Legislative Assembly of Ontario

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

CONTENTS

Monday 23 November 1998

Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, Bill 68, Mr Harnick /

Loi de 1998 sur les services d'aide juridique, projet de loi 68, M. Harnick

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair / Président

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1601 in room 151.

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Consideration of Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.

The Chair (Mr Jerry J. Ouellette): I call this standing committee on administration of justice to order for clause-by-clause purposes on Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act.

We will proceed. For further reference for those individuals here in attendance in committee today, in the upper right-hand corner is the clerk's numbering of each of these, and for simplicity's sake we will refer to those numbers in the upper right-hand corner in future.

Are there any amendments to section 1 of the bill?

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting "equal" before "access" in the second line.

The Chair: Any discussion?

Ms Castrilli: It's very simple. It doesn't require a lot of discussion. I expect the members of the committee will immediately see the symbolic value of this. This is in fact a bill about ensuring that everyone in society has access to justice regardless of the size of their pocketbook. I think the way to demonstrate our commitment to that principle very clearly is to say that in this province there is equal access to justice through legal aid.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, shall the motion as put forward carry?

Ms Castrilli: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Bob Wood.

Ms Castrilli: Opposed to equality and justice. I can't believe that. This is a good start.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Seeing no further amendments to section 1, shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 1 carries.

Are there any amendments to section 2 of the bill?

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I move that the definition of "service provider" in section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "including a paralegal and a mediator" at the end.

The Chair: Discussion?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Fine by me. I'm sure the PA has an explanation for that.

Mr Martiniuk: Yes. If you recall, we heard testimony from various parties that there was an ambiguity in the act that could be construed as permitting paralegals to obtain certificates directly rather than, as in the past, lawyers obtaining certificates. This is the first of a series of amendments which will provide that paralegals will not obtain certificates for legal services. There will be provisions later for non-legal services in the case of mediators, for instance, and by removing and changing this definition it starts to clarify the act in this regard.

Ms Castrilli: Let me say that I applaud the government's intent on this. It's obviously very important to ensure that legal aid certificates only be given to people qualified to receive them. My concern is whether you actually will accomplish what you want by this. I'm really raising it as a question, because the definition now reads, "'service provider' means a person, other than a lawyer, who provides legal aid services...." Is that correct? That's how you read it? To me, that's a much broader definition than one that includes paralegals and mediators. I'm really just seeking clarification here. If the object is to narrow the definition, I don't know that you've accomplished it through this section, and I applaud the intent to narrow it.

Mr Martiniuk: I'll be making a motion, being item 33, which I believe will clarify the situation, if you'd like to take a look at that as background. In that motion, subsection (4) provides, "Legal services should only be provided by a lawyer or a person working under the direct supervision of a lawyer." That, in combination with what we're doing, will ensure that the original drafter's intent in this legislation is carried out, ie, that only lawyers will obtain certificates for legal services.

Ms Castrilli: Just to be consistent, because we want to achieve the same thing here, I wonder why you wouldn't have defined "paralegal" as someone who only works under the supervision of a lawyer, which is, I think, what we heard throughout. There are still sections in the act which deal with mediators, and we have not defined that. There's still a section in the act to deal with paralegals, and we don't define that. We have this very broad definition of "service provider" which is so broad as to render it meaningless.

I raise these issues because at the end of the day we want to make sure that certificates are issued only to qualified people -- lawyers -- and I'm confused in reading the amendment as to whether we really achieve that purpose.

Mr Martiniuk: The intent is to leave some degree of flexibility for paralegals to obtain a certificate for non-legal services. I can't really think of an example at this moment, but paralegals for instance in the public educational field. That is the intent and that will be defined. A non-legal service will be defined by way of regulation.

Mr Kormos: I find myself compelled, I suppose, to agree with it. It includes "mediator" in the deletion, along with "paralegal." That's what Ms Castrilli is speaking to.

But you'll notice that the New Democrats have an amendment tabled further on down the road here which would exclude "paralegal" from this section, and this simply excludes "paralegal" and "mediator." The Liberals have the same motion in motion 8. That having been said, I take no quarrel with you. It perhaps would have been clearer had the amendment proposed by either the Liberals or the New Democrats been chosen, because it specifically deletes "paralegal," as distinct from yours which deletes "paralegal" and "mediator."

I'd ask you to check your motion 33. I would suggest to you that maybe you should have said "legal aid services." Other people are shaking their heads, so I'm looking forward to the debate over that next motion.

I join with Ms Castrilli in expressing the concern that it wasn't just "paralegal" that's deleted here from the definition of "service provider." Paralegal and mediator -- well, let's see whether Mr Martiniuk has the support of his caucus first. They may not support him on this amendment, in which case our arguments are moot.

1610

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the question. All those in favour of the amendment, as presented? All those opposed? Carried.

Liberal motion number 3.

Ms Castrilli: Chair, I move that the definition of "criminal law" in section 2 of the bill be amended by inserting "correctional law and" after "includes" in the first line.

If I could just explain this, this is the only recommendation that was made to us by the Elizabeth Fry Society. They felt very strongly that the criminal law doesn't include correctional law, and there is a very real need for basic rights to be safeguarded in the correctional law area. I don't want to go over the arguments; I think they were very well stated during the hearings. It seems to me a very simple amendment that could be made. Given the fact that this particular piece of legislation doesn't guarantee that legal aid will be given to any one group, I think this is one of the items that ought to be included for consideration by the new board.

Mr Kormos: We're going to support this. It makes sense. It reflects what the government would say is its intent, and if the government really means it, then it should be prepared to include it in the bill.

Mr Martiniuk: We'll be voting against this motion on the basis that the board should have as much flexibility -- they can choose to decide that matter, not us. Don't forget, the whole intent of this act, just to put it in the framework, is to set up a corporation which has some degree of flexibility and is arm's length from the government and from the law society and the lawyers, to permit them to make decisions for the public good. We don't want to fetter them unduly right at the beginning.

Mr Kormos: "Fettering" is exactly the word. It's becoming pretty clear at the very beginning of this discussion by way of clause-by-clause that this government has every intention of fettering, cutting off at the knees, this corporation before it's even undergone any gestation period, for Pete's sake.

By not including this, that's precisely what it's doing. You know what's happening here: The government is setting up this corporation such that the corporation cannot use an expressed mandate, to wit, correctional law, and we'll see down the road if immigration law and refugee law, among others, suffer the same treatment by the government.

They're being neutered such that they can't argue that, this being part of their mandate, they then have a right, or the government has an obligation, to appropriate levels of funding. This government is setting up the corporation to fail. That's become clear at this early stage. We're only 12 minutes into clause-by-clause. This is not a very good beginning.

I came here today hoping to be persuaded that maybe I could support this bill after all. On the contrary, the parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General is doing his capable best at convincing me that this bill isn't worthy of support when he's taken this view from the get-go.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): If I understand this correctly, this amendment is asking for much more flexibility. The amendment here is saying that the definition of "criminal law" be out, and I thought that inserting "correctional law and" after "includes" in the first line would give that flexibility as a group. If the parliamentary assistant could influence me or convince me otherwise, that going this way is less restrictive than the other way -- is that what you're saying? I just want an understanding from you. You're saying that what you have will give you more flexibility. What we are asking for is giving you more flexibility. I'm kind of confused about that. Do you mind explaining that to me?

Mr Martiniuk: I believe the defeat of this particular amendment would still permit the corporation to choose to go into what is not correctional law so much as administrative tribunals, because most penalty actions while a person is incarcerated would come under administrative tribunals rather than to the courts, for the most part.

I suggest there's nothing in the way the present section is set up that would not permit the board to choose to get into that field. This legislation is permissive whereas the amendment is mandatory.

The Chair: Further discussion? Mr Kormos.

Ms Castrilli: I only have one thing to say. Sorry, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Please go ahead.

Ms Castrilli: The only thing I want to comment on is, if that's your intent, it's very easy to fix. Just say so. It seems to me it's a very simple matter to deal with.

Mr Kormos: Precisely. To the contrary, Mr Martiniuk talks about this legislation being permissive. It would be permissive if it included this definition. It would say "this includes," and the inference there, as Mr Martiniuk knows, is "includes but is not limited to." It doesn't have to be stated; it's not limited to but includes, as a way of illustrating it.

Mr Martiniuk makes the point when he says that this is in the realm of administrative law, which is another silent area in the legislation, because the legislation doesn't speak of administrative law, does it, Chair? It doesn't speak of administrative law, yet Mr Martiniuk wants to typify correctional law as law that is administrative law. Gosh, Ms Castrilli may be helpful in this regard, or indeed Mr Wood, whose handle on these things seems to be better than some of the other Tory backbenchers. But you're talking about all sorts of areas, for instance, of judicial review, when you deal with extraordinary remedies. Again, I'm sure Ms Castrilli would agree that's far beyond the arena of administrative law and it's very much specifically what's being contemplated -- I trust it's being contemplated -- when Ms Castrilli seeks the inclusion of "correctional law."

