was what everyone wants today.

So we look forward to extensive committee hearings on this. I think it’s important that all stakeholders that are affected by these 600-some amendments actually have an opportunity to know that they are taking place. Whether small amendments or large amendments, they need to know that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: Just by way of comment before I get into the meat of the bill are a few questions and a few statements about the bill itself. When we were told there was going to be a bill brought forward and it was going to be a “good government” bill, of course we were wondering what that could potentially or possibly mean, because anyone who understands good government, or the origins of that phrase, would of course go back to the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act of 1867. The whole raison d’être of our parliamentary system was to provide peace, order and good government. So I was wondering whether this was a constitutional bill at all and whether or not that’s what was going to come about, as such.

Then my mind strayed a little and thought about how other jurisdictions applied good governance. The United Nations defines it as “participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law”-eight things for good governance. I thought that maybe this bill was going to be a little bit of that.

You can imagine my surprise when it was none of the above. In fact, this is a housekeeping bill. In fact, if you look at the purport at the beginning of the bill, and if you look at what is contained therein, it doesn’t talk about good governance at all in the paragraph saying what the bill is about. I don’t know who thought up the title, but certainly this is not a bill about good governance. This is a housekeeping bill and in fact, within the body of the paragraph explaining the nature of the bill, it’s quite clear that this is a housekeeping bill.

I am wondering why the government insists on calling this bill something that it is not. I think what they are trying to do is to convince people that they are a good government, or that they are governing properly, or that this bill is just something in a long continuum of government bills to do very little but to highlight various ministries.

When I think of good governance, I do not think of what is happening here in this Legislature. I do not look in terms of what this government is attempting to do, in terms of its lack of accountability, its transparency, its efficiency, its effectiveness around the whole issue-like the eHealth scandal. If this is a bill that is intended to make the government more efficient and effective and transparent and accountable, I would suggest this bill has failed.

I also look at this government in terms of its lack of success in increasing equity and inclusiveness in Ontario because I know the government has said many times that they want to do things about poverty and food bank use and the gap between the rich and the poor. Potentially that’s going to be exacerbated by the HST. If that is the intention of this bill, I think this government has failed.

In terms of their good governance around the lack of broad participation in government decision-making, I go back some time now to when I was summarily removed from each and every poverty discussion that took place around Ontario because it was for invited guests and Liberal members only. I’m just wondering, is this the government coming to the conclusion that democracy should be participatory? If it is, I don’t know why they took so long in consulting with people or letting the facts come out about this bill.

Then there’s also the lack of responsiveness which the United Nations said has to be done for good governance. I give but one example, and that’s dump site 41. To those who are opposed to the Clarkson gas plant and even those concerned about the health impact of wind turbines, it doesn’t seem that ordinary people are being consulted or are being given all of the information that they need to come to rational and good decisions.

It’s very important to examine this bill. Will it enhance participation? Will it increase transparency by making information about government decisions more freely available? Will it ensure that government serves all stakeholders within a reasonable time frame? Will it help to mediate the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus that is in the best interests of the whole community? Will it promote equity? Will it encourage effectiveness and efficiency? Will it promote accountability? Or is this bill, as I suspect and as the minister finally got around to saying, merely a housekeeping bill? It’s changing a few little words, it’s fixing up a mistranslation, it’s tinkering around the edges, and it’s really much ado about nothing.

1500

This is an omnibus bill. It’s 300-plus pages-I think it’s more than that, but I’m just going to err on the side of caution and say it’s about 300-plus pages-26 schedules, hundreds of sections of acts. It was introduced for first reading last week. What is contained in the bill was not posted on the website until Thursday. Second reading is being held today-Monday-and is going to continue on Tuesday and Wednesday. Think about how fast this has happened: It’s introduced last week, it’s put on the website on Thursday, it’s printed today. Second reading starts today, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Now, it’s very difficult for members in this House to get a handle on what is happening, but it is even more difficult for even the best-resourced stakeholders to understand and comment on this bill, not to mention those who don’t have policy staff available to review the bill.

When I stood in this House last week to respond to the minister, I was at some considerable disadvantage. The minister, of course, is not at a disadvantage. The government members are not at a disadvantage. Most of them have had an opportunity to be briefed on the bill, to talk to the minister about the bill, to cheer on the minister, who reads his prepared speech made by his political staff on the wonders of the bill. Those of us on the opposition side scrambled, in the five minutes or so that we had to look at the bill, to try to come to some kind of conclusion on what was contained therein. It is a very difficult process, and I rather enjoyed the humour the next day when I commented on the possibility of municipal election day occurring on Halloween. I was chided by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in his most inimitable way; he talked about how I should go out and buy a calendar and other kinds of, I think, silly statements.

He was asked questions by the member from Huron-Bruce, but I would ask either of them to ever try to respond to a 600-page bill in five minutes, because I doubt very much that they could do it. It’s very easy to sit there having all of the knowledge and to protect it and not tell anybody what’s there, and then pretend that you are the fount of all that knowledge. The reality is that it doesn’t happen, and the reality is that if I had a 100-year calendar in my pocket, I would have pulled it out. It’s pretty simple. I’m waiting for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to tell me at what bank he gets one of those, because I’ve been looking for one for a long time. They used to be in the phone book; they were very handy. I used to use them a lot when I worked in the immigration department to try to determine dates, when things actually occurred and the days on which they occurred, but I haven’t seen one for a long time.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: BlackBerry may have one, but I am one of those people who refuses to bring a BlackBerry into this House because I believe that the BlackBerry ought not to be in this House; in fact, that is the rule of this House, although I know that many members are sitting there texting as I watch. I know that that happens, but I believe this Legislature is a place for debate, a reasonable and rational debate.

It’s difficult, as I said, for even the most resourced people to have that information right on the tip of their tongue. So I have taken the opportunity over the last number of days to read the bill, sections of the bill, and to be briefed by people from the department. I would commend the minister for sending over his staff to talk about the bill, but they made it very clear to me that the section of the bill that would be of the most interest to me as the municipal affairs critic revolved around those sections dealing with municipalities, and I agreed. I came for the section to which I was invited, which was a round at municipalities. I do admit, due to the traffic problems in Toronto, that I was about three minutes late, but I was there for the entire balance of the presentation. I was very disappointed, with the questions that I asked, that they were all deemed to be political in nature and would not be responded to by the staff. Even though the staff seemed more than willing to answer them, the person from the minister’s office made it quite clear that they would not be allowed to answer them.

I started to study some more, and I started to wonder why the government is proceeding at such a lightning pace. What is the impetus? Now, I do acknowledge that some of the changes to the Municipal Act and the Elections Act will have to be made in pretty short order. I understand that. But most of the other bills are of very limited consequence. Whether they take place before we break for the fall session or whether they’re still around when we come back in February or March, I think, is of very little consequence.

It’s not a good omen, I would suggest, for accountability, transparency and participation. The press release that the government put out talked about improving clarity, transparency and accountability. I fail to see, with anything that has been done so far, any reading of the bill, how that is going to be accomplished.

The explanatory note, as I said, to the bill stated, “The bill is part of the government initiative to promote good government,” but the bill itself mentions housekeeping in its preamble and not good government.

So we have to look to each of the component parts, and I’m going to confine myself, now that I’ve prefaced my remarks with the whole process by which everything is hidden and is secret around here until the last minute, to what is actually contained within the body of the bill. The first thing is the provisions, and I’m going to talk only about two things: the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act changes and the Ontario Municipal Board, both of which come in the ambit of one of my critic portfolios. I’m going to leave the discussions of other sections of the bill and other ministries to other members of the caucus.

In terms of the Municipal Elections Act changes, there are some changes; some of them are welcome, and I want to talk about those welcome changes. But I also want to talk about things that are not in the bill that should be in the bill and to encourage the minister to make substantive changes when this goes to committee or before it goes to committee.

Some of the things that are in there: There is a new contribution limit of $5,000 per donor per electoral jurisdiction, and within that donation, there remains the $750 limit per candidate. The second thing that I noticed in reading in there is that there is the elimination of the ability to carry forward surplus campaign funds from one election to another, starting after this election-I’m going to get back to why that’s not good enough; starting with this election-and to have the surpluses turned over to the municipality. The third thing that we found that was in there is that there is a clearer definition of what constitutes expenses for fundraising. The fourth thing was that voting stations are going to be accessible, which is a good thing. The next one is that there are going to be changes to the voting process to require that all electors show ID, and I want to talk about that a little more later, too. The next one is improved tracking and updating of voters lists. And last but not least is moving the election date to the fourth Monday of October.

Now, in terms of these, the new contribution limit of $5,000, I would welcome that, except that there is no teeth to it at all. The second one, the elimination of the ability to carry forward surplus campaign funds: I would support that, except it’s not retroactive. There are people who are carrying forth campaign funds from the municipal election in 1999. There are others who have not been a candidate for years but have used a little-known loophole in the extant law to register for one day and withdraw and have that money go forward. None of that is going to be touched. There is a clearer definition of expenses for fundraising so that these cannot be excluded from campaign expense limits, except that there is no teeth to enforce it. Everyone must show ID. I mean, I’m in favour of everyone showing identification when they vote. I think it’s absolutely necessary. There was some existence of election fraud uncovered in the past election and in elections that went before that. But I also want to ask the members, what about places where it’s difficult to get identification?

1510

Some of you have travelled up and around James Bay and Hudson Bay and into remote reserves of First Nations communities where there are no birth certificates; there are no driver’s licences, because there are no roads; there are no health cards. I’ve gone with Gilles Bisson up to his riding, and there are lineups of people trying to get health cards; it’s very difficult to get those in the absence of information.

In most cases, they have no identification at all. Identification is the fact that they are known by their communities. They are known by the chief and the band council. They are known to live there. When they show up to vote, everyone in the town will know who they are, and will know if that is the guy he says he is or if he’s from somewhere else-the towns are small. I don’t know whether there is any provision here for people in First Nations communities who have difficulty getting identification, particularly young people who have not had a lifetime to obtain the necessary documentation, who simply have grown up, gone to school, unfortunately quit school all too early and are known only by their local community.

In terms of the fourth Monday of October, I welcome that change. I remember when I was a municipal councillor and later a mayor, we kept sending letters to the province, when they were asking for election changes, and we kept saying we didn’t like the fact that the election was in December, and later that it was in November. Now, into October, it starts to make sense. The rationale we were given was that this dated back as long ago as Confederation. It was felt to be a good thing-municipal elections used to take place on January 1-because nobody was out working the fields. All the harvesting had been done, and everything that was necessary to be done could be done. Then they moved it to December, using the same argument, and to November, again using the same argument that most of the farm work had been done.

But the reality is that we are an urbanized society, and in most places, people who are running for elected office-they can be farmers too-are mechanized and have made the kinds of inroads that we can now afford to have the election in October. It makes sense to me that it takes place before daylight savings time ends and certainly before it gets cold, and potentially before some of the damage that is done on Halloween.

Just to reiterate and perhaps expand about the legislation and why I think it doesn’t go far enough, I have to question-I questioned the staff and they wouldn’t answer this, so perhaps the minister or the parliamentary assistant will answer-why donations from unions and corporations aren’t banned outright. That would be the easiest possible thing to enforce. It’s not here in this legislation. Instead, you have a $5,000 limit.

We all know what has happened with that limit in the past. I asked earlier about, and gave the example of, the Joe Volpe scenario. You will all remember that he was running for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and on his list of donors were five-year-old children. He had to send the money back, but it was impossible to say where those five-year-old children got the money and why, having that amount of money, they determined they needed to give it to Joe Volpe. It boggles my mind.

I asked the staff when they were there, “Is there any provision, or are you contemplating any provision, whatsoever that would put an end to that?” They told me no. They told me that, under this law, five-year-old children will continue to be allowed to make political contributions in municipal elections. I asked the parliamentary assistant, “Is that what you want in the law? Do you want that?” If you don’t want that, please do something about it.

