CONTENTS
Thursday 8 May 1997
Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1997, Bill 108, Mr Harnick / Loi de 1997 simplifiant l'administration en ce qui a trait aux infractions provinciales, projet de loi 108, M. Harnick
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr MikeColle (Oakwood L)
Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Ms AnnamarieCastrilli (Downsview L)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr JohnO'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr TerenceYoung (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part /Autre participant(e)s:
Ms SandraTychsen, director, provincial offences transfer project
Mr JohnGregory, general counsel, policy branch
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel: Ms Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.
STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES
Consideration of Bill 108, An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): I call the meeting to order. It's after 10, notwithstanding what the clock on the wall says. The clerk advised me that clock is slow and it's in fact 10:04. I see a quorum.
This is the standing committee on general government. We're dealing with Bill 108, which is An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration. The topic this morning is the clause-by-clause consideration. I trust members of the committee have received the package of proposed amendments by the different caucuses. There's a package where the pages are numbered, and I will refer to those as pages 1, 2 and so on.
The first proposed amendment is by the Liberal caucus, which is page 1.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I move that part X of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"Definition
"161.1 In this part,
" `municipality' means a local municipality as defined in the Municipal Act."
The Chair: Do you have a rationale or do you wish to make some opening comments?
Ms Castrilli: It's very simple. I think it's probably an oversight in terms of the legislation. It's really for clarity more than anything else and to be consistent with existing legislation dealing with municipalities. It's just by way of clarification and to make it crystal clear what is intended by "municipality" under the act.
The Chair: Further comment?
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): We're going to oppose the amendment. The Municipal Act defines "local municipality" as a city, town, village or township. This motion could exclude all other levels of government from participating in the transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities. In the conversations we've had with the municipalities, the government has emphasized the need for a flexible, fair and open selection process for all levels of municipal government.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all those in favour? All opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 2 is a government application.
Mr Flaherty: I move that section 165 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Collection and enforcement
"165(1) When an agreement under this part is in force, the municipality has power to collect fines levied in respect of proceedings under parts I, II and III, including costs under section 60, surcharges under section 60.1 and fees referred to in section 66.2, and to enforce their payment; collection and enforcement shall be carried out in the manner specified in the agreement.
"Contraventions Act (Canada)
"(2) Subsection (1) also applies to fines and fees imposed under the Contraventions Act (Canada).
"Non-application of s.69(6-21)
"(3) Subsections 69(6) to (21) do not apply to fines that are governed by the agreement.
"Fines etc, payable to municipality
"(4) Fines that are governed by the agreement are payable to the municipality and not to the Minister of Finance.
"Payments to Minister of Finance
"(5) The municipality shall pay to the Minister of Finance, at the times and in the manner specified in the agreement, amounts calculated in accordance with the agreement, in respect of,
"(a) surcharges collected by the municipality under section 60.1;
"(b) other fine revenues collected by the municipality that constitute money paid to Ontario for a special purpose within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act;
"(c) costs the Attorney General incurs for adjudication and prosecution, for monitoring the performance of the agreement and for enforcing the agreement; and
"(d) fines and fees imposed under the Contraventions Act (Canada) and collected by the municipality.
"Exception, federal-municipal agreement re parking fines and fees
"(6) Despite clause (5)(d), fines and fees imposed under the Contraventions Act (Canada) in relation to the unlawful parking, standing or stopping of a vehicle and collected by the municipality shall be paid in accordance with any agreement made under sections 65.2 and 65.3 of that act.
"Payments to another municipality
"(7) The municipality acting under an agreement under this part shall pay to another municipality,
"(a) the amount of any fine collected by the municipality that was imposed for a contravention of the other municipality's bylaw;
"(b) the amount of any fine collected by the municipality that was imposed for a contravention of a provincial statute and that would, except for the agreement, be payable to the other municipality; and
"(c) the amount of any allowance retained by the municipality that would, except for the agreement, be payable to the other municipality under a regulation made under clause 20(1)(g).
"Retention of balance
"(8) Despite the Fines and Forfeitures Act, the municipality is entitled to retain, as a fee, the balance remaining after payment under subsections (5) and (7).
"No other charge
"(9) The municipality shall not collect any other charge for acting under an agreement under this part, except with the Attorney General's written consent, obtained in advance.
"Disclosure to consumer reporting agency
"(10) When an agreement under this part applies to a fine, section 69.1 applies to the municipality in the same manner as it applies to the Ministry of the Attorney General.