Mr Martiniuk is not correct when he talks about correctional law being in the area of administrative law. Even if he was, administrative law of course isn't referred to in the bill.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, we shall call the question.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Hudak, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 4, Mr Kormos, and discussion, please.

Mr Kormos: I move that the definition of "clinic law" in section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"clinic law" means the areas of law which particularly affect low-income individuals or disadvantaged communities, including,

"(a) administrative law, immigration law, refugee law and environmental law,

"(b) legal matters relating to housing and shelter, income maintenance, social assistance and other similar government programs, and

"(c) legal matters relating to human rights, health, employment and education."

This maintains the definition but notably for the inclusion of administrative law. Here's a chance for Mr Martiniuk to put his money where his mouth is. It's his opportunity. It includes administrative law, immigration law, refugee law and environmental law, all of which were addressed any number of times by presenters to the committee.

It would be imperative that if the government is going to treat these hearings with any regard or respect, it give effect to those presentations. This reflects the presentations that were made, if this government's listening, and here's a chance for the little Tory backbenchers on the committee to tell Mr Martiniuk to go pound salt when it comes to marching orders, to tell Mr Martiniuk to stuff it, that their integrity --

Mr Martiniuk: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: None of our backbenchers here are little, and I'd wish that for the record. That's what you said.

Mr Kormos: You're right. Some of them are formidable in girth. They were little when I first encountered them three years ago but they've all grown over the course of the last three years.

The Chair: Mr Wood appreciates that.

Ms Castrilli: Another point of order?

1620

Mr Kormos: None the less, here's the chance for these weighty Tory backbenchers, these heavyweights in caucus, to tell Mr Martiniuk to go stuff it, to go pound salt, that he's here to lead but not to merely give orders and that they are quite capable of forming their own opinions about these.

Those who didn't have the opportunity to be here, and I understand how that happens, of course read all the submissions. I'm sure they've read every single one of them. They've accessed Hansard on-line to make sure they understand. They know that submissions were made in support of the inclusion of administrative law, immigration law, refugee law and environmental law. Here's their chance to show that they believe in democracy, that they believe the committee has a process that's designed to respond to the input provided. Here's their chance to do that by supporting this amendment.

Ms Castrilli: I'm very pleased to support this amendment. It incorporates our thinking on this, and there are other amendments in here from our side that will bear this out as well.

Let me just say to members of the committee, because not everybody has been with us at every juncture -- and that's not because you haven't wanted to be there but because the composition has changed, depending on the city we were in, to accommodate members who where there -- for those of us who have been there the entire time, bear in mind that item (a) in this amendment was a consistent theme we heard everywhere we went. That is, there was nobody who said to us, "I really don't like the notion of administrative law, correctional law" -- which according to Mr Martiniuk's definition is included under administrative law -- "I really don't like the notion of immigration law, I really don't like the notion of refugee law, I really don't like the notion of environmental law being included in the act." In fact, what we heard was exactly the contrary. We had witness after witness who said, "These are important areas of the law which must be covered in any rethinking of legal aid."

What we've got here is a very important opportunity. What the government is creating is a brand new structure for legal aid. In a sense we're starting from scratch, but as we do that we can't forget that there are very important issues that cannot be ignored. These four are critical and there has been absolutely no evidence before us that we should ignore them. I appeal to the members of the committee to bear that in mind, to bear the very significant public input that we've had on these issues in mind and include them in the definition of "clinic law."

Mr Curling: The changes to the Legal Aid Act were applauded because the fact is that they gave an opportunity for many things to be included in it. Sometimes we really just talk the talk; well, here's a time when we do the talk and do the walk. I must applaud the NDP in bringing this forward because this is easily understood. This is what many people like the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the black law society and the Canadian Council for Refugees have said, very much so, that we need to know what's in it. Here, specifically, is an opportunity to amend this, including the things that are laid down here: administrative law, immigration law, refugee law and environmental law.

As you know, many, especially minorities and the poor, who have limited access to the opportunity to be defended need these things to be explained to them. Here's an opportunity for the government to say, "Yes, it is explained, it is appropriate, and it's easily understood that especially legal matters relating to human rights, health, employment and education are things that affect these individuals." To include this and put it in as part of the amendment is a progressive way of moving forward.

Whatever definition Mr Kormos gave the backbenchers, I would encourage the formidable caucus of the Conservative Party to support this. I think you'll be applauded and it will be fully understood that you mean what you say and you're talking the talk and walking the talk.

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

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Hudak, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion number 5 and an explanation.

Ms Castrilli: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following definition: "'immigration law' includes refugee law."

This really came through in a number of submissions that were made, that it would be easier in terms of the interpretation of the bill if you had a very clear definition section and it would make the act simpler. I'm just responding to that. I think it's a very good suggestion. Since we deal with immigration and refugees throughout the bill, this is really in the nature of housekeeping. It's simply redefining it so that "refugee" is included under "immigration."

Mr Curling: I totally agree with this motion, as you'd expect. Quite often there seems to be confusion. To me, "immigration" and "refugee" are the same, in the sense of dealing with the individuals. When I say they are the same, to be more specific and clarify the matter when we talk about immigration law, it must also be stated that we are speaking about refugee law. I would strongly support this and urge the members to support this so one is clear on what it really means.

Ms Castrilli: Let me just add that this is not a substantive change to the bill. It's just a slightly different handle. It's doesn't change anything that's in the bill at all, because we refer to immigration and refugee law throughout the bill. It's simply a question of convenience more than substance.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote. All those in favour of Liberal motion 5? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.

Liberal committee motion number 6, with explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: I'd like to seek guidance as to whether this is in order, because we've struck the definition of "service provider" which includes paralegals, and I don't know now, following the discussion we've had, whether paralegals are included at all in this bill. They're not included?

Mr Martiniuk: Paralegals are no longer in the bill.

Ms Castrilli: So I would think that this motion would not be in order and I withdraw it.

The Chair: Liberal committee motion number 6 is withdrawn.

Mr Kormos: Number 7 is withdrawn.

The Chair: Number 7 is withdrawn. And number 8?

Ms Castrilli: Number 8 is similarly withdrawn.

The Chair: Withdrawn.

At that, shall section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amended section 2 is carried.

Section 3: Seeing as there are no amendments, any debate on section 3?

Mr Kormos: What I find interesting about section 3 is the final subsection: "The corporation shall be independent from, but accountable to, the government of Ontario as set out in this act." I'll say it will be. As a matter of fact, it will be controlled by the government of Ontario because the corporation is entirely dependent upon the whimsical participation of the government when it comes to funding. The corporation is accountable to the government; the government isn't accountable to the corporation in any way, shape or form.

This is no accident in drafting. I think this very clearly sets out the unidirectional flow here. Do you hear what I'm saying, Chair?

The Chair: I certainly do.

1630

Mr Kormos: I bet you do. I'm sure you do. You understand exactly what I'm saying. I just wanted to highlight subsection 3(4). It's consistent with what the parliamentary assistant has been doing so far here, where he's trying to shackle, inhibit or limit the role of the corporation as much as possible. Again, subsection 3(4) spells it out in no uncertain terms. I quite frankly am going to vote against section 3 for that reason. Subsection 3(4) creates a very unidirectional sort of flow of responsibility and reinforces the complete absence of any obligation on the part of this or the next government that's elected to finance it.

Ms Castrilli: I regret that, the way the work of this committee has gone, there has been precious little time to really think through the amendments and get them in on time, because as you know we were in committee until Thursday night and we were required to have the amendments by Friday at 3. I commend legislative counsel: They did a superb job but some things got missed on our part and their part, and it wasn't intentional.

This is one area where I think the ball was missed. I take full responsibility; I'm not blaming legislative counsel for this. But you'll see from some of the other amendments that we will be introducing that we intend to make the corporation accountable to the Legislative Assembly rather than to the government of Ontario. We missed the ball on this one and the amendment is not there. But I do think that to provide some more public accountability and -- you'll see some other provisions in here that we think are necessary to give the corporation the kind of credibility it needs. It requires something broader than just accountability to the government of Ontario.

We heard this from everybody who came before us. Everyone wants a public process, wants inclusion. Legal aid and the delivery of justice are not like other services. We're talking about ensuring that people get a fair share in this province in a way that really doesn't affect other areas. I think that it's much more important to have a corporation such as this, in order for it to be independent, to report to the assembly rather than to the government. That picks up some of Mr Kormos's concern. We'll get into the issue of funding; we are very concerned on this side that some of the agenda may in fact be defunding of certain areas and cutting back on funding of the rest. We remain very concerned about that.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Hudak, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

Nays

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

The Chair: I declare section 3 of the bill carried.