The next thing: Why not ban the carry-overs of surpluses from pre-2007 elections to candidates who didn’t even run in the 2007 election? We have people who have done that. One is a former member of this Legislature. I remember asking questions in this Legislature when he was sitting here. He registered to be a municipal candidate. We asked, “Is he a municipal candidate and doesn’t he have to resign?” By the next day, of course, he had withdrawn his nomination, but the purpose was not that he wanted to run; the purpose was not to embarrass himself, I’m sure, in this House; the purpose was to secure that money for a subsequent election. All of the rumours circulating around Vaughan are that he will be a candidate in this election, and he has that money that has been carried over. I wonder: Is that what we intend? Sure, you can ban it in the future, but why didn’t you ban the practice? Why didn’t you say, “You can’t use those monies”?

The next election will be an unfair election. All of the people who have carried money over by any means at all from one election or five elections ago are going to have an advantage over every other person who is seeking elective office. That may not be true four years hence. That may not be true in 2014, but why have that continue today? Why is it important to this government that this unfair practice be continued? All of the money could be taken by the municipalities and put into a general revenue fund-heaven knows, the municipalities need the money-and if a candidate is that good, they can go out and get their own money. Some of them already have more money sitting in the municipal bank than they need to run in the election. Then you wonder why incumbents are re-elected and you wonder why ordinary, good citizens who want to participate in the democratic life of the municipality are scared off. I’m saying, if it’s good enough for four years from now, it should be good enough now.

There is a great deal of difficulty in monitoring donations from multiple-link companies concerning the $5,000 limit. People have, we all know, numbered companies; people own shares in companies; people are on boards of directors of companies. When you see company after company making a donation, whether it be $750 or $5,000, in a municipality, you have to know that some people are able to flout the law. There is nothing in here that will make that possible. An outright ban on corporate and union donations would make it nearly impossible to carry out that same rate.

Municipal election financing is overdue for reform. One need only look at the domination of municipal councils and some of the studies that have been done. I want to give special credibility to Professor Robert MacDermid. He shows that corporate donations form a significant percentage of donations in many municipalities and that at least 50% of the 2006 municipal election donations in the cities of Pickering, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Oshawa, Whitby and Mississauga came from corporations and developers. Does that scare this government? I think not, because they took not one bit of action against this. Does it scare people who are democrats at heart-and notice that I didn’t say “New Democrats”-who want to have a fair system where ordinary people can participate in the process? I would say, very much so. Deep-pocketed real estate developers have too much influence over municipal election outcomes.

In the 2006 municipal elections, winning candidates received 54% of their funding from developers, whereas the losers only got 35%. Councillors then vote on development proposals from the very people who funded their election. Is anyone surprised how they vote? Professor MacDermid did a detailed analysis of Vaughan, the place that likes to call itself “the city above Toronto” but which many of their residents refer to disparagingly as “the city above the law.” They do so because of all of the shenanigans.

1520

When I had an opportunity in estimates to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs about shenanigans, he was taken aback and said, “What do you mean by that?” So I detailed a great many of the 200 outstanding charges that are pending against three members of council. He said, “That’s okay; the courts will decide about that.” Then I told him about some of the other things, and ordinary citizens being forced to take huge court action. We read on Friday that an ordinary citizen has charged a fourth councillor with breaches of the Municipal Act and influence.

I asked the minister too: Did he make a statement, which is quoted in most of the Vaughan periodicals and the things put out by the city of Vaughan, that the city of Vaughan is a well-run council and a well-run municipality? He shocked the entire world by making that statement. I asked him about all of the changes that might be made, and he was not forthcoming.

Professor MacDermid’s detailed analysis of Vaughan council decision-making between 2006 and 2009 shows that the council approved almost every single development proposal, usually without even having a recorded vote.

If you think ordinary people are not worried about this in the city of Vaughan, then I think you’re mistaken. There are a whole bunch of people out there in the city of Vaughan who care passionately about their community, their municipality and election laws that are almost impossible to enforce. All Ontarians have the right to fair and unbiased municipal election results that serve the interests of communities and not private interests.

Election financing laws: When the Minister of Municipal Affairs was asked last week why he didn’t take this extraordinary step, why the legislation is silent on this, he said it was because this isn’t the law that we have in the province of Ontario, and we don’t want to tell the municipalities that they should have one law when we in fact have another.

Well, there’s a solution for that. It’s not to go out and say, “Do as I say, not as I do.” What is the right thing is to ask, is it right in Ontario that we continue to have laws that allow for corporate and union donations?

I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant, who heckled me on this, that I would gladly do away with union donations if we do away with corporate ones too. Although union donations in a place like the city of Toronto constitute 2% versus 35% for corporate donations, they are still not what we want to see. We want to see a law where ordinary citizens raise the funds, put forward their candidates, vote and have control of the outcome, rather than have big, high-priced financing taking place. It is wrong.

The governments of Manitoba and Quebec already ban union and corporate donations while providing political parties with modest financial compensation. The government of Canada does exactly the same thing. The government of Nova Scotia, this past week, the brand new elected government, moved in exactly the same direction, and that will be the last unfair election, the one that just happened there, in terms of corporate and union donations, because if the bill is passed there, they will join the ever-increasing ranks of people who see democracy as not beholden to corporate and union interests but to ordinary people.

After seeing this bill last week, Professor MacDermid said, “I had hoped for something more, such as a ban on corporate or trade union donations.” As I said, Minister Watson said it would be hypocritical to ban these, because they are allowed at the provincial level; in other words, because corporations are able to exert undue influence at the provincial level, they should be allowed to do so at the municipal level as well. That’s another way of looking at his words.

The bill limits how much can be spent to $5,000 per jurisdiction. In a place like the city of Toronto, where we are now, where I come from, where I represent, $5,000 is pretty hard to spread around amongst 44 incumbent councillors and one mayor. Spreading $5,000 45 ways is pretty small potatoes-it’s less than 100 bucks.

But what about in other jurisdictions? There are 444 municipalities in the province of Ontario. Toronto is huge in comparison to any of the others. But in local municipalities across this province, in rural and northern areas, the norm is to have five councillors and a mayor or a reeve. That’s the norm. That’s what they have, that’s what there is there. When you have five councillors and a reeve, then you have six people. You spread that $5,000, and you can literally-you can’t even do it; you’re only allowed $750 per person. You’ll still have money left over. So I have to question, outside of Toronto, whether this limit is appropriate, because in the majority of towns in Ontario, it remains too high.

According, again, to Professor MacDermid, “Disclosure and campaign contribution limits [are] difficult to enforce” because the true ownership or control of private corporations cannot be known. The same individual can make numerous $5,000 donations through associated or numbered companies, and that’s just, unfortunately, the way it is.

In 2006, corporate donations in the GTA municipal elections exceeded 75% of total donations in Oshawa, Pickering, Whitby, Richmond Hill, Brampton and Vaughan, and not a single word is contained in the bill on this. This is the most egregious practice-not a single word. In Minister Watson’s opinion, we can’t go there because, in Ontario, we take that kind of money.

There is an opportunity and there would be an opportunity for a rebate program. Rebates now exist in Markham, Oakville, Ottawa and Toronto, and you will note that none of these four municipalities that offer rebates get most of their donations from corporations. They give rebates. The City of Toronto Act allows for the city of Toronto to effect change around corporate and union donations, but also allows them and other municipalities like Markham, Oakville and Ottawa to have a rebate program. So if an ordinary individual and citizen sees fit to give $100, $200 or $300 to their favourite municipal candidate, they can get a portion of that back, in exactly the same way that people who give to political parties, both provincially and federally, can get some of their money back at income tax time. The cities, in fact, that participate give a portion of the money back to those who participate in the election process, thereby taking away the influence of corporations and unions. So there is an option available, but this government has not seen fit to do it.

Second, the bill does not take measures to allow all municipalities to ban corporate donations. As I said, the City of Toronto Act allows the city of Toronto to ban corporate donations, and I believe that debate will be coming before Toronto council in the coming weeks. I can only encourage the councillors to vote for it. I have spoken to my own local councillor about the need to do so.

I would suggest that other municipalities be allowed the same degree of freedom, because only the city of Toronto alone of the 444 municipalities has that right. Other municipalities like Hamilton have asked for that right and have asked for the province to move on this accord, but of course the province has not. If the province is unwilling to move forward on this issue, then let the municipalities at least have that option, because I believe that the majority of them will struggle with it, but will see the right: that they don’t want to be beholden to corporate and union interests.

The next thing that I found rather shocking in the last election was that the Liberals made an election promise, which they reiterated in 2004, that they would form a citizens’ jury to make recommendations to the government regarding changes in how provincial political parties and election campaigns are financed. There is nothing in here-they’ve never done it. They did form a type of jury to look at proportional representation, but nothing whatsoever in terms of how provincial political parties in election campaigns are financed. They never set up the jury, and the only recommendation that ever came about donations was that they be disclosed within 10 days. It is clear that this remains a problem to many people.

1530

Donation limits as well are too high at $8,400 annually to parties, doubling to $16,800 during election years, with a combined total of $5,600 annually to each party’s riding association or election candidates. I would suggest we should follow the federal rules and lower that to $1,100. Then and only then will we have the moral authority, the moral suasion to go to the municipalities and suggest that they too can act in that way.

The changes to the Municipal Elections Act are welcome-those that are there-but this is a very timid approach that will be nearly impossible to carry out. People in the city of Vaughan, particularly, write to me a lot because they’re frustrated with this government. They’re frustrated that they’re trying to do something, that there are court cases-200 outstanding charges against the mayor and two of the councillors, more outstanding charges that were laid last week against a third councillor, and nothing seems to be happening. They write to me and they ask about this act, because they believe that this act in its present form, as put forward in this House, is unenforceable. There are approximately, they’ve said, 200 contraventions of the elections act between three sitting members of council in Vaughan, and all three members are still there voting, three years after the election, because the process is not a good process.

Then the government talks about setting up a mandatory committee that council will establish to review audit requests. How is that going to be set up? It’s going to be set up by the council following the election. They’re going to set it up, I think, with people who are known to the council-the councillors and the mayor-without checking; there is no requirement to check on their reliability, their thoughts. It’s not like the process that goes on here at Queen’s Park. The citizens of Vaughan are worried that should such an audit committee be set up, it’s going to do exactly the same thing as councils.

I remember my frustration at the megacity. Following that election in which the municipalities of Toronto were formed into one large megacity the citizens did not want, still don’t want, still don’t need, they set it up. There were 57 of us, 57 people in that council. I remember in that council the debate that went on in that election and the subsequent election about people flouting the rules, particularly in the subsequent one.

There were two egregious examples where it was brought forward to council, and what was council going to do about it? One of the examples was extremely well documented. One of the losing candidates had affidavits; he had pictures showing that the winning candidate had put up signs illegally, had put them up in advance of the time, had taken contributions illegally. It was extremely well documented. He brought forward the case to the council and the mayor. The majority of council said, “No, we’re not going to investigate this because if we investigate this councillor, then who is to say that we ourselves could not be investigated?”-the exact words coming from the then mayor, Mayor Lastman.

The other egregious example that happened during the same election involved Mayor Lastman himself, because he had a huge amount of money. You have to remember, in the second campaign he was running unopposed, or virtually unopposed. He had huge amounts of donated capital that he didn’t need to spend in order to win. So what he did is, he farmed some of that money out so that people that he was supporting would do a mayoral piece in which they were included with their arm around the mayor, that it would only be put out in their prospective municipal wards, and that it was entirely paid for by the mayor. These councillors who were on the mayor’s team were given the gift of free literature which they could pass out, pretending it was a mayoral campaign. When this was brought to people’s attention, the mayor told the council that it should not be investigated-because he didn’t want to be investigated either-and that, in fact, it was all well and good and the mayor should be allowed to support those candidates that the mayor wanted to. Council, in its wisdom, again, voted not to enforce the law and not to ask for a review, and didn’t do it.