"Exception, transitional period
"(11) Despite subsection (4), while a regulation made under clause 173(b) is in effect, fines that are governed by the agreement remain payable to the Minister of Finance, who shall,
"(a) calculate and retain the appropriate amounts under subsection (5);
"(b) make any payments required by subsection (7); and
"(c) pay the balance remaining to the municipality in accordance with subsection (8)."
1010
The Chair: Do you have any opening comments?
Mr Flaherty: By way of background, section 165 has been rewritten to incorporate a number of technical amendments, as well as to clarify the intent of Bill 108.
Subsection 165(1) contains two changes. First, the words "levied in respect of proceedings" have been added to clarify that fines are imposed under other parts of the Provincial Offences Act and not under parts I, II, or III. In fact, parts I, II and III of the act describe how charges are laid and processed through the court system. By adding these words "levied in respect of proceedings" the section is clarified without affecting a municipality's power to collect fines imposed.
Second, the reference to costs under subsection 60(3) has been replaced by making reference to "costs under section 60." A municipality requires authority to collect all fines, fees and court costs. The Provincial Offences Act allows for court costs to be imposed under subsections (1) and (2) of section 60, and not just subsection (3). By referencing all provisions of section 60, municipalities can be assured of their authority to collect all fine revenue, including court costs.
Subsection 165(2) is unchanged.
Subsection 165(3) is unchanged.
Subsection 165(4) deletes the words, "Unless a regulation made under clause 173(b) provides otherwise," because transitional provisions for fine collection are now dealt with in a new subsection 165(11). The change does not affect a municipality's ability to collect fine revenue.
Subsection 165(5) contains an amendment which responds to a concern raised by municipal representatives at the public hearings before this committee on May 1. Municipalities were concerned that they will have to pay amounts to the province before they have collected the fines from offenders. This amendment addresses that concern. Clauses (a), (b) and (d) have the added words "collected by the municipality." This clarifies that municipalities will only be required to make payments to the province after the fine has been collected from the offender.
Subsection 165(6) is a new section regarding parking infractions on federal lands that also addresses a concern raised by some municipalities. This subsection requires municipalities to remit federal parking fines under the Contraventions Act (Canada) in accordance with any federal-municipal agreement. The administration and prosecution of federal parking contraventions will be governed by separate federal-municipal agreements. Those agreements are not part of the transfer of Provincial Offences Act responsibilities, and this amendment ensures that those separate agreements are not affected by Bill 108.
Subsection 165(7) is a new section that ensures that Bill 108 does not abrogate a municipality's existing entitlements to bylaw and other source fine revenue. The Municipal Act provides that fines from contravention of municipal bylaws belong to the municipality that enacted the bylaw. Certain provincial statutes such as the building code also provide fines that go to the enforcing municipality.
Subsection 165(8) is a renumbering. This is the former subsection 165(6) and is unchanged.
Subsection 165(9) has added the words "under this part" to distinguish between an agreement between the Attorney General and a municipality and a federal-municipal agreement referenced in subsection 165(6).
Subsection 165(10) is a new section that ensures that municipalities have the authority, required by FOI legislation, now vested in the Attorney General, to enforce payment of fines. Under this amendment, the municipality will have the ability to disclose to a consumer reporting agency the name of an offender who has defaulted in the payment of a fine.
Subsection 165(11) is also a new section. This is a technical amendment which preserves municipal entitlement to net fine revenue. For a transitional period, due to technological and other operational considerations, fine payment shall continue to be paid to the Minister of Finance, who will remit net fine revenue to the municipality. The Attorney General will make regulations under section 173 of the bill to provide for the transition.
That is the rationale for the amendment proposed.
The Chair: Debate, comment?
Ms Castrilli: Generally we're in agreement with the thrust of this amendment. It certainly clarifies some of the intentions of the bill and, more particularly, it addresses a lot of the concerns municipalities have brought to us and is in fact consistent with some of the motions we've put forward.
There are a couple of concerns that I would raise. Municipalities have said to us they want to be very sure that what they're going to pay to the Minister of Finance are moneys they've actually collected and they're not liable for fines that have not been collected and indeed fines that have remained outstanding under the Provincial Offences Act prior to any memorandum of agreement that they enter into. So we're glad to see that some of those are addressed.
But we do have concern around what the transitional period would be, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant could be of assistance here, since subsection (11) is a new section. This is a provision that is intended to be there for some period of time. It's not clear what that period of time will be and when in fact the municipalities will have power to deal with the payments they collect.
The Chair: Perhaps for the record you can identify yourself.
Ms Sandra Tychsen: My name is Sandra Tychsen, and I'm the project director of the provincial offences transfer project. The transitional period will be possibly up to a few months, and it involves us making sure that any of the systems linkages can be appropriately and smoothly revised in order to have payments as they are now recorded on our computer system revised so that those payments can be directed to municipalities.