Section 4: Discussion?

Mr Kormos: Let me draw peoples' attention to the single most important sentence, literally, in section 4 which is in paragraph (b). "The objects of the corporation are,...(b) to establish policies and priorities for the provision of legal services...." That in itself would be a relatively sound proposition. But talk about fettering: Look what the rest of that sentence is in paragraph (b): "to establish policies and priorities for the provision of legal aid services based on its financial resources."

Do you understand what the corporation is required to do? Instead of saying, "This is what a legal aid system should be," when we have x number of dollars we should be saying, "How do we achieve that goal as much as possible?" They're limited even in terms of what they determine the parameters to be by what the level of funding is. Do you see what this sentence does? This sentence inhibits or controls the extent to which the legal aid corporation can establish policies and priorities, because it can only establish policies and priorities based on its financial resources.

Talk about a kicker thrown in there, a kick to the groin. This lays it out on the ground: "based on its financial resources". Since it has no power to determine the adequacy of resources, this or any subsequent government will determine unilaterally, without appeal or recourse on the part of the corporation, because there is no minimum standard for what constitutes a legal aid system in the province of Ontario; because guarantees of funding only apply for three years, subject to the approval of some amendments that are in here from opposition parties; because the guarantee of funding only applies to legal aid clinics, not to overall funding -- and that's only for three years, and to refugee and immigration law for only two years. Very, very dangerous; David Artemiw from York University would find this thoroughly repugnant. Larry Savage from Brock University would find this totally objectionable.

I'm compelled to vote, on the record, against section 4. Let's understand clearly the stunt the government is pulling here today: "establish policies and priorities." Big deal. It's based on its financial resources. That puts the position of the corporation not as one of leadership. Do you get it, Chair? It's not leadership any more, it's not even really establishing policies and priorities, because it's based on what the government says it will and won't do because of the government's unilateral power to determine the level of funding. It's a joke.

Ms Castrilli: I agree with the premise of Mr Kormos's position but not with his conclusions. I want to be clear what I mean by this section 4.

Mr Kormos: Mr Curling was impressed.

Mr Curling: I'm continually impressed.

Ms Castrilli: We have free votes on this side so Mr Curling can vote as he wishes.

Let me explain. I'm in favour of the notion of an independent corporation, of a separate corporation. The reason that I voted against the last section is because of the reporting mechanisms. I'm certainly not against the notion of the corporation.

If we were to have an entity that is a corporation, it must act responsibly and it must act in accordance with financial resources that it has. This is where I take a slightly different position from my colleague in the NDP. Corporations that go beyond their financial means go bankrupt, and that's not what we want for legal aid. I think your concerns are well-taken but I'm not sure this is the place to express them. I think the place to express them is when it comes to the issue of funding: how it's funded and what is funded. Those are critical issues to be answered and I think you made some very legitimate points with respect to that. But a corporation must act within certain confines and I don't have any objections to one of those confines being its financial resources. However, the adequacy of those resources we will certainly want to discuss later on.

Mr Curling: I was going to make a comment about that because I think that Mr Kormos made a very good point. Of course my colleague also states one, that no corporation can spend beyond its resources. But we know that the legal aid system is -- I don't want to say otherwise -- very much a part of the government and its ability to raise its funds. But if those financial resources are restricted, I'd have to be told how well it could be financed, because as soon as it's restricted based on its financial resources, if its financial resources are limited, the services it will give will be limited.

I continue to be concerned that those it's giving services to are those who are poor and those who won't have the adequate kind of access to good legal defence, so to speak. I need to be convinced that the government is prepared that its financial resources will not be restricted in any way, to make sure that people do have access to good legal support. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can impress upon me that this government will give the latitude that financial resources coming to the corporation will be very wide, to make sure that all are protected. Could the parliamentary assistant make a comment on that?

1640

Mr Martiniuk: A memorandum of agreement will be signed between the corporation and this government guaranteeing funds for the next three years on the same level as it has been funded up to this date.

I think it's very important that we must read the bill as not particularly this government; Mr Kormos wants to interpret this section as this government and what we may think and our philosophies. We have to think of all governments and this bill has to be read applying to all governments. For instance, Mr Kormos, I'm not as pessimistic as you. I believe that the NDP will again come to power in this province; not during my lifetime, but I believe that's possible. Therefore, your complaint is about this government. I can understand our philosophical differences and I appreciate them. However, there is nothing wrong with the wording of that particular section. All it says is that the corporation should be responsible. Surely you would have to agree with that. I have to agree with Ms Castrilli in that respect.

Mr Kormos: I want to tell the parliamentary assistant that he is quite agile for a man of 97 years, well beyond the actuarial life expectancy for a person who has had the lifestyle he's had.

I similarly understand that 6 o'clock, which is when the committee shuts down, puts some pressure on the Conservative members who want to get out to west Toronto where the duke-out is taking place between Mr Ford and Mr Stockwell. They are competing for scarce resources out there. Some are shaking their heads; I suppose those are the smarter ones. If they keep me out of it, I ain't going to go near that nomination meeting tonight for a million bucks.

I regret that I won't be able to be there, because I have the greatest affection for Mr Ford and Mr Stockwell. Quite frankly, Mr Ford in private conversation has displayed himself to be far more left-wing than any members of his caucus. In fact, Mr Ford, in conversations that I recall, has tended to agree with me on a whole number of socialist principles that are really quite surprising. I suspect that Mr Ford could be something of a fifth columnist in the Tory caucus. Really, he's a progressive, he's pro-union, he's pro-public ownership, he's pro-distribution of wealth, but he's had to keep it under his hat so as not to offend that cabal of right-wingers in the Conservative caucus.

I encourage fair-minded, true Progressive Conservatives to cast their support for Doug Ford. I know that I, as a democratic socialist, as a member of the New Democratic Party, if I had the chance to be out there tonight, I'd be wearing a Ford button. I'd be doing everything I could to get Mr Ford nominated as the next candidate.

I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary assistant. Look, I appreciate I've gone beyond the scope here. I've abused my role here by basically endorsing Mr Ford and expressing my personal friendship and admiration for him in that we share so many common views. I hope you will understand, Chair. I appreciate the parliamentary assistant's response to my comments. I maintain my disagreement with him.

I hope Mr Ford has benefited from my support and gesture, my indication of support for him.

The Chair: Yes, very much so.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am compelled to make a comment as a businessman on this particular section. I know it is very difficult for Mr Kormos and some previous governments to know in any way what the words "responsible financial management" and "financial responsibility" mean. I believe that legal aid has run rampant in its inability to manage and I truly believe this suggests the direction that our government is going in and trying to instill in acts that there is financial responsibility for all folks, to make sure that those who truly need the service are going to get it.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote on section 4.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Hudak, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

Nays

Kormos.

The Chair: I declare section 4 carried.

On section 5: Committee motion number 9, with explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: This is one of a series of motions intended, as I was saying before, to broaden the public accountability of the board.

I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Composition

"(2) The board of directors of the corporation shall be composed of 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the address of the assembly after consultation with the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice."

Mr Kormos: I understand Ms Castrilli's efforts to improve the serious shortcomings, but with all due respect I don't understand "after consultation with the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice." I hope she'll elaborate on that.

Ms Castrilli: I'd be glad to. Again, I apologize: This is part of the problem of trying to do a lot of work in a very compressed period of time. In my mind it fails as a stand-alone section. You have to read it with Liberal motion 12. I don't know why some of these motions were not put together, but they weren't. The whole notion is to have a public appointments process prior to the matter going to the standing committee on administration of justice. The selection process then climaxes at the justice committee and appointments are made. There are a number of sections like that, which are intended to be read together. Unfortunately they're disjointed in their presentation.

Mr Kormos: I'm going to support this motion, especially in view of the fact that it's consistent with our motion number 10, which speaks of public hearings but doesn't specify which committee hears them. If I were speaking to that motion now, I'd indicate that we anticipate it would be the committee that usually reviews public appointments. But I'd be quite pleased to have it restricted to the justice committee, which would make it tie in with the Liberal motion. So I'm going to support the motion, and I'm calling for a recorded vote.

You heard the concern expressed that this retains power of appointment with the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Fair enough. It speaks only of consultation, which means public hearings. I don't know what the government could possibly find offensive about that. Quite frankly, over the course of three years-plus now, I've spent a fair amount of time at -- what's the name of the committee that reviews appointments to agencies, boards and commissions? I call it the ABC committee.

Mr Martiniuk: ABC.