I am afraid that this same kind of thing is going to happen here with what is being suggested, because this group of citizens appointed by council and known by council may take the same way. The only fair thing that can be done-and I’ve talked about it in this Legislature before-is to have the electoral authorities who work for the province of Ontario also monitor those things that happen in the municipalities. I would agree that it may take a few additional staff, but they are staggered at different times so that there would be the opportunity to look at whether there were other egregious examples, whether there were other fall-downs in the law, and have something done about it. But there is nothing contained in this bill. There is nothing at all. I think the provincial body needs to oversee the audits of these elections.

With the few minutes I have left, I want to switch gears. I’ve talked enough about municipalities. I think this government needs to have tougher legislation. We know the problems that exist in some places. We know that whole gut-wrenching situation in Vaughan particularly, with everybody being charged and in court and a municipal council that I would suggest, with the greatest of respect to Minister Watson, is not working well. We need to make sure that the people have the best representation possible. But I would like to turn my attention now to the Ontario Municipal Board Act changes.

This was one of the ones that I saw right away, because it was of interest to me when I opened up that bill in my five minutes. It took away the rights of ordinary citizens to appeal decisions from the Ontario Municipal Board to the cabinet. Now, this has been a right that has existed in Ontario for absolute decades, and this right has been taken away.

But over the weekend I had an opportunity to read in more depth about the Ontario Municipal Board Act changes, and another thing came out. The thing that came out was that it removes the restrictions on members of the Ontario Municipal Board relating to investments or employment in municipalities, railways, and public utility companies. I have to question why. Why does this government want to remove those restrictions? In the past, OMB members could not be employed by municipalities, railways and public utility companies, for a very good reason: because they are there to pass decisions on land use planning matters, the land use planning of the municipality, the railways and the utility companies that own the transmission lines, the railway tracks and the municipal land. So they could not be seen to be beholden to the municipality or to act against the municipal interest when an ordinary citizen came forward.

This is being changed. Can any government member tell me why you are going to allow OMB members to be employed by municipalities, railways or public utilities? It makes absolutely no sense to me, and I think we need an answer to that.

The second thing, and back to the first point that I saw: It ends the petitions to cabinet on decisions by the board. The cabinet has been a safeguard. Although the appeal process is poor and the entire appeals process for a generation has been cloaked in secrecy, and some have said it is biased against ordinary people with fewer resources who lack access to decision-makers, it has been a safeguard. I have seen it used twice in the former borough of East York. It was used once when True Davidson was the reeve and subsequently became the mayor, so this would have been back in the 1960s, on that building which stood on the Bayview extension that became known as the Bayview ghost. Anybody who ever drove by it-it was an apartment building that they started. They put it up, but before they could put the wiring inside, before they could do anything-the Ontario Municipal Board had approved it-cabinet came along and said no, it wasn’t appropriate and good land use planning.

1540

The owner of that building had it there for many years and subsequently and fortunately, while I was mayor, sought permission to tear it down. It was there as an eyesore on the Bayview extension for all to see how land use planning and the Ontario Municipal Board did not do the right thing. It was cabinet that determined that that was not an appropriate use under the act, and it was cabinet that stopped it cold. It was cabinet that also set out what was appropriate on that land so that at the time when I was mayor, it was a fairly easy decision when the developer sold the interest and a gentleman came forward and said, “I’ve bought this land.” We said, “Well, don’t come to us. This is already the subject of a cabinet order, and this is what you can build on this land: You can build houses. You can’t build multi-residential, you can’t build commercial, you can’t build industrial, but you can build houses.” He went away and he determined-what else could he do? But I think the decision that was made by the cabinet was a good one. It was a decision that the OMB would not make, and it was a decision that the municipalities would not have gone ahead and fought through the courts because that is a huge and expensive proposition.

The second example is a much better one-much, much better. I was a wannabe councillor. I was running in the municipal election; I ran three times municipally before I won. But I do remember the first election in which I was running, and I remember that the whole debate was what to do with the Brickworks, again on Bayview Avenue. The Brickworks had been sold to a development interest, and the people who lived in the immediate proximity and, in fact, most East Yorkers wanted the Brickworks to be kept for public use. They wanted it to be a type of park; it is in the flood plain of the Don Valley.

The development interests, of course, got hold of it, and they went to the Ontario Municipal Board. Of course, to nobody’s surprise, the big deep pockets and the lawyers and the planners and everybody else they had won. But the Ontario government was then asked to intervene and, I think to the everlasting credit of the Peterson government and particularly to the minister at that time, Lily Munro, they stepped in, and they stopped the decision. They stopped the OMB decision cold, and they substituted the decision that it was to be made for public use.

I invite anybody who has not been there to come by the Brickworks and see what is happening. It has been taken over by a group called Evergreen, which has a lot of federal and provincial money. They are restoring the majority of the buildings that were once used to make bricks, the bricks that helped to build literally all of the major buildings in Toronto, including this one. The bricks came from the Don Valley Brickworks. They saved it. It is a park. It is filled with ponds. It’s almost a complete little piece of wilderness, with fish and birds chirping and frogs and everything else when you go in there. It is just amazing, plus the industrial heritage, and it’s there.

I think this was an excellent and a brilliant idea on behalf of the government of the day and the cabinet. Again, it was a Liberal government. It was the Peterson government and Lily Munro who stepped in and who saved that for all Torontonians.

I think that we need to keep that option open. This bill does away with that option. I don’t know why the government wants to do away with that option. It may be cumbersome and it may be difficult for governments from time to time to step in and have to overrule the Ontario Municipal Board, but when it needs to be done, it needs to be done.

These are only two examples in my community. I’m sure there are examples in a great many others. I know that down around St. Catharines there was a whole debate about the minister intervening to save the historical properties in Port Colborne. There’s a whole debate taking place around that, asking the minister to intervene. The people from Port Colborne wrote to me last week and said, “Will you help us get the minister and the cabinet to look at this,” in terms of an override of the Ontario Municipal Board decision, which freely acknowledged that this is going to destroy many of the heritage properties, should the developer get what he wants-the board has already ruled in the developer’s favour. I had the sad duty of writing back informing them of the provision in this bill that is going to take away that right, and that I’m sure everybody on the government side of this House is going to vote for that provision, although I don’t know why. The cabinet should have the final say in preserving some of our historical and heritage properties and in looking at land use planning matters where the environment is involved, as it was in the Brickworks and to a lesser extent, but somewhat, with the Bayview ghost.

It is a safety valve. The one advantage of cabinet appeals is that they ensure accountability by the government for what are genuine and generally policy decisions by administrative tribunals. The decisions made by the OMB are essentially policy decisions in the land use context, and it is difficult for them to be judicially reviewed by a divisional court. Cabinet appeals do provide the safety valve when the tribunal’s decision is reached largely on the basis of facts or policy considerations that do not favour public interest clients.

We need the reforms, but the reforms need to be set out in statute, as in Quebec, so they cannot be readily overridden by future governments. There is the whole question around the appointments process; there is another question around the process of ensuring that people at the OMB possess the expertise they are deemed to have, free of patronage considerations; there is the whole question, too, of intervener funding. None of these things are contained within the bill. The only two things that are contained are both problematic to me; that is, that citizens lose the right of appeal to cabinet, and the whole difficulty of Ontario Municipal Board people being allowed to work for municipalities, railways and utility companies.

In a nutshell, we have some considerable difficulty with these two sections of the bill, the only two to which I’m going to speak. They were given to us in a rush. They were given to us, and copies were not made available to the general public until this morning. We are now faced with three days of hearings completely in a row, and I can only assume that the government is intent on pushing this through as rapidly as possible.

I would concur that there is a need for rapidity on the section dealing with the Municipal Act and Municipal Elections Act, and I would concur that if the government wants to carve this section out and deal with it quickly so that it can be the law and the changes that are necessary can be the law by January 4, we would do everything in our power to facilitate that. Although we do have concerns and we do want a stronger bill and we do want changes made to that, this can be accomplished, with goodwill on all sides, by January 4.

I fail to see, though, why the other sections of this bill have to be dealt with in such rapidity. If they are merely housekeeping-the combining of acts, the changing of legislation, changes of titles, changes of mistranslations from French and a whole plethora of other things-and not to do with good governance, then let us take our time to do it right. It is 600 pages. Let us do it right. I am asking that this bill go to committee, and I am asking that people be consulted. But I am also asking that the government consider severing the bill in two parts: those that are essential and have to be done quickly, and those which are not essential and that we can take our good and marked time to do right.

1550

Those would be my comments on this bill. I await my colleagues; I hope they’ve been listening and will provide some input on what I had to say. I think that for this bill to be successful, for this bill to truly meet the standards that we expect, to truly be open and transparent and part of everyday people coming forward to talk about what is necessary and what can be done, we have to do it right, we have to do it as slowly and as carefully as possible, and I’m asking this government to consider exactly that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. David Zimmer: I just want to make a few comments about the Public Inquiries Act, because that has come up.

Over many years, there have been a number of public inquiries here in Ontario. Some of the public inquiries have been lengthy and complex, and media reports in the paper were indicating that they were convoluted and perhaps from time to time had lost their sense of direction.

What we’ve done in coming up with these amendments is, we have taken the advice of people who are close to these public inquiries, who have given us advice about what worked well, what didn’t work so well and what perhaps caused some of the difficulties, the unnecessary complexity and costs of these public inquiries.

There have been some recent public inquiries that indeed have been models of efficiency in terms of dealing on a very timely basis with the heart of the issue at hand, preparing their report and delivering that report to the appropriate ministry. We’ve consulted with the participants of those public inquiries, people who were close to them. Again, they gave us their best advice on what worked well, what didn’t work so well, various improvements and so on.

We have taken that advice and incorporated that advice into, and it forms the basis of, the amendments and the changes to the Public Inquiries Act. Again, the motive behind this was efficiency, transparency and effectiveness. Public Inquiries Act amendments-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. The member from Wellington-Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I was pleased to hear that tour de force from the member for Beaches-East York. He’s a well-known epicure; I know that. I know him quite well. On Sundays, he spends most of his day preparing meals, cooking and baking for the week ahead. Obviously he spent a lot of time studying Bill 212 on Sunday as well, given the information that he imparted to the House today, and I want to compliment him for that.

I haven’t had the chance to consult with my constituents on Bill 212 to the extent that I normally would want to. Obviously, on October 27 this bill was introduced in the Legislature. Our caucus has not yet had a chance to even discuss it, to determine what our position is going to be, yet the government has called it for debate. It makes you wonder what is buried in these 288 pages.

I’ve had a chance to have a cursory review of it. This bill opens up I don’t know how many acts in almost every ministry in the government. The government would lead us to believe that it’s all good stuff, it’s all brought forward in a collegial manner to improve-they call it the Good Government Act. I have my suspicions that there’s a lot in here that needs to be studied in great detail. I’ve asked for the advice of the municipal politicians in my riding about the changes to the Municipal Act. I have not yet received a great deal of feedback from them.

I would hope that the government is going to give us an indication soon that this bill will in fact be sent to a committee for public hearings, because I think that we need to have an extensive review of all of the provisions in Bill 212.

Without question, the government is wanting to move forward, to turn the channel on some of the scandals that we’ve talked about in the Legislature in the last few months. But at the same time, I think that it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that Bill 212 receives its fair hearing.

Again, I want to congratulate and commend the member for Beaches-East York for the information that he provided to the House this afternoon. I look forward to continued debate on Bill 212 as this unfolds.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim Brownell: I’m pleased to have a couple of minutes this afternoon to speak, respond and make comments on what we heard across the aisle on Bill 212.

