CONTENTS
Monday 11 May 1992
Organization
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Ms Akande
*Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L) for Mr Mahoney
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel: Swift, Susan, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1539 in room 151.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order.
Before we begin, I'd like to welcome our visitors from the Russian Federation and Ukraine. They'll be observing the committee today. Welcome.
The reason I called this meeting was so that Mr Sterling could raise the issue he raised in the House last week. The Speaker thought it best that the committee discuss this on its own, and I thought it would be better that we discuss this before we get into clause-by-clause so that when we get into clause-by-clause we can proceed smoothly. Mr Sterling.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for taking the initiative to have this meeting so that we can go through these bills in some kind of logical and rational order. As I said last week in the Legislature, I guess there is a valid point of order if, when the bills were reported back to the Legislature, there were substantial changes to that legislation in committee.
The argument could be put that the bill we passed on second reading is no longer the same bag of apples, that it's a bag of oranges we now have, and therefore the second-reading process might not have passed the bill, in a theoretical sense. I thought the more responsible thing to do as a member was to raise the issue, even though I knew it was within this committee's mandate to deal with the issue. But I thought I would raise it on the floor of the House so that perhaps the House leaders could get together in terms of resolving the issue rather than be obstreperous during the clause-by-clause hearings of the bill.
May I put forward a positive suggestion in terms of dealing with this? Perhaps the best route we might take is to have the three ministry officials come forward at our next meeting, which I guess would be the 25th. Is that correct?
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Sterling: We could have the officials come forward and make a presentation to the committee as to what the amendments are and how they affect the legislation, and then decide after that what routes we might want to take or what kind of negotiating we might want to do in terms of timing.
I don't know whether the clerk has also sent out to all of the interest groups that have been in front of us the amendments that were put forward. I suggest that she do that before the 25th, and that we ask if they can give us some kind of preliminary indication whether they would find it necessary to appear in front of the committee again; whether the amendments meet their expectations or whether they change the kind of presentation they might want to make to this committee.
I'm not anxious to prolong the process. I only want to be certain, because I consider it to be very important legislation, that people be given a fair chance to respond. There are 199 amendments. I haven't had an opportunity to read them myself, but I was talking to my researcher earlier this morning and she indicated that there are substantial amendments to Bill 109, and there may not be enough amendments to Bill 74 to meet the objections of various strong representations.
I just throw that out, and I would like to hear what the response of other members might be.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Just briefly in response, Mr Chair, I did last week approach Mr Curling, who I understand to be the Liberal whip on this committee, and indicated that the ministries would be prepared to organize a briefing for all the members on the committee in regard to the amendments. I think he was going to consult with Mr Harnick or with you about that possibility as well. Rather than delay a presentation by the ministry officials till the 25th, it might be helpful to organize a briefing in the meantime so that we don't lose that valuable time in the interval. Second, I think there is some receptiveness to the proposal that there be some form of limited public hearings on the amendments. But with the agenda of the government being as tight as it is, either we would have to come to some agreement on this committee or the House leaders would have to come to some agreement as to how we can accommodate the public hearings with the clause-by-clause, which is scheduled to proceed on the 25th. The Chair: Just a reminder that, if we were going to hold a briefing that would be on record, it would have to be tomorrow, because next week the committee will not be meeting due to constituency week. What we would have to do is have an informal briefing, if anything; otherwise we'd have to have it on the 25th.
Mr Sterling: That presents a problem for me in timing. Again, I'm not trying to debate it too much, but we only received these amendments last week, so you have to expect us to have a little time to rearrange our schedules in order to try to get on with the next step in dealing with this legislation.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm interested in speaking to two or three issues that have been raised so far. Given the fact that we're dealing with three bills with something close to 200 amendments -- some of which are housekeeping and related one to the other; others bear significant changes in terms of expansions and enhancements of parts of the bills -- I think the issues can't be dealt with, either by the organizations who have appeared before us in terms of their analysis and response or by members on the committee, in a hasty fashion.
The House leaders indicated at their last meeting that they have heard from some of the groups and organizations who indeed want a period of public hearing to raise some of the issues they have identified already. That, as you know, has been my view all along: that these bills are so complicated that when the amendments came in there should be that response period.
As to briefings, I'm not sure that one day of briefings before the committee is going to be an adequate time to cover the amendments that are put forward in terms of their depth and complexity. It seems to me that they ought to be on the public record when the officials from the ministries appear and that there ought to be time for the members of the committee themselves to do this study and analysis so that they can respond with questions, if that's necessary, to the officials from the three ministries who are involved.