Mr Kormos: That's what Mr Martiniuk calls it too, but we're both wrong. That's not the title of it. It's called something else.

The Chair: The standing committee on government agencies.

Mr Kormos: Thank goodness the Chair's here. Mr Ouellette saved the day once again. Mr Ouellette is a very bright young man who serves this committee well, and we're grateful to have him here.

I spent a lot of time on that committee, Chair, and you'll recall that there were more than a few occasions when the government withdrew its own nominees after they were subjected to some modest questioning by the committee, because those were real dogs. Even the government became convinced of it.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: They were. They barked all the way down the hall as they were leashed into the government agencies committee.

I don't know what the government could have against public review of intended nominees. I have no idea what could be in the government's mind in that regard.

Mr Curling: My concern is about appointments. Let's come right up front. The Attorney General is an elected member, appointed by the Premier to sit in the cabinet. This is not like the Attorney General, who is picked and sits there quite independently, but we kind of want to believe that that is very independent of everything else. Remember, it was this party that even had an Attorney General and Solicitor General in one. It is rather confusing to me that you could have one and the same person being Attorney General and Solicitor General.

I very strongly support this motion, because it tends to kind of take it away a bit and makes it more open, that the appointment of the board would be done in this manner. I'm rather concerned about the way it's put in the legislation. I hope the committee can recognize that; that is, move away from this biased way of five persons selected by the Attorney General from a list of persons recommended by the law society -- well, big deal -- five persons recommended by the Attorney General again. So you have 10 people who are going to be appointed by the Attorney General anyhow.

This way is a bit more open. You talk about open government and what have you. If we go in this direction, I think it's more open, and I ask you to support that. I'm in full agreement with this.

Mr Martiniuk: The government cannot support this resolution.

Mr Kormos: I just want to repeat what the PA said: The government cannot support the resolution. That's just in case any of the Tory members of the committee didn't hear him the first time. The PA is telling you to vote against it. I just want to make that very clear. I'm just trying to be helpful, Chair.

1650

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. You're very helpful.

Further discussion in regard to Liberal motion number 9?

Seeing none, a recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Hudak, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion number 10, an NDP motion.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Composition

"(2) The board of directors of the corporation shall be composed of 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council after public hearings are held on the matter.

"Public hearings

"(2.1) The Attorney General, the law society and any other person or group who represents the persons and communities that use legal aid services may make presentations at the public hearings on the appointments.

"Chair

"(2.2) The members of the board shall appoint one of their number to be the chair."

This reflects what was put to the committee by a number of presenters. There was concern about the prescribed makeup of the board and the stranglehold the government had on appointments. This provides that appointments to the committee shall be done in a -- it leaves the power with the Lieutenant Governor in Council, no two ways about it, and it doesn't restrict that power because it doesn't say that the nominees be approved. It merely provides for some transparency, consistent with the sort of proposal Ms Castrilli was making in her motion number 9.

Also, you heard quite clearly the proposition that the chair be chosen by the members of the board for the corporation. That is consistent with practice in any number of arena -- is that the plural of "arena"? "Arenas" or "arena"?

Ms Castrilli: "Arena."

Mr Kormos: OK, thank you. I did it right the first time.

It's consistent with the practice in any number of arena that the board select its chair. I think it's a very healthy practice, and if the government is serious about making this an arm's-length body, it adds to the arm's-length nature of the relationship.

I'll be calling for a recorded vote, of course.

Ms Castrilli: I'm happy to support this amendment. It certainly reflects our views on this matter. It's consistent with what we have put in our motion number 12, but it goes one step further in that the members of the board can appoint from among their number, which was a recommendation we heard here.

I can't imagine what the difficulty would be with public hearings and a public appointment process. It's obviously what everyone who came before us felt was necessary. Part of the concern we've heard over and over again is that the way legal aid is actually administered, and how certificates are handed out, is not transparent. We've heard from many people who had felt quite excluded, not all of them individuals but professional groups who feel the process ought to be much more transparent and public.

I think this is a very good motion. I think it's precisely the direction we should be following. I cannot understand for the life of me why there would be any objection to making this corporation as strong as we can make it, and I think a public appointment process would do just that.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a recorded vote on motion number 10.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Motion number 11.

Ms Castrilli: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Non-voting member

"(2.1) One member of each advisory committee established under section 7, selected by the members of the advisory committee, shall be a non-voting member of the board."

The rationale here is very simple: The act creates a number of advisory committees, and it's been pointed out to us that it would be very useful to have the expertise of those advisory committees directly on the board as they make their decisions. But I think it would be presumptuous to give them a vote, and I think the corporation might be too unwieldy if everyone were to have a vote. But certainly the expertise of each committee could easily be available to the board members as they decide on important issues that govern the corporation. They would have a ready bank of experts to assist them in making the choices they will have to make if the corporation is to work successfully.

I trust there really isn't an issue with respect to this section. It doesn't change the composition of the board, and it doesn't change the substance of decision-making. It enhances the quality of the decision-making by having experts at the table to assist.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Martiniuk: The government cannot support this amendment. We wish to get away from the resource disputes that have taken place in the law society, one by the criminal bar over the marital bar. It could create a great deal of tension. It would enlarge the board. Even though the person may not vote, they obviously have to have their say.

We already have advisory groups who no doubt will be presenting briefs and written requests to the board as to directions. To enlarge the board would make it unwieldy and could introduce a tension which is uncalled for in these circumstances. So we cannot support this resolution.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Seeing none, I shall call the vote on motion number 11. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion number 12.

Ms Castrilli: Chair, given that we disposed of number 10 of the NDP, number 12 may not be in order. It's withdrawn.

The Chair: It's withdrawn.

Committee motion number 13.

Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 5(4) of the bill, exclusive of the paragraphs, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Criteria for appointment

"(4) In recommending persons to be appointed to the board, the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall ensure that the board as a whole has knowledge, skills and experience in the areas that he or she considers appropriate, including the following areas."

And you'll see that those areas are set out in the act.

The rationale for this is self-evident. We want to make sure that we have individuals appointed to the board who have a broad range of expertise. Particularly since it appears that the public appointment process is not going to be a viable way of determining the diversity required for this board, I think it's even more critical to have this amendment inserted in the bill.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: I agree with the intent of the motion and think I'm going to support it, but with some concerns. Ms Castrilli refers to the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice. As it is today, that's you, and I frankly have confidence in you. But what if you were to fall into disfavour with the Premier's office and this $11,000 or $12,000-a-year perk -- it is up around that range, isn't it, Chair?

The Chair: I think it's less than that.

Mr Kormos: Then 10.5 or 11 grand a year for chairing a committee here at Queen's Park. What if you were to fall into disfavour with the Premier? What if you were to receive information about the conduct of suburban males during the day of the Santa Claus Parade in downtown Toronto and be bold enough to tell the world? Or what if your own experiences led you to reach certain conclusions that compelled you to go to the press and basically reveal the sordid activities of yourself and colleagues as you witnessed them during the day of the Santa Claus Parade, such that you earned the opprobrium of the Premier? Then you wouldn't be our Chair any more. You'd be banished from those perk jobs like Chair, Vice-Chair, parliamentary assistant and what have you. Like some of us, you'd become one of the lowest-paid members of the Legislative Assembly, earning a mere $78,006 a year rather than the approximately $90,000 a year that you earn. Does your spouse know that you make that much money, Chair?

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): She does now.

1700

Mr Kormos: Your spouse and kids have a right to know exactly how much money you make. You're taking in darned close to 90 Gs a year, and you're in the bracket where that 30% tax break starts to become considerable. That's why fair-minded people would advocate a repeal of the income tax cut for those earning in excess of $80,000, those in the top 6% of income earners.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: If Mr Martiniuk wants to speak to it, as soon as I'm finished --

Mr Martiniuk: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It has been pointed out to me that this may be out of order in that it refers to the Chair of the standing committee. I realize we've wasted time and I apologize for my tardiness, Mr Kormos. But since we defeated 9 and the Chair is not involved in the process, then one would think this should be out of order. We can discuss it if you want.

Ms Castrilli: Mr Chair, I had my hand up to say just that, but I didn't want to stop Mr Kormos in full flight.

Mr Martiniuk: And I didn't mean to be rude, Mr Kormos.

The Chair: And I wanted to earn my extra money to hear him.

Mr Kormos: Barely.

Ms Castrilli: Because we have dealt with the public appointment process and the role of the justice committee, this may be out of order and I'll withdraw it.

Mr Kormos: On the same point, Chair, I'm sure Mr Wood could advise us about the principle of estoppel. Seeing that this came on to the floor and Mr Martiniuk's point was not made, nor did the Chair rule it out of order, is the Chair now estopped from finding it --

Mr Bob Wood (London South): No, he's not estopped.