I would like to make a comment first about the aspect of technical briefings. The member did talk about the technical briefings and what he perceived as being a little bit different than what actually happened. He noted that his questions were not answered because they were of a political nature and not technical. Well, I think the technical briefings are just that: to go through this bill, to give the member an understanding of what’s in the bill, and what is covered in those, I believe, 22 ministries that are affected by this bill. I did go through, and I believe I did count up 22 different ministries that are impacted by aspects of the bill. It is not a briefing to debate what was not included or what the member believes should have been included.

That discussion is something that happens here in this Legislature during, first of all, debate, when you can give your ideas and thoughts, and also during question period. Question period is that time when you give political questions, when you throw those political questions across the aisle. That’s where it’s done. It’s not for the officials who engage in those briefings to take part in the debate. They’re there to give the ideas, to give an understanding of what is covered in this bill.

I think, too, that the member was just recently-it was not very long ago that the member did have a question that he asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the Municipal Elections Act, and I think that’s where that dialogue can happen-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I do appreciate an opportunity to make comment on the leadoff speech from the member from Beaches-East York. I think he reminded me before that there was a difference between “Beach” and “Beaches,” and I know that there has been a discussion going on. I think it’s still Beaches-East York, right?

Mr. Michael Prue: It is.

Mr. Dave Levac: Yes, thank you. He nods yes.

His concern laid out with regards to the breadth of coverage in the bill acknowledged that a very large portion of it-and he can confirm whether I’m right or wrong on this-is indeed technical in nature, and that probably one of those bills inside of this has these requirements that need to be changed, modernized and updated. I referenced this earlier in the debate that I was having about other levels of government still having hitching post laws still attached to their bylaws in city councils, where you can’t hitch your horse up to the post outside of a store, and you have to sweep the wooden sidewalks-that kind of stuff.

But having seriousness to what his concerns are, the one concern that I do have is his implication, and maybe he can correct me if I’m wrong, that if any member votes against a certain portion or votes for a certain portion of the bill, they’re wrong, they’re making a mistake. I think somewhere in there he implied-there was a section that he referenced where, in his interpretation, if the back benchers support the legislation, then they’re most definitely wrong and shouldn’t be doing so. Having said that, I’m curious as to whether he could correct that for me, because I know the member, in debate, does not impugn anyone’s desire to vote for or against the bill. He’s just sharing his opinion as to whether or not he would support it, but I’m sure he’s not saying that we are wrong if we do vote for the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Beaches-East York has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to thank the members from Wellington-Halton Hills, Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry and Brant for their comments.

I am perplexed, though, by the member from Willowdale. I didn’t talk about what he had to talk about at all. I never mentioned one thing, so I don’t know what he was listening to or why he made his comment.

The member from Wellington-Halton Hills correctly pointed out that I believe that there should be an opportunity to review and to consult, and I’m looking forward, if this bill does go to committee, to exactly that happening. I don’t think that the time frame to date has allowed for any review or consultation, certainly not with members in this House, and the broader public has only had the copy of the bill available to them since this morning.

1600

The member from Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry talked about a technical briefing, yes, and I do know some of the people-even the staff within the technical briefing were willing to answer my questions; however, the person in charge was not allowing them to do so, and that was quite clear.

For the member from Brant, I’m perplexed and I am puzzled. I think every member in this House needs to vote for what they believe is correct. Whether they be on the government side or on the opposition side, they need to vote for what they believe is correct. I was talking about the municipal elections. The only time that I remember talking at all about voting was those people in the city of Vaughan who are municipal councillors and the mayor continuing to vote on every single aspect, although there are 200 outstanding charges against them. The city and the residents of the city of Vaughan do not think that the law as it currently exists is correct, and this law certainly will not help to end that practice. If people have broken the law, they ought not to be there, in positions of public trust, voting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I’m pleased to recognize the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: And francophone affairs. Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak on our Good Government Act, 2009. As honourable members know, my ministry has submitted a number of proposed housekeeping amendments to several acts that are administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

La plupart des amendements proposés par mon ministère sont secondaires. Ils sont faits avec l’intention de continuer à offrir aux citoyens de l’Ontario un gouvernement fort et efficace.

La responsabilité législative de mon ministère est vaste et englobe la législation concernant l’amélioration de l’accessibilité, la prestation des services sociaux aux personnes vulnérables, et le soutien communautaire aux personnes qui ont une déficience intellectuelle.

Our ministry focuses on people, on helping vulnerable individuals and families who comprise Ontario’s strong and thriving communities, and my ministry’s legislation reflects that. Under the Good Government Act, 2009, my ministry has proposed amendments to our landmark Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. This groundbreaking legislation is helping to improve accessibility in all walks of life. This legislation will continue to guide us in our journey towards an accessible province by 2025.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members for unanimously passing this legislation more than four years ago. That support has helped to propel our accessibility goals, and we are well on our way to reaching our goals. We are also proposing amendments to our social services legislation and to one of my ministry’s newest pieces of legislation, the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008.

La nouvelle loi de l’Ontario sur les services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle, adoptée en septembre dernier, est le fondement de notre travail qui consiste à créer des services aux personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle qui sont modernes, équitables et durables. Cette nouvelle législation aide les personnes qui ont une déficience intellectuelle à obtenir les services et les soutiens appropriés et ainsi à participer pleinement à la vie de leur collectivité.

The new act replaces the 34-year-old Developmental Services Act, written when services were provided mainly for people living in government-run institutions. As honourable members know, our government last year closed the remaining three provincial institutions that had housed nearly 1,000 people with developmental disabilities. Our new legislation helps us build a modern, sustainable developmental services system that reflects how people live today-in communities, not in institutions. For people with a developmental disability and their families, it means better service, more choice and fairness.

We have also proposed changes to legislation that impacts our Family Responsibility Office. The Family Responsibility Office deals with one of the most difficult, emotional and adversarial issues individuals can face: the breakdown of the family. In recent years, our government championed strong legislation that gave the Family Responsibility Office new enforcement tools. With our proposed amendments, we intend to ensure that legislation continues to support the strong enforcement of court orders so that Ontario families, and especially the children, get the money they are entitled to.

We are also proposing amendments to a lesser-known piece of legislation that my ministry is responsible for: the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998.

Vous n’êtes pas sans savoir, chers collègues, qu’un ministère tel que le nôtre ne peut offrir tous ces services sans la collaboration de nombreux partenaires. Ce n’est possible que grâce aux milliers de femmes et d’hommes dans les différents ministères, les municipalités, les agences et les organismes communautaires qui travaillent sans relâche et avec dévouement à la mise en œuvre de nos programmes.

Often at the front line, you will find a social worker or a social service worker offering a critical lifeline to an individual or a family in need. The regulation and professional designation for social workers and social service workers is handled by the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, which operates under this legislation.

As part of my ministry’s 2006 report on the five-year review of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, we agreed to the proposed amendments included in this omnibus bill, as requested by the college. I am proud to support these proposed amendments because, as a member of provincial Parliament, I see first-hand the positive difference that social workers make in the lives of so many people. I am humbled by the personal commitment and the caring that social workers demonstrate amid intense pressures and competing demands. Social workers are critical to all of our cherished social institutions. They provide essential services to women and children who are victims of abuse, people who are homeless, and those who are facing difficult times. I am proud to put forward these requested amendments that will help the college do its job better.

J’espère poursuivre mon travail en collaboration avec tous mes collègues de l’Assemblée législative afin d’apporter un soutien aux Ontariennes et Ontariens qui sont dans le besoin. Je compte sur la qualité et la durabilité de nos programmes et services afin de protéger les citoyens de notre province, renforcer nos collectivités et donner aux familles toute l’assistance dont elles ont besoin pour améliorer leurs conditions de vie.

I call on all members to support this proposed legislation and to support our government’s continuing efforts to provide good government to the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very surprised that the minister spoke so briefly, yet so eloquently, on the institutional changes in Ontario. I think that all members of all parties support that.

I think what I most want to hear in her rebuttal on this thing is, what is she doing to make things more transparent, open and accountable? If I think of the adoption changes, they’re still not working exactly the way they should.

1610

There are other issues, certainly with children with special needs. It’s my understanding that the money is being put back and there’s no money for them in the ministry. I know this doesn’t specifically apply to the bill, but what we’re trying to do here is sell this as good government. It’s a good government bill, but it’s by a bad government right now; they’re in the penalty box. It’s a good government bill by a bad government.

Look at the polls. I’m not trying to be provocative here; I’m just reading the media.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I’m reading the media here, and the compliments they gave our leader. Jim Coyle’s article in the Toronto Star is worth reading.

The government really isn’t doing exactly as it is says, and the bill itself-good government? Good gracious. If the minister really had something to say on this bill: 300 pages, and you speak for less than your allotted time, Minister. I have the greatest respect for the work you’re doing, but it’s not enough. I’m going to speak briefly-I think I may be forced to. I wanted to speak more thoroughly in the time allotted to me, but they’ve rammed this thing through. Madam Speaker, you would know. On October 27, just last week, they introduced it. We haven’t even had briefings on it yet and we haven’t caucused it is yet, and she’s throwing this at us as if we know what the heck is going on. I’m sure she doesn’t know.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: First of all, I congratulate the minister for what she had to say on the bill. It reminds me a little bit of what happened many, many years ago when, after the battle of Gettysburg, someone came to preach, and preached for two hours about the battle, the significance of the battle and why it was important to keep the country together. After that, Abraham Lincoln stood up and spoke for two minutes and sat down. The preacher afterwards said that Lincoln had accomplished more in those two minutes than the preacher had accomplished in two hours.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It wasn’t a preacher.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: All right. Fine, I don’t know my history exactly. The member across the aisle is trying to remind me that it was a speaker who was invited. I don’t know my American history to the last detail, but the bottom line is that everybody knows that the Gettysburg address only took two minutes.

The minister has managed to bring forward and speak about some very important changes that are occurring here. We could talk for hours about this, but at least we talk about it. This government talks about it, and this government sends these things to committee, unlike the previous government, where committee meetings and the majority of bills were time-allocated. There wasn’t time to speak on bills. Here, we allow time to speak and allow debate. The member across can get up and speak himself if he wants to. He can speak about this in committee as well, and he’s allowed to speak to it on third reading.

When I watched this Legislature-I wasn’t a member back in the Mike Harris days-I don’t recall too much debate going on during third reading; maybe someone can correct me. But we have debate on third reading and in committee, and we hear from deputations there. There’s ample opportunity to hear and speak on those items. The minister decided to pick on various sections that affect her ministry and spoke well on them. I congratulate her for doing so, and I wish others would stand up and do the same.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I was pleased to see the minister speak on her particular section of Bill 212. I had a little bit of time this morning and this afternoon to go over it, and I want to specifically raise something the minister did not talk much about.

Section 3, on the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, says, “The act is amended to allow the director to establish policies and procedures that must be considered in the exercise of the director’s powers and duties relating to enforcement in section 6 and in the exercise,” and here’s the important part, “of the director’s discretion to refuse to enforce a support order or support deduction order in section 7.”

I have a lot of concerns with that, and I would like the minister to explain why we are giving discretion to the director of FRO to refuse to enforce a support order. Of course, support orders are put in through our court system. We have a court order system now where you have to go to court and plead your case, and a judge decides the value of money that needs to be given to make that family survive, and yet now with the proposal in Bill 212, we are saying the director’s discretion at FRO “to refuse to enforce a support order.” I would really like the minister to take her two minutes to explain-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Member from Etobicoke North, member from Timmins-James Bay-

Ms. Sylvia Jones: -to justify why we would override a current court system and a current court order that is in place, because we’re essentially saying judges would-

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock for a minute. I’m having trouble hearing the member speak. I would just point to the member from Etobicoke North and the member from Timmins-James Bay to let the member from Dufferin-Caledon have her full two minutes.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’d like the minister to take her two minutes to explain why we are overriding in legislation what the judges have put in place in our court system. I think it would be a very unfortunate waste of our current court system to say the director can overrule what the courts and judges are placing-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments? The member from Eglinton-Lawrence-sorry. The member from Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My, my, Madam Speaker, I am just absolutely-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Eglinton-Lawrence was up first, but due to rotation, I will acknowledge the member from Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I want to, first of all, clarify for the record for my good friend across the way: It turns out that little dispute that we were having about who gave that speech-I was saying it was a senator; he was saying it was a minister of the cloth. Turns out we were both right. It was Senator Everett from Massachusetts, who was also a minister, so I guess we were both right. Anyways, the point was well made. I wouldn’t want to be accused of being unfair, and when you call a spade a spade and it’s a diamond, you better say it was a diamond. So there we go.