Ms Castrilli: If I might, Mr Chair, I'm still not clear as to how this transitional period will be defined. Is this going to be a blanket transitional period that the Attorney General will put in place? Is it something that's going to be negotiated by memorandum of agreement? If so, I think that should be spelled out in the legislation. Could we get some clarification on that? I understand what the transitional period does. I'm not clear how you define "transitional period" and how you set the limits of the transitional period.
Mr Flaherty: As has been indicated, it's anticipated that the transitional period would be a matter of a few months.
Ms Castrilli: Again I'm not clear. Who determines what the transitional period is? If it's going to be part of the agreement between municipalities and the Attorney General, I would think you'd want to spell that out, that the transitional period would be defined by whatever agreement is entered into by the Attorney General and the municipalities. I imagine it might be different from municipality to municipality, but we have no indication of that.
Mr Flaherty: As the member knows, because you've been here during the hearings, there's involvement perhaps of groups of municipalities. I think the most accurate answer I can give you is that the transitional period will be as short as practicable.
Ms Castrilli: I wonder if the Chair would entertain a friendly amendment to indicate that the transitional period would be set out in any agreement with the municipality or groups of municipalities.
1020
The Chair: Mr Flaherty, do you consent to that?
Mr Flaherty: I'd just add that the municipalities want to make sure they get this right from their perspective too. They are concerned that sufficient time be allowed to get it done right, and that time will be taken.
The Chair: Ms Castrilli, it appears you're not going to get a friendly amendment. If you wish to make a formal amendment, it would appear you'd have to formally make that.
Ms Castrilli: I will move an amendment that the transitional period, as set out in subsection 1(2), subsection 165(11), be defined to state that it's a transitional period as defined in any agreement which is entered into by the Attorney General and municipalities or group of municipalities.
The Chair: Do the members understand the amendment? Any concerns? Then it appears we're now talking about an amendment to the amendment.
Ms Castrilli: Quite simply, for greater certainty for municipalities, it would be helpful to have municipalities have a say as to what that transitional period is and in fact have the Attorney General and the municipalities negotiate the appropriate period of time during which these particular rules will come into play. I would imagine it would be in everyone's best interests to have things spelled out as clearly as possible at the beginning.
One of the concerns we've heard from municipalities is that there are too many unknowns in this legislation; this would certainly eliminate one unknown in the legislation. I think it would actually strengthen the legislation as currently presented.
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Flaherty: I should point out that the amendment actually makes it clear that the municipalities receive the revenues during the transitional period, which is surely in the fiscal interests of the municipalities. As I said earlier, and I'll just repeat briefly, the important thing is to get this right, not only from the Attorney General's perspective but also from the municipalities' perspective. The municipalities need sufficient time, as does the Attorney General, during the transition period to make sure they are getting this right. To arbitrarily impose some sort of timetable on municipalities and/or the Attorney General is not in the best interests of the administration of justice in the province.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I hate to disagree with Ms Castrilli, but this is an example of where Mr Flaherty seems to make sense, and that scares me from time to time.
Mr Flaherty: Again.
Mr Marchese: This may be an instance where it seems that to have an agreement of that kind regarding the transitional period may be against the best interests of the municipality. Given that many municipalities are in fact in agreement with much of what is contained in this bill, it might be best to leave this transitional period to be sorted out by the various parties, provincial and municipal. It seems to me that is reasonable under the circumstances.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I just have a question on the main amendment by the government. To the parliamentary assistant, just for clarification, on the fourth line it reads, "When the Attorney General" -- that is subsection 165(1), by the way.
Mr Flaherty: We're dealing with the amendment to the amendment.
The Chair: We're now on to your caucus' amendment, and I think we should stick to that, or are you getting to that?
Mr Sergio: No. My comment is on the main amendment by the government.
The Chair: I'd prefer we deal with the amendment to the amendment.
Mr Sergio: Carry on and come back to me.
The Chair: Then we can perhaps vote on that, and then if we have any further comment on the amendment, we can talk about that.
We're talking about the Liberal amendment to the amendment. Any other debate? Is everyone happy with the wording? Do they understand the wording? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment to the amendment is defeated.
We're now on to the government amendment.
Mr Sergio: I'm reading from the bill itself here. In the fourth line of subsection 65(1) it says, "under subsection 60(3)." Subsection (3) has been eliminated from the amendments by the government. Just for clarification, what is subsection (3), which has been eliminated by the government's amendment?
Mr Flaherty: May I have some assistance here?