Mr Kormos: Hold on. I just put it to you, Mr Wood. Be more creative --

The Chair: Please, through the Chair.

Mr Kormos: You can manoeuvre your way around this. Mr Wood may be of some help. I don't know whether the Chair is estopped --

The Chair: The motion is withdrawn.

Mr Kormos: Well, Chair, that kills any further --

The Chair: We shall move to committee motion 14. Mr Kormos, with explanation, please.

Mr Martiniuk: Could I say a few words, Chair, just for a moment, just to clarify it for members of the opposition?

Ms Castrilli: Are you clarifying motion number 14?

Mr Martiniuk: No, another matter. I ask your permission.

Ms Castrilli: Absolutely. Go ahead.

Mr Martiniuk: I just want you to be aware, because we were dealing with the hearing process in determining the 11 members, that it would be covered by the standing orders on the standing committee on government agencies, which is empowered to review and report to the House. So these directors would be under standing order 105(g).

Ms Castrilli: I'd just like to respond briefly. We're well aware of that. The intent was to change the process, to make it a different public process, accountable to the Legislature in a different way through the standing committee on administration of justice. But I take your point and thank you for that.

Mr Martiniuk: I wasn't aware of that. I just wanted to clarify that point.

Mr Kormos: The PA's point is well made, and I'll address it in debate on my motion.

I move that subsection 5(4) of the bill, exclusive of the paragraphs, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Criteria for appointment

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall ensure that the board as a whole has knowledge, skills and experience in the areas that were determined, in the course of the public hearings, to be appropriate, and in the following areas."

I hear what the PA says, that it's job of the standing committee on government agencies to deal with these things. However, I tell the parliamentary assistant that my experience with that committee is that it is so preoccupied with the Tory nominees, who can barely read or write and who are the crassest of political appointments, who are the real hacks, that it doesn't have time to delve into the finer areas --

Mr Stewart: On a point of order, Mr Chair: That is an absolutely disgusting comment and reflects on all the people, from all political persuasions, who have been appointed to many committees. I suggest that he withdraw his statement.

The Chair: I request that you withdraw, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: No, thank you.

The Chair: So that members are aware, I have the ability to ask for a withdrawal but there is no obligation to follow through.

Mr Kormos: I was there, watching, listening.

The Chair: So you were.

Mr Kormos: Who was the fellow appointed to the Niagara Escarpment Commission? Do you remember that one?

Mr Rollins: He can read and write.

Mr Kormos: Fortunately, yes. That was the intimate of the member for Owen Sound, my good friend Mr Murdoch.

The Chair: Mr Kormos, just to inform you that committee motion 10 did not pass. Committee motion 14 is thereby out of order.

Mr Kormos: Hold on, Chair. You see, motion 10 is quite distinguishable. Ten was in effect an omnibus bill. You're familiar with those. Motion 10 covered a range of things, because it dealt with three different areas: composition, public hearings and Chair. If I had done this one before I did 10, I would be in a different position because --

Interjection: It hasn't been moved yet.

Mr Kormos: Quite right. Be cautious, Chair. It's a good thing you have the clerk with you to advise you on these things or else you'd find yourself in --

The Chair: I just think you brought that forward, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: No. Look, Ms Grannum --

The Chair: Being cautious is the part that I should focus on.

Mr Kormos: Ms Grannum is brilliant and, as I say, we're all blessed to have her wise counsel at this hearing. It's a darn good thing too.

It's also a darn good thing we've got Laura Hopkins here from legislative counsel. I want to thank her for taking the submissions from both the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus and trying to make them distinguishable, although I suspect they use different counsel for different caucuses when they're drafting legislation. That may not always be the case, which means that legislative counsel have to get the similar request and try to make one look a little different from the other by just slipping a word here or adding a word there. It's brilliant on their part.

I encourage support for this amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none --

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote for committee motion 14.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 15. Ms Castrilli with the explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: I'd like to seek some guidance with respect to this motion because I see that there's a problem with it, but the intent of the motion is still very good and I'd like to find some way to still introduce it. What the motion says is that the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice has a role to play in determining both the geographic and the demographic diversity of the board. We've now determined that the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice will have no such role, but I'd hate to lose the latter part of the amendment, which deals with the importance of having demographic diversity.

Maybe what I will do -- actually, as I read, I'm looking at motion number 16 that the NDP brought forward. I will withdraw this one in favour of the NDP motion on 16 because I think they're essentially the same except for the change of the officer.

The Chair: Committee motion 15 is withdrawn.

Motion 16.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 5(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall ensure that the persons appointed to the board under subsection (2) reflect the geographic and demographic diversity of the province."

This is identical to Ms Castrilli's motion but for the fact that it puts the responsibility on the Lieutenant Governor in Council as compared to the Chair. I quite frankly think she was a little hasty to withdraw her motion because, quite frankly, it could have stood on its own. Once we pass Bill 25, then legislative counsel could have rewritten basically all the rest of section 5 to give effect to 5(5) that Ms Castrilli has introduced here. We'll be talking about that further as we debate Bill 25.

We were supposed to have debated it tonight. Unfortunately, Bill 22 is coming up so we won't get around to Bill 25 and the undemocratic schedule C, that new act that permits legislative counsel to rewrite legislation -- the bureaucracy. It's scary stuff. I can see the frown on your face and the look of trepidation in your eyes. It is frightening, and it doesn't bode well for the future of this province.

In any event, we're dealing with my amendment. Again, it expands the initial requirement beyond geographic diversity. It talks about the demographic diversity. That entails a large number of healthy considerations and it puts that responsibility on the Lieutenant Governor in Council as compared to the Attorney General who, I've learned, you couldn't trust if your life depended on him. Look, after all, at what he did to the family support plan in Downsview.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Curling: I think it's an excellent amendment because the fact is that many of the presentations you've heard, especially with the African Canadian legal clinic and the others, spoke very much about the changing demographics of Ontario. As a matter of fact, your bill mentioned that. Here's an opportunity to make those changes to make sure this happens in the right place and make sure it doesn't slip through the cracks in any way.

1710

We know how important it is, especially this legislation and who have been excluded from getting good legal representation -- not only getting it but also understanding it. No better persons can do that than those who comprise the individuals who are being served. I'm talking about the diversity in our community, which is changing so rapidly. Many times, with all respect to the wonderful, great judges and lawyers, I find a sense of naïveté in even some of the presentations about what's going on in the courts. I think a committee of this nature, having that demographic diversity, will be sensitized and have a better understanding of what goes on.

I am completely convinced that the backbenchers in the Conservative Party will warmly and quickly support that to make sure this doesn't slip through the cracks of some group other than what is asked here. Here is a great opportunity to do that. It then recognizes the changing demographics in our society.

For instance, in my community of Scarborough North a third of the people are Chinese; 41,000 people are of Chinese extraction. I know that if we have any kind of committee it would be ludicrous, it would be completely out of whack and undemocratic if we did not have an individual of the Chinese community representing us on our committee. We would have excluded a third of our population representation there.

But again, we've got to make sure this is done in the proper way, and I fully support this amendment. I know that the members here see it that way and will be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote on committee motion 16.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 17.

Ms Castrilli: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Chair

"(7.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint as chair of the board that person of the 11 persons appointed under subsection (2) who is recommended for the position by the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice."

Here again we have a problem that I'd like to raise because the intent is a good one, but we're dealing with the problem that we've disqualified the Chair of the administration of justice committee, or perhaps we haven't. I'd like some discussion on that.

The intent is to make the Chair appointed through some other means than what we've had so far. Under motion 10 that the NDP introduced, we were looking at a method of having the Chair at least being chosen from among the members themselves. What we're trying to avoid is an appointment process that is totally controlled by the Attorney General. It's not what people want, it's not what we heard and I don't think it does the system any credit.

This motion would allow at least some other body, some entity other than the Attorney General, to have a say on who should be the chair of the corporation and hopefully have more accountability and impartiality.

Mr Kormos: I think the amendment stands by itself because internally it says exactly what it says. There's an implication that, as a matter of fact, the Chair is nothing without his or her committee. Think about that. You're nothing without your committee.

Mr Martiniuk: I thought he was going to say something nice for a moment.

Mr Kormos: Without your committee you're just another MPP. You're only a Chair by virtue of the committee, so by implication it means that the Chair runs the selection through some sort of process. I think it's a valid amendment and I think it begins to depoliticize this appointments process and warrants the enthusiastic support of all fair-minded members of this committee.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none --

Mr Kormos: Hold it, Chair. I think the parliamentary assistant should have an opportunity to instruct his members in how to vote.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. He certainly has.

Mr Kormos: You saw that wink.

Mr Curling: You didn't see the signal.