I just want to say to the government-we’ll have a chance to speak to this bill a little bit more fully later-that the problem with these types of bills is that you bring in omnibus bills that change a whole raft of legislation, some of which is good. I’ve seen some in this legislation, some of the stuff that you’re wanting to change, that I would support. But there are certainly parts of that legislation that leave a little bit to be desired when it comes to the ability to appeal to the OMB, how far you’re not going when it comes to changes of the Municipal Act-there’s a debate there: Should we go further? It’s probably a step in the right direction, but certainly there are some changes to be made.

It leads to us this problem: How do we do the right thing when it comes to the legislation so that we make a product at the end that is acceptable to all and that serves Ontario citizens well? I have a problem that we’re going to get into a piece of legislation where there’s going to be particular parts to it that I’m going to have a hard time trying to support, and I’m sure other members of the opposition will as well. The government’s going to stand there and say, “Look at that. They’re being oppositional. They don’t want to support municipal election reform.” Of course I support municipal election reform, but when you have a bill and you add into the bill a whole bunch of other things other than municipal election reform-OMB reform and a whole bunch of other things; there are even changes to how we deal with elk under the MNR-it is very hard to pass it as a package. It’s a bit sad that the government doesn’t find a way sometimes to take out those pieces of the legislation that we find offensive so that we can go back-you’ll still get your bill in the end, but that we have an opportunity to give it good public scrutiny.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The Minister of Community and Social Services has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to thank the members from Durham, Scarborough Southwest, Dufferin-Caledon and Timmins-James Bay for their comments.

I’m not going to comment on the comment from the member from Durham about the length of my intervention. I think that quality over the length of the speech is often appreciated. But I am going to comment on the adoption act, the amendment to that act that we just passed not that long ago. How wonderful the comments are that I get from the people who have found either their birth parents or their children that they gave up for adoption. We are overwhelmed with the requests for information, and I’m very pleased to say that this amendment was long overdue. We had a lot of happy Ontarians and Canadians after we amended this act.

As for the comments from the member from Dufferin-Caledon about the Family Responsibility Office-

Interjection.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: When we came into power, there was a lot of improvement.

1620

Mr. Mike Colle: There was a mess. It was a disaster-

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, the member said that it was a mess. It was a mess, and thanks to my colleague Minister Pupatello, who did a lot of good work when she was there, the Family Responsibility Office, we have asked the office to bring change that will help this function to allow-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to start with simple clarification. Why are they doing this? When I look at this bill-I’ve been here about 15 years, and I would challenge anyone, and this is not a confrontational challenge-it’s almost impossible to read a bill without also having a compendium with the bill it’s actually amending. When you change the language, you change the intent, and I don’t think that, retroactively, you should be able to change legislation by amending it. You should not be able to change the intent of the legislation by changing certain sections or subsections, because that bill would have gone through consultation, regardless of the political affiliation, and that’s the problem here.

We all could be criticized for trying to houseclean, as was said by one minister, but there are two completely new bills buried in this legislation. If you look at the preamble-and for those at home, without being too strident about this, there’s usually a purpose clause which defines what the intent of the bill is. This may have been developed through a policy conference; from the suggestion of a constituent; stakeholders, be it doctors, teachers, other professionals-

Mr. Robert Bailey: Or lobbyists.

Mr. John O’Toole: Indeed, lobbyists.

When I look at it, it says here, “The bill amends or repeals a number of acts and enacts two new acts. For convenience, the amendments, repeals and new acts are set out in separate schedules. Schedules with the names of ministries include amendments to and repeals of acts that are administered by the ministry involved or that affect that ministry. The commencement provisions for each of the schedules are set out” below. If you read just that section alone, it is fairly comprehensive and not a casual read.

We as members, on all sides of the House, really did not get copies of this for any great, thorough review. In fact, there is no caucus here-and I would put to you, including the government-which has actually caucused this bill, because it was introduced Wednesday last week, and most caucuses are held on Tuesday. Tomorrow, being Tuesday, is the first Tuesday after the bill was introduced.

We know that the government members, with all due respect, will be voting yes, like this. They’ll be like the three monkeys, actually. There’s more than three of them, but they will be voting the way Premier McGuinty tells them, period.

Here’s our problem: There will be, no doubt, some good and valuable sections within the legislation. Often governments bury in those things that we all, in common, want, but then there’s the poison pill argument. They often do this-Madam Speaker, you would know this-in the budget.

When I look at this, and I look at some of it in detail, there’s a section that I have, under my critic file, some responsibility for. Over the weekend, through the Internet and other sources, I was able to actually provide for our caucus meeting tomorrow-each of our critics are required to inform the caucus group of what our concerns are. My concern is what isn’t obvious. That’s when you get into it. Why are they doing-what are they-

Mr. Robert Bailey: Why?

Mr. John O’Toole: My good friend from Sarnia-Lambton said to me, “Why are they doing this?” In all genuine sincerity, why didn’t they break this big, huge cookie into several little cookies and let us chew on them for a while?

They said they had public consultations. With whom?

Actually, what they’ve done here is they’re trying to change the channel from a $25-billion deficit. They’re trying to change the channel from a minister’s resignation and more to follow. They’re trying to change the channel from million-dollar consultants to $1 billion wasted in eHealth. There are serious troubles going on. What this bill is, respectfully, is about changing the channel. This bill is like cobbling together a bunch of phraseology changes, which they tell me is some of what it’s about.

I read earlier one little section because my section is section 17; that’s the Ministry of Government Services. Now, it sort of sounds innocuous enough: government services. ServiceOntario-they closed a whole bunch of driver licence issuing offices, putting a whole bunch of small business people out of work, and now they’re going to have ServiceOntario, a fancy new government-run expensive model, Monday to Friday, and if you can’t get from there 8 to 4, you’re out of luck. It’s like the H1N1 vaccine. Everybody’s working during the week. Well, not in Ontario; most people are laid off. But those who are working can’t get there during the business day. So when do they have this? They have it at some arcane hour or location that no one can get to.

They talk about public transit, for instance.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Can’t get there from here.

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Sarnia-Lambton has very good quips; I must compliment him. You can’t get there from here. In fact, this bill does not get us anywhere in a hurry.

I was forced to intercede this afternoon, and because of the timing-I won’t go into any extra detail. I would have liked more time to prepare; we’ll say that. My prepared notes are rather scant, if you will.

My friend from Sarnia-Lambton asked, “Why are they doing this?” I really do think the Attorney General is a very decent, intelligent, capable fellow. In fact, I think he’s the heir apparent for Premier Dalton McGuinty. I would say the member from London and some other jurisdiction down there has a lot to offer. But I would say that if he was to do the honourable thing here today, he would just say, “Look, we’re going to take a deep breath here.”

I know his parliamentary assistant, the member from Willowdale, to be a good friend. Last week, I enjoyed some off-business time with him and some of his colleagues. In that respect, they’re honourable gentlemen. I would say that they’re honourable gentlemen. But the real purpose here-why are they doing it? All members, both sides, all sides, should be asking, “What’s the purpose here?”

I said section 17 is mine. I should get to it in the limited time-in fact, they’ve limited the time I can speak on this bill.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, it’s unfair.

Mr. John O’Toole: I should have unlimited time. I would suggest somebody should move for unanimous consent that I can speak for as long as it takes.

Prior to getting to section 17, I had to read section 16. I thought I’d just read the concluding page. There’s one act here; it’s quite good. Madam Speaker, you’d enjoy this as an intelligent preacher in your own right-minister, if you will, in your own right. You’re already a minister; why would you want to be in government?

Section 11 in schedule 16 says this, “Section 18 of the Perpetuities Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“Rules not applicable to certain trust funds”-listen up. I’m begging, urging the members on the government side to listen. Please. What is it that you’re opposed to listening to here?

It says, “The rules of law and statutory enactments relating to perpetuities do not apply and are deemed never to have applied to a trust fund required by subsection 9(1) of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (Canada).”

It would sound like the original bill, which I haven’t read, that it’s amending-the Perpetuities Act is what it’s amending. I would have to have that compendium with me to know the intent of that.

1630

What it means here is this: Nuclear waste in this particular reference would last thousands of years; the radioactive life of nuclear waste is thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands of years-radioactive life, okay? The duty to protect nuclear waste is in perpetuity-I’m thinking that’s what it meant. Now they’re saying it’s “deemed never to have applied.” There it is, if we can zoom the camera in here. That’s the section. It’s about four lines long. That section has a profound implication for my riding and for Wesleyville, where they stored the low-level nuclear waste. They’ve been fighting about moving that waste for 40 or 50 years. The federal government has responsibility in this area as well. They have spent literally $50 million and haven’t relocated one teaspoon of low-level nuclear waste.

Right now, we’re talking about the nuclear waste thing. Did you know that there really is no solution for handling it? They have a report out-it’s a federal report-and it says that there’s the short-term solution, which means stabilize it where it is; the medium-term solution, which is, “We’ll have a look at it”; and the long-term solution is, “We’re working on it.” Seriously. It’s a huge report like that. I had a look through it and had a little conversation with people who knew more about it than I did.

The big plan there, as you would all know, is to drill a great big hole into the Precambrian Shield, the Laurentian Mountains, drill it through the rock thousands of feet down-this is impermeable rock. That’s why they’re choosing that. It’s like the tunnel they’re building, the Beck tunnel, costing billions of dollars, and it will never be finished. I put to you it will collapse before it’s done.

That’s only one little section. Can you imagine 400 pages of this drivel? It is just unconscionable that they would be trying to shuffle this by to change the channel. That’s all they’re doing. Viewers, be prepared: This is another sham by them, I’m telling you.

In my section here-

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Some of the members on the other side-I don’t want to name them-are saying I’m wrong. Well, stand in your place in the two minutes and demonstrate to me that you, first of all, have even read it, because I put to you, you cannot read this bill in isolation. You have to have a stack of 22 pieces of legislation to examine what is changing. If you’re changing it from “thou shalt not” or “thou shall not do it” or “maybe you can do it” or “will do it” or “shall do it”-these are all words. I put to you without being challenging, you certainly have to look at it.

In the few seconds that I’ve been given in the overall compass of time here, the Business Corporations Act-

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: This is the Business Corporations Act. This is just coming out of Small Business Month. “Paragraphs 22 and 28 and section 272 of the Business Corporations Act are repealed.” What does that section say? You cannot know what it says unless you have the bill with you. The next is, “Clause 273(1)(a) of the act is amended by striking out ‘an incorporator’ and substituting ‘all incorporators’.” I think I have established conclusively that you cannot read this bill, 400 pages, without a whole stack of bills with you.

I go back to my original premise: Why are they doing this? What’s the purpose in having a choking omnibus bill loaded with all sorts of intents and no description of what they’re intending to do, really, even in the small section I stumbled on?

I’m going to mention a couple of sections here. “The Certificate of Titles Act is repealed.” This has to do with property registrations, I am imagining, because you have to look at the Certificate of Titles Act. “Ontario regulation 514/93″-that’s a regulation that was passed in 1993 under the Bob Rae government-”made under the act is revoked.” What did that regulation say? Does anyone know? There isn’t a soul in this House who knows, not one, not the minister, I’m telling you. Don’t try to slip it by us here. This is a big bill, and don’t expect it to be swallowed as comfortably as the Liberal members-they’ll all vote yes because they won’t even have a clue what’s going on.