Mr Sergio: That's fine, sure.
Mr John Gregory: My name is John Gregory. I'm general counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General. Subsection 60(3) of the POA says, "Costs payable under this section shall be deemed to be a fine for the purpose of enforcing payment." In other words, it deals with the enforcement of costs but not the liability to pay costs. The intention of the act, of course, was to allow the municipalities to collect the costs and to receive them.
When we were reviewing the bill, it seemed what we should do is focus on the whole section. Subsection 60(1) says, "Upon conviction, the defendant is liable to pay to the court an amount by way of costs that is fixed by the regulations." So it's really the liability to pay that we wanted to pick up and transfer to the municipality. Subsection (3) simply deals with its enforceability without dealing with the liability.
So it's really a technical amendment to say, "What the municipality needs under the transfer in Bill 108 is that the liability to pay the costs be very clearly for the benefit of the municipality." If we say, "All right, you have the right under subsection 165(1) to collect costs under section 60," then we know we've got it. Subsection 60(3) struck us as too narrow. There's no difference whatever in the amount of money flowing; it's just more certain the money will flow.
Mr Sergio: Thanks for your explanation; we don't have it here. The way I see it, the municipality's power is being reduced in trying to collect those fees or charges. That's what I understand from this missing subsection (3) here; it's not only to the charges but the ability of the municipality to collect.
Mr Gregory: As I read the amendment, it will include costs under section 60; that means all subsections of section 60. The original bill is more limited than the proposed amendment. The original bill included costs under subsection 60(3), which is only one part. The amendment now before the committee is including costs under all of section 60. So there's no limit whatever. Subsection 60(3) is still included. It's just that subsection 60(1), which is the liability, and subsection 60(2), which is a particular example of costs, are also included so that more is transferred to the municipality rather than less.
Mr Sergio: I'll take your explanation. So you're saying that the abilities of the municipalities are not limited to collect those fees?
Mr Gregory: That's right. Nothing in this amendment limits.
Mr Sergio: If that is the case, why wouldn't this be included in the government amendment?
Mr Gregory: Sorry. It is included in the government's amendment. The government's amendment says in subsection 165(1) that the municipality has the power to collect fines etc, including costs under section 60. That includes subsection 60(3); that's part of section 60. It's just broader. It's not taking away; it's giving more.
Mr Sergio: Are we saying, then, that subsection (3) was unnecessary before?
Mr Gregory: It should not have been limited to subsection (3) before.
Mr Sergio: Okay. I'll take your explanation.
1030
Mr Marchese: I'm not quite sure, not having been a member of this committee, whether this question applies to this particular area or some other area. Perhaps Mr Flaherty might just be helpful one way or the other.
I have an interest in knowing whether people have done a calculation of the estimated revenue and the cost to municipalities taking over the new functions. Have these been done or has this question been raised by anybody and have you dealt with it?
Mr Flaherty: In response to Mr Marchese's question, there was some discussion at the hearings, and as I indicated in the opening on behalf of the minister, the anticipated revenues are up to $65 million. That was based on the statistics for the past fiscal year. I think we had 1995-96 here of $100 million in revenue less expenses, yielding the figure of up to $65 million.
Mr Marchese: That's the revenue?
Mr Flaherty: Net of cost, yes.
Mr Marchese: One of the concerns I have around this is that in the event that some municipality may be incurring costs greater than its revenues, I'm not sure, could a municipality opt out of this agreement?
Mr Flaherty: Yes. I don't know why a municipality would enter into an agreement in those circumstances. The bill does provide that a municipality can join another municipality or a group of municipalities and enter into it, but for a municipality to enter into an agreement where they would lose money under this legislation would be irresponsible, I would think.
Mr Marchese: So it's your sense that municipalities, of course, coming into such an agreement would have a full understanding of what they're doing.
Mr Flaherty: Yes, and the ministry is able to provide them with revenue figures because these aren't new offences that are being created here. The offences are being prosecuted now and fines are being levied now, so there's historical data that municipalities can have reference to when they decide whether they're going to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): With respect to the question raised by Mr Marchese, in my understanding, just reading this very permissive legislation under 162 and 163, it's clear it's "may." They don't have to. So it's not really downloading; it's an opportunity for a different delivery model. Is that not true? Just for clarification to the parliamentary assistant, it's permissive, it's not --
Mr Flaherty: Yes.
Mr O'Toole: Very good.
Mr Marchese: I understood that. The same way that you can opt in, I was raising the question, could you opt out? That's all I was raising, and Mr Flaherty said, "Well, if they're opting in, if they know the figures, they're likely, with that knowledge, to understand what they're getting into." I understood.