The Chair: That was the opportunity I was referring to.

Mr Kormos: I thought that gesture implied that you were still number one, Chair.

The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I shall call the vote on committee motion 17.

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 18. Ms Castrilli with explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: I'm going to withdraw the motion because, as I read it, it's incomplete and I think there's a fuller text in the NDP motion number 19.

The Chair: Thank you. Committee motion 19.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsection 5(10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Vacancies

"(10) If a position on the board becomes vacant, a replacement shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, having regard to the concerns expressed in the public hearings held to appoint the person whose position is being filled and, until the replacement appointment is made, the board may continue to act."

It's self-explanatory; it speaks for itself. Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of committee motion 19?

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Shall section 5 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 5 carried.

Section 6, committee motion 20.

Ms Castrilli: I move that paragraphs 1 and 2 of subsection 6(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"1. Six members shall hold office for three years.

"2. Four members shall hold office for two years."

The reasoning behind this is to provide some kind of continuity for the corporation so that as some people leave, others come on stream, but there's always a body of people that will remain to give some guidance. It also provides for more chance of renewal and therefore more input from the public, assuming that the corporation will in fact respect and reflect the demographic as well as the geographic makeup of this province.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote on committee motion 20. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare committee motion 20 defeated.

Number 21 is identical.

Mr Kormos: Give us a chance to withdraw it. I saw that it was identical.

The Chair: We shall certainly give you that opportunity.

Mr Kormos: Thank you. Did he withdraw it? I withdrew it twice already.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. At that, shall section 6 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 6 of the bill carried.

Section 7, committee motion 22.

Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 7(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "aboriginal law, immigration law, mental health law" after "family law" in the second line.

I think the intent is clear. We had much representation here about these areas of the law which are nowhere mentioned, which are excluded but yet very important areas of the law which require the attention of any corporation that deals with justice and legal aid.

1720

Mr Kormos: I suppose I anticipate what the government response might be, and that is, "Well, take a look at subsection (2), which says that the board has unlimited capacity to establish advisory committees." If that were the case, then the government shouldn't have included subsection (1). If the government would rely on subsection (2), then why bother having subsection (1)? Why would the government make it mandatory that the board establish advisory committees in criminal, family and clinic law and then leave everything else discretionary?

Clearly, when this piece of legislation was put together, some areas of law were regarded as fundamental. I don't think anyone takes quarrel with the fact that criminal law, family law and clinic law are fundamental. But after hearing what we did about aboriginal law, and the role of the one clinic that we heard from here in Toronto, surely that is as fundamental as the three already cited -- similarly said with immigration law and mental health law. I think these are too important to be left up merely to the discretion of the board. If anything, they should be included to illustrate to the board that the bill expects a broad range of areas to be considered by way of advisory committees on the part of the board, including but not limited to those three already added by this amendment and others that the board may deem advisable.

Mr Curling: I hope that one day, even before I leave this place, the common individual, the common man and the common woman outside, reading a law is able to understand it fully and know that there's no exclusion. I fully agree with this motion here, and also with the support of Mr Kormos, wherein someone who would flip the book open would realize that not only are criminal law, family law and clinic law included, but also that they can see in there aboriginal law, immigration law and mental health law. The fact is that when they look there, they can know that their rights are being protected right there in black and white and they don't have to read into it to say, "Well, it says the advisory board may do or shall be determined by or do other things to include," but it is all written there. Here's a great opportunity to make people feel that laws are made by them and for them.

In this respect I know that the inclusiveness of the caucus of the Conservatives would say: "You know, you're right. I think here we're going to include these individuals, so that when those outside are looking for some protection, they'll know what laws cover them, that laws are made for them." They themselves have had their input. All the presentations were made, people have talked about them and there are certain things they wanted to be confident would be included and that they are there. I'm confident that the members of the Conservative side will fully support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. Further discussion? Seeing none --

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 23, with explanation, Ms Castrilli.

Ms Castrilli: I move that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same

"(1.1) The board shall establish an advisory committee in French language services."

The concern here is very real. The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario told us that as it stands, clinics provide not even the minimum required under the French Language Services Act. There are designated areas of the province -- that is designated to have services in French -- that are not providing legal aid in any of their clinics.

Part of the solution could be to have an advisory committee in the French language which would be of assistance to the board in pointing out the deficiencies that are occurring all over the province. We've certainly had instances in this Legislature where French-language rights have been eroded or were about to be eroded except for the vigorous intervention of the French-language community and of course members of this Legislature.

This is an opportunity to do something right, to say that legal aid is not going to fall behind, that we are going to provide the services required to French-speaking Ontarians as we are required to do under our legislation. I think it's self-evident. I can't imagine why we wouldn't do it. Basically, it's not even guaranteeing a minimum, but it is telling them that we want to make sure we observe our obligations under existing legislation.

Mr Kormos: I think this is a very important amendment. It ties in with an exemption for the interim stage of legal aid that you find in the latter part of the bill -- appreciating that the section purports to repeal itself at an indicated date -- but the exemption of the bill from Bill 8, from the French Language Services Act.

You heard about some of the difficulties francophones have accessing French-speaking counsel. That alone was obviously a consideration. And you know that we have many lawyers who -- and no disrespect to them -- notwithstanding that they're francophone Canadians in terms of their mother tongue, their francophone skills don't embrace, for instance, the area of technical and legal terms. The suggestion here is that an advisory committee could address any number of areas in the way of improving that.

When we think about the legal education aspect and in terms of quality assurance, one could consider any number of areas from the point of view of, for instance, undertaking to deal with language skills of francophone lawyers who may have French as their mother tongue, their birth tongue, whatever the popular word is, but who may not have been educated in the French language in law school, and so they don't have those skills.

As you well know, I come from Welland-Thorold. You've heard about the prospect, the potential, the likelihood of merger of legal aid regions, and I'll give you a for-instance. We have section 22, which talks about the appointment of directors. Do you remember that, Chair? We talked about the appointment of directors. We talked about an area director who could not render legal services -- not legal aid services but legal services. Obviously it would be virtually impossible for a part-time director who was a lawyer, because they have to be lawyers, not to participate. As a part-time person you're not going to make enough to carry you. It's not insignificant, but a part-time director tends to make a modest amount, insofar as I'm aware. So the suggestion is that there's going to be a drive to get rid of part-time directors. That's the suggestion, because it's accompanied by the power of the corporation to merge areas. And the only way you could justify a full-time director in many regions now, I suggest to you, is if they were merged.

So you have a scenario like in Niagara: Niagara North, old Lincoln county; Niagara South, old Welland county. Welland is the county seat for Niagara South, and St Catharines obviously for Lincoln, Niagara North. The legal aid office in Welland is in a Bill 8 community. Bill 8 communities, and help me with this if I need assistance, are municipalities, not regional municipalities. Even though Welland and Port Colborne, within the Niagara region, are Bill 8 communities, the regional municipality of Niagara is not a Bill 8 region.

Court services are based in Welland because it's the county seat, and we have the application of Bill 8 to provincial services. Therefore we have bilingual services, not just in the courtroom but in the court office, among other things. In view of the fact that the Bill 8 application is to old-style municipalities, not to regional municipalities, what happens? First of all, it would be a disaster to centralize the legal aid office in Niagara region, because although it's in a densely populated area, unlike let's say the north, we don't have intercity transportation. You don't have buses travelling from Welland to Niagara Falls to Fort Erie etc. Because of government downloading, we've even lost a lot of our internal municipal transit. So transportation is a serious problem. You can't even call from one part of the region to the other without a long-distance phone call. That's how sad the state of affairs is. To call Fort Erie from Welland, you have to pay long-distance. To call Niagara Falls from Welland, you have to pay long-distance. From Welland to St Catharines you don't have to. In any event, that would be a problem.

1730

The other problem would be that if the legal aid office happens to be situated, let's say, in St Catharines, is it then exempt from Bill 8, because the city of St Catharines clearly is not a Bill 8 community? I don't know what the language is, but the lower-tier municipalities, if I can use that to describe the old-fashioned cities, seem to be the ones that are impacted by Bill 8, not the regional municipalities. I repeat: Just because Port Colborne and Welland, both Bill 8 communities, are components of the regional municipality of Niagara, that doesn't make the regional municipality of Niagara a Bill 8 municipality. Bill 8 appears to have no application to regional municipalities.

This is just an aside. This is a cheap shot at the government backbenchers, but I should mention --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): It's a cheap shot.