The Certification of Titles Act is repealed, as I said. Here’s another one, the Change of Name Act: “The following provisions of the Change of Name Act are amended by striking out ‘Ministry of the Solicitor General’ wherever that expression appears and substituting in each case ‘Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.’” Yes, that’s an administrative change. Yes, I get it; they’re just changing the ministry reference.

Would business go on as usual without this? Of course it would. They’ve changed ministry names. They’ve got a new Ministry of Revenue whose primary job, with staff, is to sell the HST. He’s not the Minister of Revenue; he’s the minister of communication. He’s out there preaching to every Rotary Club and service club that will even listen to him, and I heard that attendance is down, that attendance is way down. In fact, we’ll see the real attendance at election day in 2011.

However, I’ll go on here and say there are a bunch of sections under that that are changed-and there’s no one here.

Here’s another interesting one. The member from Willowdale would like this because he did practise law at one time, I’m sure. He had to write the bar exam, so he must have practised, at least. Here it is, the Condominium Act, 1998. I had the privilege to be the parliamentary assistant when this bill, under Jim Flaherty, was initially passed. I did meet with the condominium associations, the condominium owners and the groups as well. This is a disclosure legislation. There are two parties to the contract: There’s the condominium corporation and there’s the condominium owners. The condominium corporation makes a disclosure to the person who’s purchasing the property, being the condominium owner.

Here it is: “The Condominium Act”-it says-”is amended by adding ‘as that Act read immediately before subsection 2(1) of Schedule 17 to the Good Government Act, 2009 came into force’ after ‘the Certification of Titles Act.’” So I gather this is about the registration. The property titles act is titles registration. I still say that I’m not sure, after reading what’s here as well as the preamble, what, in fact, it’s doing, and I leave it for the two-minute hits that are going to be forthcoming, I hope.

There’s a section here, the Land Titles Act, a very big deal. You start tinkering with property rights, and you have an issue. I want a full disclosure of what you mean. It’s talking about notice of hearings. These are dispute resolution mechanisms, primarily.

“Section 19 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“Examination of witnesses.”

So I think we’ve established conclusively that my argument stands. It probably stands for the day and will rule the day because you can’t possibly read this act, not with bad intent or malicious intent, but without reading the parent act that it’s intended to change. By law, you cannot change the intent of the original legislation by an amendment, the initial legislation on the titles act or whatever act it is.

There’s a section here on the Marriage Act for instance, what they call marriage practitioners, that’s repealing a bill that’s already passed but not proclaimed. I am so disappointed. I say, why are they doing this? We should leave here today, when they’re trying to rush this bill through-last Wednesday; it’s not been caucused; it’s so big you’d have to have a truck go round with you with all the paper that it’s amending, and then you couldn’t read it. We have, in our caucus, some very qualified people who have practised law, practised engineering, been ministers of the crown, and would know. I’m waiting for the member from Carleton-Mississippi Mills, because he’s the dean who is highly regarded here, and he’s been the minister over most of these ministries and probably could shed some light on this. It would be a compliment if he stood-I’m not ordering him to but I’m sort of hoping he will. I’m hoping that he’ll get up and validate some of the observations I’ve made.

Failing that, I’ve said, in the limited time-I could seek unanimous consent right now that I can continue to speak for a considerable length of time. I seek unanimous consent, Madam Speaker.

1640

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Durham has sought unanimous consent to continue speaking. Is it the pleasure of the House that he do so?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I don’t hear a warrant for that. Thank you. You still have 26 seconds left, though.

Mr. John O’Toole: The Minister of Community and Social Services has confronted me by saying, no, I’m not entitled to my time to debate a 400-page bill-and others as well. In fact, I think she’s the whip today. I think she’s acting as the whip and she’s whipping them all into order. They’re going to shut me down, and it’s a shame. It’s a shame. An omnibus bill and they won’t allow me to vocalize some of the concerns that my constituents-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank the member from Durham for his point of view.

I’ll tell you, Madam Speaker, since I’ve been here at Queen’s Park, I see the government constantly standing up, especially the Minister of Finance, and saying, “You voted against this; you voted against the budget.” Well, what they don’t tell you is that they don’t break down the budget to vote on each amendment or each part of the budget. What you do is you either accept the whole budget or you don’t. Really, the public should know, when they stand up and say, “Your party voted against the budget,” that we did not vote against the entire budget. There’s lots of things in that budget that we like.

How does that pertain to this? It pertains to this the same way. If you’re not given the information, if you don’t have time to digest what’s going on in the bill-they hand it to you a week before and take you through it without any consultation, without any input, and they expect you to ram it through again. On committee, they have five members, with two Conservatives and one NDP, and they shove things through once again. The public should know that really the opposition has good amendments, good ideas, and they fall on deaf ears. They just follow their marching orders and push it through, the same as a budget. I’m so sick and tired of people standing up in this House and saying, “Your party voted against the budget.” Naturally there are things in that budget we didn’t like and didn’t want. “You voted against the budget.” We’re going to accept things we don’t think are right for the people of Ontario? But you either accept everything in the budget or none of it. So obviously we have to go with none of it because we don’t like much of it.

That’s what the people of this province never understand. They say, “Well, why would they vote against that?” Because there are 50 things in it that we didn’t like. It’s unbelievable that the general public really doesn’t have the opportunity to understand what goes on in here.

My biggest frustration is at committee, when sometimes we don’t even get to address it, and when we do, it doesn’t even get read and it falls on deaf ears. They may take one amendment every six months just to say they did something. But we have a lot of good ideas on this side of the House, a lot of good stuff to put in, and we never get the opportunity because they just follow marching orders; they just do as they’re told. Even if they think our idea is good, even if they agree with us, they don’t dare stand up and vote against the Premier.

It’s absolutely unacceptable, and the people of Ontario should know what really goes on in here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. David Zimmer: I have to say it’s getting late in the afternoon and, for recreational purposes, I certainly enjoyed Mr. O’Toole’s comments. They were entertaining; they were playful; they were colourful; they were rambling. They were also erratic and made no constitutional, legislative, statutory sense at all.

I jotted down a comment that Mr. O’Toole made as he got carried away with his piece of entertainment this afternoon. Here’s what Mr. O’Toole said. Now, this comes from, as he reminds me from time to time, an experienced legislator who has served as parliamentary assistant to a number of distinguished parliamentarians, albeit in his party. He said at some point in his remarks-and this is his constitutional position, so law professors and the media and political scientists are going to be, I expect, right now in a state of complete shock. This is what the member said, and this is after years of experience here. His position is, you should not be able to change legislation by amending it.

I ask members, does that make any sense at all? Legislation comes before this body in two ways: It’s introduced as a bill and eventually becomes an act, or there is a bill that eventually becomes an act to amend a piece of legislation. The statement, “You should not be able to change legislation by amending it,” is bizarre. It’s also playful and entertaining, but I think it’s bizarre more than anything else.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I’m going to say about my friend from Willowdale that he may be a little disingenuous-a word he uses quite often in this place-with regard to my friend from Durham.

My friend from Durham, when he was making those comments, was talking about making amendments in an omnibus bill that is some 600 pages long, which change the original intent of the legislation that was debated in this Legislature. That is the great concern of our caucus. We have a number of amendments in here that are not housekeeping. In fact, I just came across one about the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act while I was listening to my disingenuous friend. This change to this act, according to my notes, permits the addition of lands to the Niagara Escarpment planning area by regulation, by the cabinet, without talking about what kind of process you would go through.

My friend from Orangeville represents an area that includes much of the Niagara Escarpment and would know that if you include a person’s land in the planning area-I had a great deal of experience with this, as I brought forward the first plan by the Davis government-you restrict his or her rights significantly. And you give the cabinet this carte blanche without any kind of process required before they do it?

This bill has some very strong sections in it, and this is not the way to change legislation in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I hear what the member from Durham is saying in the sense that it’s a huge bill and there is a lot to be said about this particular bill, and it’s fairly difficult to try to say what you have to say within a 20-minute period. I have the same concerns as him. I think it’s too bad that the process does not lend itself well to what we’re trying to do. I’m sure that there are parts of this bill that he would support, as there are parts of this bill that I would support. But here is the problem: How do you vote for a bill that has things in it-it could be a third or a half-that are not supportable from our particular positions and perspectives?

You need to have a process that allows us to separate out those things that are more contentious and allow those things we have agreement on to move forward, and then spend a little bit of time on those things where there is no agreement so we can try to find some consensus. At the end of that, I’ll say to the government, “The government has a majority; it can do what it has to do.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Durham has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: I do want to thank the member from Hamilton East-Stoney Creek-I took his reference to the difficulty with these omnibus bills, with the poison-pill function within them-and the always disingenuous member from Willowdale, as he has been described very eloquently by the member from Carleton-Mississippi Mills, the longest-serving member here. He has actually been the minister on some of these bills that are being amended, so more could be said. In fact, I expect he will probably be speaking on this bill at some length in the next few days.

The member from Timmins-James Bay, who is also an experienced member here, would know that it’s very difficult to reach consensus on all parts of even a small bill, let alone an omnibus bill. The foregone conclusion here is that we cannot support the question: Why are they doing it this way; what’s in here that we aren’t being told about?

Even if you go to a briefing, you have to know what questions to ask to get answers. With respect to what I said that the member from Willowdale commented on, what I said was that you cannot change the intent of legislation by a simple amendment. If the bill is to allow property rights or entitlements and you’re amending it with a slight amendment that says that no longer applies, that simply is not how it happens. You can actually rescind the bill, which they’ve done-under the Family Law Act, they have rescinded a bill. They’ve actually, in law, cancelled that legislation. That’s appropriate, to do it that way. But to change entitlements under the bill by a simple amendment, I would say that’s not appropriate.

1650

Again, there are good portions of amendments within this bill, and I did outline a couple of them, but for the most part I’ll wait for further debate on this bill-

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m privileged and honoured to stand up in my place and speak in support of Bill 212, An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain acts and by enacting two new acts. I listened to many different speakers who spoke before me from both sides of the House talking about the importance of transforming many different acts and many different ministries to create some kind of accessibility for the people of Ontario to be governed by a good government, to give them some kind of access to many different rules and regulations and to learn about our government and to have access to the government without any problems, without any hesitation.

I listened to the member from Durham, who spoke for about 20 minutes a few minutes ago about the bill. All of his concentration was on how the bill’s too thick and too big and nobody read it. That’s what he focused on. He never mentioned the content of the bill and why we’re bringing this bill to the people of Ontario and why we’re bringing this bill before us in this Legislature to be passed and to be discussed and to be debated.

I was listening to my colleague the member from Scarborough Southwest, and he was mentioning the importance of this bill and why the Good Government Act should be implemented to create accessibility and understanding and clean it up in a format that people can understand and be able to use. Also, he talked about modern history and the modern time we’re living in. Technology is speeding up like crazy, by the day, by the minute, by the second.

I remember that not a long time ago, we used to have a telephone. It was huge. It was a big phone. You were able to dial all sorts of numbers. You had to boost it every half an hour. Now we’ve advanced through technology. We have a BlackBerry, which has the format of a small computer. We can navigate the system, and we can know what’s going on around the globe within a second, from any corner of this globe. This is part of technology. We can also store all the information in that small machine.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I will caution the member not to use that as a prop in the House. Thank you.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It was not a prop; I was giving an example of technology and the advantages of technology. That’s what we’re talking about.

Also, you can store information on small chips. You don’t need papers to be put on the shelf. To have access to those papers and records, you can push a button or a code, and you can go into those records in detail.

That’s why we try to revisit those bills and acts from time to time: to create some kind of accessibility, to clean them up and keep them up to date with modern technology, modern issues and modern life.