My understanding is that the House leaders have indicated that they want additional time to consider how long a phase of public hearings would be necessary and what numbers or types of associations or groups would be most helpful to the committee in its deliberations. They have really basically left the information on the table for decision at a later time. As a consequence, it seems to me that the committee is in the position of waiting for the final decision of the House leaders and should proceed with briefings from the ministry officials on the first occasion when the committee is next to sit, which would be the 25th, and possibly include briefings on the following day as well, and, if that isn't enough, perhaps on a third day.
As I've indicated, the amendments are substantial and substantive. They are complex, as was the original legislation, and we believe that because this series of laws will affect every single person in the province they should be right the first time. That's what our aim is to achieve.
Mr Winninger: I would propose, in response to Ms Sullivan's submissions, that we agree to two days of briefings on the amendments to the bills on the 25th and 26th and that we defer consideration of the hearings until after constituency week, once the House leaders have met to discuss this further.
The Chair: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr Winninger: I so move.
1550
The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that the 25th and the 26th be set aside for briefings from the ministry and that the decision on public hearings be deferred until after constituency week.
Is there any discussion?
Mrs Sullivan: My only concern would be that, were an issue to arise during those briefings that required additional time for response to members' questions, the committee would be inflexible in extending that briefing period, were that necessary.
Mr Winninger: I think we're showing good faith in wanting to have briefings on the amendments. I don't think we've ever been inflexible in regard to reasonable requests for additional time, but we have to remain mindful that we had intended to start the clause-by-clause on the 25th, and that shouldn't be unduly delayed.
Mr Sterling: That's true. I know Mr Winninger is not inflexible, because he knows that I can be inflexible.
The Chair: For the record, Mr Sterling. Further discussion?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): If I understand it properly, if it so happens that the five hours have been exhausted, you'll be flexible; you said you're quite flexible that it may go on for explanation of the amendments. Is this what I'm hearing?
Mr Winninger: I think my words speak for themselves. I think we should have our two days of briefings on the amendments, and hopefully the questions that arise will be fully answered.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Also dealing with that, as we're talking about briefings to the committee, I think it's important -- and I would like to form it as an amendment to the motion -- that all the amendments also be forwarded to those who made submissions to this committee so you're keeping things in sync. I put it as an amendment to the motion that if we're talking about briefings for the committee, the amendments also be forwarded to all those who have made submissions before the committee.
The Chair: I'll refer that to the clerk.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Mr Chair, I understand there's a reprinted bill that's going to be coming out, and isn't it the intention that the reprinted bills be sent to all the people who made submissions? Am I correct in that?
The Chair: I'll refer that to the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): The committee did request a reprinted bill. I spoke to legislative counsel this afternoon and was informed that the reprint for Bill 74 now exists. Because the ministry orders the reprint, all the copies were sent to the ministry. I just spoke to the legislative assistant to make arrangements to get copies of those for the members of the committee. If the committee wishes, I can send a copy of those out to everybody who appeared before the committee.
Mr Sterling: Could I make one other constructive suggestion? I think this is a good route to go. If it is possible, it would probably be helpful if we were able to hold briefing sessions in the Amethyst Room where the TV is. If you could confirm that fairly early, then we could say to these groups, "All you have to do is tune in and you can get the briefing to the bill from the various ministries as well." That may or may not be possible, but if you could confirm that, you could send that kind of notice out with the copies of the bill.
The Chair: I'll speak to the Chair of the standing committee on social development to see if we can work out some arrangement to switch rooms. Any further discussion?
Mrs Sullivan: I wonder if the clerk has further information about when we can expect the consolidated bills, the reprinted Bills 108, 109 and 110.
Clerk of the Committee: I was told today that it should be any day; definitely by the end of the week.
Mr Sterling: I have a question of the clerk. Our instructions were specific from the House in starting on the clause-by-clause by the 25th.
Clerk of the Committee: No, those weren't House instructions. That was the subcommittee report passed by this committee.
Mr Sterling: I see. So that motion would then override that consideration?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. I looked at the wording of the subcommittee report today, and as long as this committee is in agreement with a different date, that would be fine.
The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all those in favour of Mr Winninger's motion?
Mr Winninger: As amended by Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: As long as the people get it; that's the main thing.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Further business? Seeing no further business before the committee, we stand adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1555.