Mr Kormos: It's a cheap shot at the government back-benchers. I should mention when the last government felt compelled to give effect to Bill 8 by introducing bilingual signs on provincial highways -- remember that? -- and they were so modest in number. In Welland it amounted to maybe three signs. But all heck broke loose from what was then the third party. Do you remember that, Chair? You were watching it on television. Boy oh boy, did they ever try to push the button about anti-francophone sentiment. All the money spent on those highway signs, but have you seen those highway signs now, the ones that say, "Ontario, blah, blah, blah, Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario"? Those modest, few French-language signs cost nothing compared to the millions of dollars this government has spent hyping their government. It's just incredible. This government had no hesitation putting those up in both languages. As a matter of fact, they didn't even put them on the same sign. They have two different things, one in English and a subsequent one in French. They didn't even make bilingual signs.

Mr Wettlaufer: Are the French not entitled to the same respect as the English drivers?

Mr Kormos: Talk about an outrageous waste of money. They could have put both languages on the same sign. This government doesn't care about the stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. They spend it willy-nilly on advertising and internal propaganda.

As I say, that was just an aside and an observation because, boy, did these guys squeal. They squealed like pigs. They squealed like the proverbial stuck pig, and really inflamed the anti-francophone sentiment. I don't have to tell you how dangerous that was in the context of, let's say, constitutional debate. Do you remember the flag incident in Cornwall? That was the sort of stuff that was being inflamed by the anti-Bill 8 sentiment of this government when they were members of the third party. I would hate to see them revert to type and merely exploit anti-francophone sentiment by rejecting this amendment. I suggest that there could be some atonement here for --

Ms Castrilli: That's a good word.

Mr Kormos: -- the bitterness and vileness of their attack on French-language rights when it came to highway signs.

Interjection: Born again.

Mr Kormos: In effect, they could repent, an expression of atonement, by supporting this amendment and demonstrate that they're not anti-francophone after all.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. I'm sure your francophone constituents will well appreciate receiving that.

Further discussion?

Mr Curling: I want to commend the fact that this came forward, because French is an official language of Ontario, and also English. If I was French-speaking and no services were available in my province, I'm sure that I would be completely upset. The fact is that I want to be served like anyone else, and the opportunity here to establish an advisory committee on French-language services is an excellent way to recognize that they are citizens of our province who should be served.

In my constituency office I have someone who's able speak Cantonese and Mandarin, because people want access to services. And that is not an official language of Canada. But with an official language, to have an advisory committee to assist in these services is excellent.

I would very much like to hear how the Conservative caucus feels about this. What is their feeling on this -- not putting up their hands and saying yes, but some comments on how they feel about a French-language services committee being set up to deal with this matter. It would give us a good idea, as a collective group of parliamentarians, what services we're going to give.

I hope -- and I'm sure Mr Kormos and the NDP support this, and we Liberals have expressed some views on this -- we hear the views of some of the caucus, not just the parliamentary assistant giving instructions to put their hands up and vote against it. Give us your expression about this, so that later on maybe we can make amendments knowing what your thinking is. So if they don't want to support it, I encourage them to express how they feel about this.

Mr Martiniuk: I think this debate is very healthy and points out the difference between the government and the opposition parties. We are trying to establish an independent corporation that hopefully will benefit the most needy of our province. We the government believe we should give them the flexibility required. The opposition parties say, "Yes, we'll give them flexibility, but we're going to give them very little flexibility." It reminds me of a mother whose son has grown up -- I'm not just picking on mothers --

Ms Castrilli: Be careful, there are mothers in the room.

Mr Martiniuk: -- fathers, too, whose children have grown up to the stage that they're adults, and they say to them: "Go out in the world; you're an independent person." Yet they try to hold on to that child. Let this corporation grow up and be an adult. That's what it's there for. It's supposed to be independent. Let's let go.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you for putting it on the line, Mr Martiniuk, but that's not what this amendment is all about. What we're trying to accomplish here is to honour our obligations under the law. That's what we as legislators must do. I would have thought you would say to me, "But there is a French Language Services Act, and that should apply and that should be the end of it." But that is not the end of it. You didn't advance that, but I'm advancing it for you. That is not enough, because we've heard from the French-speaking lawyers in our midst that there isn't now the respect of the law that exists. There isn't now a clinic in designated areas that deals with French language. This is part of the problem.

We're saying that it has to be addressed in this legislation. You may argue that we have refused to set up advisory committees in other areas, and I say to you that that's really too bad, because they would have been very useful. But you must admit that this committee is different from the others in that there is an obligation in law to make sure we provide services to French-speaking citizens and residents of Ontario.

I don't understand why you would try to deep-six this provision, which does nothing other than say what's already in law: that we have an obligation to ensure that there are French-language services in this province. That's all the amendment does. It doesn't create any new, substantive obligation for this corporation. But it makes very clear that we will not tolerate an Ontario that sets up designated areas where we're supposed to provide French-language services and then we don't in this very important area.

The Chair: It being past 5:30, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. If the parliamentary assistant wants to analogize this bill with a child, then I say it's surely Rosemary's Baby.

But I want to put this to the Chair: I would hope that you, considering the community you represent, would want to have a chance to demonstrate your support for francophone rights. I'd be willing to take the chair briefly during the vote, forfeit my right to vote on this matter -- people well know where I stand -- so that you would have a chance in a recorded vote to express your support in a courageous way, in a bold way and in a way that expresses your support for francophone rights in this province.

1740

I'm indicating to you that I'll be more than pleased to take the chair for the 30 seconds or minute or so. I won't expect to be paid what the Chair earns; I'll do it pro bono, as they say. I'm willing to take the chair for you so that you can vote on this matter. One of the difficulties the Chair has is that the public doesn't really know where you stand on francophone rights, do they?

The Chair: No, Mr Kormos. One of the difficulties --

Mr Kormos: As Chair, you're not entitled to let them know. But I'm willing to relieve you of that onerous responsibility for the 60 seconds it would take to engage in a recorded vote, and no favour expected in return.

The Chair: One of the difficulties is ensuring the smooth transition of discussion during this committee, and we're certainly having that.

Further discussion?

Mr Curling: There's no discussion from over there.

Mr Martiniuk: I want to make it clear that we're not talking about French language rights. This government has taken the step of introducing section 81:

"The French Language Services Act does not apply to the corporation but the corporation may, if it considers it appropriate, provide any services in French."

That section is repealed as of April 1, 1999, and will therefore come into force and the French Language Services Act will apply to this corporation.

By the way, it did not apply to the law society, which is not a crown corporation but a private corporation. So we've taken the step to ensure protection of French language rights under this act. What we're talking about is whether we're going to fetter the discretion of this corporation. That's all we're talking about. The opposition still wants to put up roadblocks to the efficient operation of this corporation, and the government would like to give it some degree of discretion. It can at any time set up in the corporation, if needed -- if they believe it is required -- a committee dealing with this subject, along with many other committees.

Again, let's give them a chance. Let's set up this corporation with some discretion instead of trying to fetter its discretion time and time again with these amendments. Let's give them a chance to grow up and walk on their own two feet.

The Chair: It being past 5:45, we move to Ms Castrilli.

Ms Castrilli: I'm glad you're keeping track of the time, Chair. I'm really puzzled by the parliamentary assistant's response, and I hope the parliamentary assistant isn't going to go far as I respond to his comments. How can you possibly deem that an advisory board on French-language services would be an obstacle to this corporation? It's entirely the opposite. What we're trying to do is ensure that it's clear that French language services are protected.

Lest there be any doubt, I want to refer for a moment to the brief that was presented to us by the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario. They say very clearly:

"At present, the legal aid services offered to Franco-Ontarian communities are inadequate. Only three legal aid clinics are deemed capable of offering services in French....

"Over the years, our association has received numerous complaints about the weak level of service at some regional offices in the present legal aid system."

Then they go on to list a whole series of complaints.

What we're saying here -- and, Chair, I say this through you to the parliamentary assistant -- is that we've been doing a lousy job. We have an act that says we are going to provide services. We've not been providing services and we're asking for clarity in this piece of legislation. More than that, we're asking for some assurance, and that an assurance can come from an advisory committee that will defend and support the interests of the Franco-Ontario community so we don't have to have these kinds of discussions every three or four months in the Legislature.

Mr Martiniuk: I think this is really important. I just finished saying that the French Language Services Act did not apply to the law society. They breached no obligation because they did not have one. That's why this government has, in protection of French rights, ensured that the French Language Services Act will apply to this new corporation, whereas it did not in the past. To say that the law society has done a bad job of providing these services in the past is really irrelevant, because they did not have the obligation. This corporation will have the obligation. I am certain it will protect French language rights, as they should be, in our province.

Mr Kormos: The Chair understands the scenario I've described about regional municipalities versus what I call lower-tier municipalities, historical municipalities, in the application of the French Language Services Act.

The Chair: Bill 8.