Also, when I was reading the briefing on this bill and discussing it with my colleagues and my friends and with the Attorney General, who introduced this bill, you know what I discovered? We’re not the only government throughout the history of this place to introduce a big, thick bill that created or handled a lot of amendments.

I know that we’re doing 600 amendments. Before that, with Bill 190, the Good Government Act of 2006, we did 550 amendments. Also, the Government Efficiency Act was done by the PC Party. It had 713 amendments with 268 pages. The NDP also did one, a bill that had 756 amendments in 1994.

I know it’s not just the Liberal Party of Ontario, not this current government, doing this to create some kind of a problem. The people know that every government, when they take office and discover and review all the bills and all the acts, feels over a period of time that they should change the acts to keep up with technology, with modern issues, with life. As you know, life changes from time to time. Circumstances change from time to time.

The most important thing-I listened to many speakers who spoke before me talk about two important things.

The Municipal Act: We gave it a lot of good deals. I remember when we got elected in 2003, in that period of time-we put a fixed time for elections for the Municipal Act, because back then it was every two years, and before that it was every year. We wanted to give municipalities the chance to propose laws and changes and be able to see the changes in their one mandate, which we thought-four years-is important enough and good enough to give them the chance to implement what they think is good for the municipalities.

Besides that, as a result of the elections, we have learned from many different experiences. As we go, with technology progressing, we are trying to implement new changes, especially for the Municipal Act; for instance, to simplify the elections calendar, to make it easier for the people to go and vote.

The accuracy of information on voting lists-to allow the people to access those lists. Also, the candidates use these lists in a professional manner, to allow them to send their message and ideas to their constituents and have the chance to be voted for. Many people mentioned that it’s good stuff, because now, according to the circumstance at the present time-in the past, if you didn’t have a lot of money, you couldn’t run for office because it required a lot of financial expense. You could not do it because you didn’t have the money, because it takes a lot of effort, takes a lot of resources. That’s why the incumbent in municipal-level politics sits there forever. It would be difficult for the newcomer to politics to vote out the person who has been sitting there, because they have the advantage of the power or access to media, access to records, access to many different things, their friends etc.

Also, we learned from the last elections about accessibility to those polling stations, and the Minister of Community and Social Services outlined the importance of allowing people with disabilities to participate in elections, to be able to vote and to be voted for. By creating accessible polling stations, by creating ways and avenues for the people living with disabilities to be able to participate in our daily life-because as we know, all of us know, people with disabilities have the chance and the ability and the intellectual capacity like every one of us to be able to vote and also to be voted for. This is a part of our transformation of those laws.

I talk a lot also about transparency, the voting process and about the campaign, the cost of the campaign, the finances of the campaign, and how we can enforce some clarity to those finances and make sure all people are using the laws which already exist in a professional manner and give everyone a chance to compete on the same level, with the same ability and the same opportunity, because we want to have new blood come to politics, want to have new blood participate in politics, and let the people who have a lot of ideas participate without worrying about financing, without worrying about popularity. As I mentioned, it’s important stuff.

Besides that, everybody talks about MPAC. MPAC is the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. As you know, everyone complains about it because they don’t have some kind of understanding of what’s going on. This is a very complex issue. I know many governments came to this place and many parties with many ideologies, many different directions. Every one of them came and tried to fix this issue and failed, to date, to reform and transform this issue.

We talk about tribunals, how we can make sure that tribunals are accessible and also fair to all the people. That’s what this bill concentrates on, as a good government bill, in order to allow people to have a chance to eliminate lots of bureaucracy which exists behind many different issues. In this compendium act, it’s a process that every tribunal be required to develop a public accountability document, and I think it’s a very important step.

Regulation or directive to the Management Board of Cabinet-all these elements, I think, give us the chance to have a good government and the goal of increasing transparency and accountability.

1700

The act would also regulate the tribunal appointment process. Members would be selected by a competitive process, applying criteria established in the act and any qualifications required by any other act.

All these transformations we are trying to create in order to have good government, to have a good accessibility mechanism in many different acts, and all the ministers from different ministries will work together in order to create access to the government system and allow the people to participate, allow the people to understand in a simple way.

We don’t describe this bill by the thickness or by the number of amendments; we describe it by the intent of the bill, which means to have good government by allowing people to have access to information and to believe in the government, and also to have rules and regulations that people can utilize without any troubles.

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to stand up in my place and speak in support. Hopefully, the other members will understand the importance of this bill and come forward and support us in order to create good government and good legislation in order to allow people to participate widely and without any hesitation in the government process.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I am pleased to stand and respond to the member from London-Fanshawe. When he finishes his dissertation with a comment on good government, I must question why, then, in Bill 212, there is no longer going to be the ability for Ontario residents to petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council to review any order or direction of the Minister of Health, any order of the Minister of Natural Resources, any Ontario Energy Board decision, any Ontario Municipal Board decision and any Environmental Review Tribunal decision. Most disturbing, even then, they aren’t allowed to appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The bill is written in such a way that any outstanding appeals or petitions would retroactively be struck. When we talk about good governance, I don’t believe there is a single Ontario resident who believes that they get better governance and more transparent government when they aren’t allowed to appeal decisions made by the Ministry of Health, natural resources, the Ontario Energy Board, the Ontario Municipal Board or the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Instead of talking in platitudes about good government, about what Bill 212 is supposed to be about, how about you actually explain to the residents of Ontario why they are no longer going to appeal those decisions? Because I personally think that’s what they’d like to know about, and why you’re putting that in Bill 212.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I hear partly what the member from London-Fanshawe across the way is saying. We were just having a chat here in the opposition with the Conservatives, and we agree that there are some things in this bill that, quite frankly, we can support, but there are some real big questions as to what some of this bill is all about.

First of all, the government introduced this bill, and has it here for debate on the Monday. Our research staff are still going through the omnibus bill; it’s about this thick, so people have got to read the various sections in order to clearly understand what’s in the bill. Because we’ve learned over the years that with omnibus bills, you’ve got to be careful, because that’s normally when things slip through that you may not be aware of, so you really have to take time to look at this in some detail.

We’re saying to you: Listen, there are probably some things in here we can support, and maybe we can come to an agreement about expediting those things that we support, but there are things in here, like the member from Durham was saying, in regard to nuclear waste-I don’t pretend to understand what that section says, but he seems to have some concerns about it, and I haven’t had a chance to read that section of bill. How do I, as a legislator, make an informed decision unless I’ve got proper time to look at the bill and, number two, to deal with those things that we agree on and take those other things and allow the public to have their say?

So I say, across the way, we’re not trying to be deleterious here. All we’re trying to do is have a bit of time to be able to look at this bill and give it justice.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I just wanted to comment again about the Family Responsibility Office. You know, these good people working in the Family Responsibility Office see things that are in the act or in the procedure that are not efficient and are not conducive to providing good service to people who need the services. And if it’s not contentious, these changes are in the Good Government Act.

Just as an example, if one of the children dies, the enforcement staff of the Family Responsibility Office will remove the requirement of the payer to pay for the child, because they have all the information in front of them, instead of going back to court, frustrating everybody and it’s very costly for the payer.

What I have asked of the Family Responsibility Office is to bring changes that are agreeable, that are not contentious and that will improve the efficiency of the Family Responsibility Office. It’s frustrating for those we’re trying to serve and frustrating for the staff who are working there and want to do a good job.

There is nothing in what we have introduced in my ministry that is contentious. I’m very pleased that we are able, once a year, to bring about these changes for the best of everyone.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: With regard to the last speaker’s comments with regard to the Family Responsibility Office, the public accounts committee reviewed that office a couple of years ago. I would have welcomed a debate on a major overhaul of their function and what they’re doing, because they haven’t been functioning very well for the last 15 or 20 years, quite frankly, and I don’t think one change is going to remedy the problem.

Notwithstanding that, another part of the act on which I would like a direct answer, in a political sense, would be that under a number of divisions of the consumer services act, they’re taking away the director’s responsibility for the registrar of the Collection Agencies Act and the registrar of the Consumer Reporting Act, the registrar of the Film Classification Act, the registrar of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, and the director’s responsibility for the registrars of the motor vehicles act, the Payday Loans Act, the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act and the Travel Industry Act. They’re decoupling the director’s responsibility and supervision of the registrar.

I’m very reluctant to give away carte blanche to anyone in our system, and I think there still should be some political accountability. However, I know this government’s penchant for trying to get rid of responsibility. Hive it off to the LHINs, and you don’t have any responsibility anymore; hive it off to eHealth, and you don’t have any responsibility any more.

I think that a lot of this bill requires a lot of answers and explanations as to why they’re making changes, and we’re not getting that. We’re getting surprised with a lot of changes that simply don’t seem to make sense.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from London-Fanshawe has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I thank all the people who commented on my speech.

I want to say that it’s important to all the members from both sides of the House to understand this bill. That’s why the debate is wide open and everyone has a right to participate and give his or her opinions and comments on this bill.

I know the member opposite mentioned the petition to cabinet. I want to say that for the last 15 years, really, anyone could write a petition to the cabinet.

Sometimes there are many different rules and regulations in place and nobody uses them. That’s why this bill came: to clean up a lot of acts and sections that haven’t been used for many, many years.

I would say that the majority of this bill is housekeeping. It changes terminology to be updated with modern life and also changes many rules and regulations that are no longer related to the present time. That’s why this bill came: to update the system, update many different ministries and update regulations that were in existence for many, many years for some reason, and that reason does not exist.

That’s why the debate is wide open. The member from the third party mentioned that he was in discussion with the Conservatives and might support part of it. I welcome his comments. We welcome his comments always. We open this place for debate and open the committee for debate and suggestions. I’m looking forward to seeing more debate to understand it even better myself, because you know what? This is the democratic way. When the opposition members get up, propose, reject and explain why, I guess we in the government learn. Myself, I learn a lot when a member from the opposition stands up in his place or her place and tells me why he or she is opposing such a bill or a section of the bill.

You’re welcome to debate because it’s part of the democratic process. Thank you again to the people who spoke on this-

1710

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Further debate.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I was looking forward to having this opportunity, and I appreciate the Conservatives helping me out in this.

I’ve been saying this in the comments that I’ve made so far on the two-minute hits on this particular legislation. I just want to say up front that there are things in this bill that we probably can support. There are things in here that, in the end, probably make some sense and things that I think the opposition parties and the general public can support. But does it mean that everything inside this omnibus bill, which is about this thick, is things that the public and the opposition will be able to support in its entirety? The answer is no.

In what I’ve read of the bill so far, there are sections in that bill that, quite frankly, I have some problems with. Some of it I support. For example, you’re making changes to the Municipal Act, which I can support. Does it go far enough? It’s probably not as far as I want to go on municipal expenses, but it is going in the right direction. I understand the timeliness of needing to be able to do this, and we certainly don’t want to slow that down. We understand that that’s important.

But there are other sections of the bill that are, quite frankly, problematic. We’re going to restrict the ability of the public to appeal certain cases before the Ontario Municipal Board? Is that something that’s desirable? I can understand why you’re doing that from the perspective of developers, but I can tell you from the perspective of homeowners and people who may be concerned about some process of planning or zoning that’s going on in their municipality, there are going to be all kinds of people who are going to have a problem with not being able to go to the Ontario Municipal Board in certain cases. Is that something this Legislature should be doing?

Since I’ve been here in 1990, we have constantly, under the Conservative government and now under you, limited the ability of people to get before the OMB because a lot of people see the OMB as a bit of a hindrance to development. Let’s say that you buy that argument, because I know certain people do. Does that mean to say you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Does it mean to say you extinguish the rights of an individual to go before the Ontario Municipal Board in order to have better government, have better development, take the roadblocks out and let those developments goes forward? Well, there are reasons why people go before the OMB. I think the OMB is sophisticated enough to understand that either it is yes or it is no when it comes to the issue of being able to accept a case as having merit or not having merit.