Mr Kormos: Bill 8. It's calculated on the basis of French-language population vis-à-vis historical or lower-tier municipalities. Obviously, if you took regional municipalities you'd be hard pressed to get the percentage of francophone population to get it within the scope of Bill 8.

Considering that, and having considered the prospect of merging of regions, this government may well take the legal aid office out of Welland and centralize it in St Catharines, which would relieve it of any Bill 8 obligation, if in fact there is a Bill 8 obligation, because Mr Martiniuk has been very bold in his statements. Does Bill 8 apply to -- what are these, schedule 3 agencies; arm's length corporations? These are not government services.

I put the question, because I quite frankly don't know: Does Bill 8 apply to schedule 3 agencies? He makes reference to section 81. If Bill 8 applies prima facie, I don't think there's a power to legislate out of application. Do you understand what I'm saying, Mr Rollins? Section 81 says the French Language Services Act doesn't apply. You can't go around legislating yourself out of obligations, out of responsibilities.

Section 81 is interesting because if it does apply, it seems to me that to exempt yourself from it without amending the French Language Services Act is to no effect. You can't do it unless you amend the French Language Services Act. As I say, section 81 is a strange little section, because subsection (2) simply repeals subsection (1). It doesn't go on to say "in subsection (3)," which says that the French Language Services Act shall apply to business conducted by the corporation.

It's not as clear as you declare it to be, Mr Martiniuk. Where is it applicable? Is it applicable in head office, when in fact head office is in Toronto? Toronto, as you know, is a Bill 8 community. What if it's in some other community? We don't have any prima facie obligation for the centralized services to be French-language services if they're not government services.

Where in the French Language Services Act are schedule 3 agencies bound and how are they bound? Are they bound municipality to municipality depending on where they're operating or where they're located? I know you, as the parliamentary assistant, would be on top of this. I wouldn't have put this to you if I thought I was putting you on the spot. I know you've been talking about Bill 8 and the application of the French Language Services Act. So I would appreciate your insights, having briefed yourself on this prior to this afternoon.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: If I may, Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Kormos, you may.

Mr Kormos: I presume the parliamentary assistant is declining to respond.

Mr Martiniuk: Not at all, Mr Kormos. I will answer that question, but not at this moment. You have posed an excellent question, a rather complex question. I think I ought to give it due consideration, and you will be provided with my answer. Thank you.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: Gosh, Bill 8 is not that lengthy a bill and it's not complex. I know Mr Martiniuk may not be able to quote it verbatim today, but I know he's read it sufficiently recently to respond to the very simple query of whether it applies to a schedule 3 agency, which is what this corporation purports to be. But fair enough: If he needs time, perhaps he wants to read the bill in French as well as English, to search for any discrepancies.

1750

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Martiniuk: Let's not stop now.

Ms Castrilli: We'll be happy to continue.

The Chair: Seeing none, I shall call --

Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Shall section 7 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 7 of the bill carried.

Discussion on section 8?

Mr Kormos: One moment.

The Chair: One moment it is. Discussion on section 8? Seeing no discussion, shall section 8 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Section 9, committee motion 24. Ms Castrilli with an explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: Before I start, I want to point out, because we've been accused on this side of trying to fetter the corporation, that the last few sections that were passed were in fact sections that were correctly written to allow flexibility and you didn't hear any complaints from this side of the table. So let's be careful what we say in the future about where we stand on these things.

I move that subsections 9(2), (3) and (4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Composition

"(2) The transitional board shall be composed of five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the address of the assembly after consultation with the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice.

"Public hearings re appointment of members

"(3) Before the Lieutenant Governor in Council consults with the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice respecting the appointment of the members of the transitional board, the standing committee shall hold public hearings on the appointments and shall hold public interviews of the candidates it considers appropriate.

"Criteria

"(3.1) The Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice shall ensure that the persons recommended for appointment to the transitional board reflect the geographic and demographic diversity of the province.

"Chair

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate as chair of the transitional board the member recommended for that position by the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice."

This really arises out of two sets of concerns that we heard here. We had Professor Fred Zemans of Osgoode Hall who told us he was very concerned about the transitional board, how it would operate and on what basis. We've heard others say as well that there should be some transparency and that the transitional board should be appointed on more or less the same basis as the permanent board, partly because the work they will do will determine the future of the corporation, and if the transitional board does not reflect that diversity that we've been talking about, the direction of the corporation may go down a certain path which will not be at all what we expect. They will in fact fetter the corporation in a way that we don't want, and this is tied to a subsequent motion which limits the amount of time that the transitional board can serve, because again if they're in place for too long a period of time, there would be very little for the corporation to do that is independent. That's the reason for this motion.

Mr Kormos: It's been noted, and Ms Castrilli has referred to this, that the transitional board really has a short-lived but an incredibly important function. This provides some appropriateness to the appointment, and we support this amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Mr Kormos: I move that subsections 9(3) and (4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Public hearings

"(3) The appointments to the transitional board shall be made after public hearings are held on the matter at which the Attorney General, the law society and any other person or group who represents the individuals and communities that use legal aid services may make presentations.

"Chair

"(4) The members of the transitional board shall appoint one of their number to be the chair."

This is consistent obviously with prior amendments that have been made. I appreciate those prior amendments haven't been approved, however this is with respect to the application of the transitional board. I've indicated the transitional board has some special significance because, although short-lived hopefully, it's dealing with the administration of legal aid over a critical time and it's all that much more important that this transparent and public process of appointments take place.

Ms Castrilli: I would of course have preferred that our amendment had passed, but I can certainly support this amendment. I think it accomplishes some of the same things. I just want to echo again that the transitional board should not be overlooked. It is a very critical component of this legislation. Witness what is happening in other areas where a transitional board has gone in pursuant to a direction of this government. It's critical that they be impartial, that they be reflective of the entire community in Ontario, and I think the process that is envisioned in this motion will assist in achieving just that.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none --

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Committee motion 26. Ms Castrilli with the explanation, please.

Ms Castrilli: This is the other motion that I was alluding to before.

I move that subsection 9(6) of the bill be amended by inserting "not later than six months after the day the transitional board was appointed" after "day" in the second line.

This has come about as a result again of Professor Zemans's concerns, which have been very well documented not only in this committee but elsewhere. There has even been an opinion by the Ontario Lawyers Weekly indicating that this should not be a board that continues for a very long period of time. This provides a sunset clause so that we can get on with the business of the corporation and not have this transitional board in place indefinitely. Six months, I think, is a reasonable time to consider and we're putting that forth.

The Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I shall call the vote on committee motion 26.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos.

Nays

Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion defeated.

Mr Kormos, committee motion 27.

Mr Kormos: This is a motion indexed as number 27. The original one filed is a superior example of a word processor run amok. It is so full of typographical errors that I've provided the clerk and the members of the committee with a corrected version of it. As I say, the typographical errors in the first one make it almost incoherent. I don't know what happened there, but that's what happens with technology and computers.

I propose to move that subsection 9(6) of the bill be amended by inserting after "on" in the first line "the earlier of the first anniversary of the day the transitional board was appointed or."

The Chair: One moment.

Mr Kormos: It's your call, Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: As it stands, it appears to be a technical drafting error. I will rule in favour of the changes as presented and allow discussion to come forward. Mr Martiniuk.

Ms Castrilli: Could I have a point of clarification before we go forward? Could somebody read to me the entire section as it now stands because it's still very confusing.

The Chair: Can we have a copy of the amendment?

Ms Castrilli: I'd like the whole section. I can understand the amendment. I'm just not sure what it actually says when all is said and done.

The Chair: Sure. Legislative counsel, please.

Ms Laura Hopkins: Subsection 9(6) of the bill would read:

"Transitional board is dissolved on the earlier of the first anniversary of the day the transitional board was appointed or the day that the first board is appointed under section 5."

Ms Castrilli: OK.

Mr Kormos: I should indicate my appreciation to Nancy Austin, who's the director of the legal aid project, and to legislative counsel, Laura Hopkins, in helping me to decipher the typographical errors in the first version of this amendment.

This gives effect to again the requirement -- Ms Castrilli expressed it in her motion just prior to this one -- the desirability of a sunset provision for the transitional board. The time frame here is one year or the lesser period; in other words, at the time of the appointment of the permanent board. It responds to concerns raised during the committee. I'll leave it at that.

Mr Martiniuk: I think a number of presenters indicated that there should be some sunset provision and on behalf of the government we're pleased to support Mr Kormos's amendment.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Mr Kormos: One minute.

Interjections.

Mr Rollins: We're right up against the wall.

The Chair: Prior to reconsidering, seeing no further discussion, I shall call the vote.

Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Castrilli, Curling, Kormos, Martiniuk, Rollins, Stewart, Wettlaufer, Bob Wood.

The Chair: I declare the motion carried.

At that, this committee rises until tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1802.