So I say to my friends across the way, what we would like to do is have a situation where we are able to pass those section of the bill that we can have some understanding and agreement on, and on those parts of the bill where we don’t have agreement, we’re able to move that over and not deal with that in this session, but wait until we send to it committee in the intersession.

I say to the government across the way, you’re treading a really fine line here. We in the opposition, both the Conservatives and New Democrats, have been fairly good when it comes to trying to work with the government and be able to acquiesce to trying to pass legislation through this House in a way that is conducive to your agenda, as far as timing.

But listen, I’m not going to get in a fight on a whole bunch of other things you’re doing. I’m not happy about your HST, I’m not happy on your forestry policy, but that’s not the debate here. The debate is, should a government be passing a huge omnibus bill that I would venture to guess, never mind the opposition, members of the government have not had an opportunity to read in some detail?

Interjection: Name names.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Listen, I’ll name names: Gilles Bisson. I’ve not read the entire bill. I started on the weekend reading through that bill, and I would challenge anybody in this House to come and have a debate with me on the sections of the bill, because I’ll bet you we would not be able to defend-any of us-all of the details in that bill because we have not had the proper time to debate this bill-not debate. I’m not even talking debate; I just mean to read the bill.

We said to the House leader last week, “Listen, don’t call this bill on Monday. You just introduced the bill. It’s this thick. We need to give it to our research staff.” We had our researchers in here on Saturday and Sunday going through the bill in order to give it some critical analysis along with our critics-not that I oppose having to work on weekends. Listen, I come out of the mining sector. I used to work 12-hour shifts-I used to work graveyard, I used to work weekends, I used to work seven-day swings, and on top of that, I did call-outs and overtime. So it’s not the work. But in the time that we’ve had, we’ve not been able, quite frankly, to give the kind of analysis that we need to for this bill.

I’ll tell you what’s dangerous here. My good friend Mr. Prue was here when the Tories were in government-and this is not a swing at the Tories, because every government has done it. Omnibus bills were brought to this House, to the point where the government even had to admit at the end when they passed it that there were problems in the bill, and they had to come back and undo some of the damage they had done in the bill. The bureaucrats who draft the bill do the best job they can-they work hard, they’re excellent at what they do-but sometimes they don’t get it right. We were saying to the government of the day, “Don’t go there. Take your time. Make sure that we look at this in some detail.”

To give the Liberals some credit, in their first term, when the government was first elected, they had a similar omnibus bill and they gave us how long, Mr. Prue? You were the critic for that bill. We got about six months, seven months to look at that bill, and eventually you passed the omnibus bill, because the concerns that were raised that were valid were dealt with and those that were not, you just went ahead and did what you had to do. But at the end of the day, you got your bill.

We understand here there’s a principle in Parliament that the opposition has the right to be able to ask critical questions-and yes, sometimes to be a bit tough on the government-but at the end of the day, we understand that the government has a majority and it will get its way. But you shouldn’t be doing so in a way that sends, I think, a bill such as this through speedy passage without an ability to give it critical analysis.

With that, I would ask that we have a little break to have a bit of a chat. I would, at this time, move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Mr. Bisson has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I didn’t hear warrant to adjourn the debate.

All in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Members have risen. There will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1717 to 1747.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Members, please take your seats. I call this House to order.

Mr. Bisson has moved adjournment of the debate of Bill 212.

Will all those in favour please stand and remain standing?

Will all those opposed please stand and remain standing?

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 6; the nays are 32.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I declare the motion defeated.

Mr. Bisson has the floor.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We should have the same vote. It would be a lot better. I thought we had won that one; I thought it was rather close.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, Madam Speaker, do we have a quorum in here? I’d like you to count everybody.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I’m going to ask the table to check if we have a quorum.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): A quorum is, in fact, present.

Mr. Bisson has the floor.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I wanted to make sure because I wanted to make sure the government heard what we have to say here.

I just want to make it clear to the government. Listen, I said at the beginning-and I’m happy that the government House leader was paying attention prior, and I know she’s here again listening. I just wanted to make sure that she understood that there are sections of this bill, quite frankly, that we can support. There’s some stuff in this bill that, at the end of the day, we understand are housekeeping items or are issues dealing with trying to make some processes a little bit easier. However, part of the problem we’ve got is that there are sections of this bill that are, quite frankly, problematic.

For example, there’s a whole change to the Municipal Act. We can support generally where the government is trying to go as far as the timing of getting this done for January because we understand, for municipalities going into the election next year, it’s important that we get that done, and we support that. There are parts of that bill that we support, but I know, in speaking to my leader, Andrea Horwath-we had a chat about this earlier, and I’ve had a chat with some other people in the municipality of Timmins-that there are some municipal financing issues that it would be really nice to be able to address in that bill.

Are we going to be able to get that done? I don’t know. But the point is, for the government to bring in a huge omnibus bill that gets us changing a whole bunch of acts-and I’ve got to say that the omnibus bill is about that thick-in the end, it’s really leading us to try and pass legislation that’s not properly vetted.

As I said earlier, our staff were here on the weekend. Members were reading the bill on the weekend.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock for a minute, please. I appreciate that people are tired and it’s late in the afternoon, but I’m having a hard time hearing the member. So if you could keep it down. Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As I was saying, there are sections of the bill that we can support.

Interjections: Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Come on. I don’t do that when you speak, Mr. Whip. Why are you doing that to me? Come on.

Interjection: You’re wasting your time.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, well, there we go. There we go. The parliamentary assistant over there, the guy who wants to be minister and hasn’t been appointed yet-he’s all excited. I can understand why, because if you’re really excited, maybe Dalton will see that and bring you into cabinet. You notice I didn’t use your name. It’s a he. I’ll narrow it down to that because I know the women of that caucus are much, much smarter than to make comments like that. They’re very rational people.

Anyway, back to the bill: I just want to say that there are sections in this bill that are problematic. I think what the government has to do is take a little bit of a pause and admit they’re pushing this thing through a little bit too fast. You’ve got an omnibus bill that’s about this thick. We’re changing a whole bunch of sections of the act to make sure that, at the end of the day, they’re going to make some changes that are going to affect a whole bunch of acts, and all we want is to make sure that what is passed are changes that, at the end of the day, will get us to where we want to go.

I’ve seen omnibus bills passed through this House before. I’ve seen, from time to time, where governments have passed omnibus bills and have pushed them through the House lickety-split without giving the public an opportunity to have their say in proper time to make amendments to the bill, for the bill to be scrutinized. The government passes the omnibus bill and then they’re back two or three years after introducing amendments to their omnibus bill because they made errors in the first place.

You’ve seen that. I remember it happening with the Conservative Party a couple of times. There were a couple of omnibus bills that they dealt with, and even they had to come back and make changes.

Remember the one on the Municipal Act, my good friend across the way from Essex?

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, no, not that one. When they first got elected in 1995, there were changes to the Municipal Act. It was a huge omnibus bill, and you were on committee-Mr. Levac, I think, was on committee with me. We were warning the government that we didn’t support a lot of what the government was doing, “but at least if you do it, get it right. Don’t make a bill that, at the end of the day, not only doesn’t get you where you want to go, but makes things worse because the bill is not properly written.” The reason that happened was because the government had pushed that bill through the House so fast that neither the government, the opposition nor the public had a chance really to scrutinize the bill and take a look at where the errors were. The public soon found out, after the bill was passed, that there were problems. I remember that the government came back with seven amendments to that bill. Seven times they came back and made amendments to that legislation because they didn’t get it right the first time.

All I’m saying is: I understand. The process is really simple here. We all have a role to play. Members of the opposition will hold the government accountable in the British parliamentary system. We say to the government that we’re going to put a good eye on what you’re doing to make sure you do it right, and if there are things we think you’ve erred on, we’re going to point those out.

But at the end of the day, we understand. The parliamentary system says that the government has a majority, so the government is going to get its bill. It’s not as if you’re not going to get your bill at the end of the day; we understand that you will. But what we’re saying to you is, we should pause, return it to the House leaders, have a bit of a discussion with the House leaders about how we proceed, so that we in fact put ourselves in a position that we’re able to deal with those parts of the bill that we can agree on and move those things through, so that at the end we have the ability to deal with those things that we have agreement on. And then, to those things that we have no agreement on or that we have some difficulty with, all I’m asking is that we send the bill out to committee. Advertise across the province and allow members of the public to have their say: municipalities, environmental groups, anglers and hunters, people in the planning business. There are all kinds of people affected by this bill. Let them pronounce themselves on this legislation. You know what? At the end, maybe the public will decide that they’re not interested and maybe they will decide that there’s not a huge amount of concern, and so be it. But at least the process will lend itself to allowing the public to have its say and making sure that we look at this omnibus bill in the proper light.

Omnibus bills, at the end of the day, are problematic by their very nature. It’s something that I think all of us, as legislators, quite frankly don’t have a very big comfort with. I know my friends who were then in the Liberal opposition to the Conservatives, and certainly Conservatives and Liberals who were in opposition to our government, really did not like omnibus bills, and for good reason. Because at the end of the day, they deal with far too much far too quickly and put us in a position, quite frankly, of passing bills that can be flawed.

I just say to the government across the way, please understand what we’re saying here. We’re saying that at the end of the day, we understand you’re going to get your bill, and we’re saying that there are some things in this bill that we can support. But we’re also saying that there are certainly some things in this bill that are problematic, and we need to have a bit of a discussion about how we deal with that procedurally.

I was a bit surprised that we were informed at House leaders’ meetings last week that this bill would come here on Monday. I indicated at that time to our government House leader-and Mr. Runciman did the same-that we shouldn’t proceed on Monday, and the reason was very simple: People wouldn’t have a chance to read the bill; it’s this thick. We pointed out at the time, “Give us the time to look at it. Let’s look at what’s in the bill and we’ll decide what to do.” We’ve now done that, to a degree. We still have some of the bill that we haven’t read, quite frankly; we’re still going through it. But there are some problematic parts of the bill, and we need to deal with those in a way that makes some sense and gives justice to what we’re trying to do here in the Legislature. So we are saying to the government, “Let’s do the right thing.”

For example, one of the things in this bill that we saw, another section, was that there are some amendments in regard to the issue around hunting within the MNR Act. There are some changes being contemplated there. I had a chance to take a quick look at them, and, quite frankly, some of them seemed kind of innocuous. But then I flagged it by somebody who I pass legislation on to when I want to get a critical analysis of something, and they pointed out to me that there were some problems in the way that it was particularly worded. It wasn’t so much what the government was trying do, but the way that the wording was put forward certainly created difficulty as far as what their perspective was when it came to their ability to be able to hunt and fish.

Now, for some people here, that may not be important, but I can tell in you, in places around southwest, southeast and northern Ontario, there are a lot of people who are fishermen, a lot of people who are anglers and hunters, and who do so respectfully and want to know at the end of the day that we have some rules that, yes, protect the wildlife, that we don’t over-fish or over-hunt, but that still give people the ability to enjoy those recreational sports that are out there.

I personally don’t hunt anymore. I can’t get a moose tag; that’s a whole other story. Moose tags are impossible to get, so after many years of application, I decided to stop applying for a tag because, like everybody else, I got frustrated. So what I do is fish. I can tell you, over the years it has become much, much more restrictive when it comes to the ability of anglers to get out on the lake and do some fishing, and I can tell you stories about that.

There are also changes to the agricultural act. I talked to our good friend John Vanthof on the weekend. I asked him to go to the Internet-hopefully he’ll have that done sometime this week-and I asked him to read those sections of the bill. John Vanthof, for those who would know, is the candidate who ran in Timiskaming-Cochrane in the last election and was within 300 votes of winning that particular election. He’s a dairy farmer. I’ve asked him to take a look at this bill in some detail.

I would say to you, Madam Speaker, that there’s much to be done and there’s much to be said about this bill. And seeing that we’re almost at 6 of the clock, I would ask that we just stand this down and continue on the next day.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.