The Chair: Other comments or questions? Then all those in favour of the amendment?
Mr Flaherty: The main amendment.
The Chair: The government amendment, Mr Flaherty, yes. All those in favour?
Interjection.
The Chair: You're right; I should have said "motion." All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
The Chair: If the committee members would turn to page 5. I believe that is the next amendment or motion.
Ms Castrilli: We withdraw this motion in view of the previous motion which was carried.
The Chair: Withdrawn. Page 6, which is another Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: I move that section 165 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Municipal use of money
"(6.1) Despite anything in the agreement or in any other act or regulation, the municipality has complete discretion to determine how it will use the balance retained under subsection (6)."
If I could just speak to that, this came through in the presentations that we had before the committee. In particular, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was quite concerned that the MOU, the memorandum of understanding, should not restrict the use of net revenues. Again, I think this is in the nature of the qualification of the bill and something that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario felt reasonably strongly about.
The Chair: Questions? Debate?
Mr Flaherty: I'm going to oppose the motion. There's nothing in the bill that restricts the use of revenues by municipalities, so the motion is unnecessary. Bill 108 already gives municipalities the right to keep net revenue.
As the Attorney General stated in his speech to the Legislature on February 12:
"Bill 108 provides for participating municipalities to retain the net revenues from fines collected under the Provincial Offences Act. We estimate that up to $65 million in revenue could accrue to Ontario municipalities. This new source of revenue could be spent on improving local services even after the costs of the new responsibilities are taken into account."
Mr Marchese: It seems to me that Mr Flaherty is agreeing with the intent or at least with what is being communicated through this motion. He's saying the municipalities can do that. This motion attempts to put in writing, I guess for more clarity, what Mr Flaherty just spoke to. If he agrees with it, then he shouldn't be disagreeing with the motion, it seems to me, given that he's saying the same thing.
The Chair: We'll soon find out if he agrees.
Mr Marchese: I guess not.
Mr Flaherty: A statement doesn't become more true because one says it twice. I'm going to oppose the motion.
The Chair: Okay. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Marchese: There you go.
The Chair: Page 7, which is a Liberal proposal.
Ms Castrilli: I move that section 165 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Municipal use of money."
Interjection.
Ms Castrilli: I'm sorry. My apologies. I'm on the wrong page.
The Chair: That's all right; I thought it was me.
Ms Castrilli: I thought it looked familiar.
The Chair: Page 7, I think.
Ms Castrilli: Subsection 166(1): I move that section 166 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2) Payments to the Minister of Finance under clause (1)(b) are required only in respect of amounts the municipality has actually collected."
If I might speak to that, this is consistent with an amendment that the government has brought in with respect to subsection 165, and it's intended to ensure that municipalities have no liability with respect to any moneys other than the ones they've actually collected. Again, it was assurances that were asked for by the presenters and it's not inconsistent with anything that has been presented by the government to date.
Mr Flaherty: I'm unclear as to where this amendment is supposed to go.
Ms Castrilli: You would, in fact, renumber 166, so it would be (1)(a), (1)(b) and there would be a new subsection (2). That's where it belongs, Mr Flaherty.
Mr Flaherty: We're going to oppose the motion on the basis that it is unnecessary. The present Bill 108, clause 166(b), provides that "the amounts collected are to be shared between the municipality and the Minister of Finance," pursuant to the agreements to be entered into. The motion refers to amounts "actually collected" by the municipality and is repetitious of what is already in the bill, which already deals with amounts collected.
1040
The Chair: Ms Castrilli?
Ms Castrilli: I have already stated the case.
The Chair: Thank you. Further debate? All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
We are now on to page 8, which is a Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 167(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"4. The municipality may assign, to a municipal employee or to any other person, a function that the agreement gives to the municipality."
This would broaden the assignation to just not municipal employees but anyone the municipality felt was appropriate to perform the functions given under this particular subsection. It's a flexibility that many of the presenters wanted. Since one of the stated aims of this legislation is to provide as much flexibility as possible, I think you would want to leave it to the municipalities to determine who should perform the particular functions that are stipulated under the act and would be continued under the memorandum of agreement.
Mr Flaherty: I am going to oppose the motion on the basis that the amendment is not required. The Attorney General is responsible for the administration of justice in Ontario and must ensure that standards are upheld. It is necessary to strike a balance between the municipalities' needs for flexibility and the Attorney General's legislated responsibility. Establishing and maintaining the standards-setting link set out in paragraph 167(1)4 provides this balance.
We believe that the assignment authority which is proposed in the motion is addressed in our government motion on page 12, subsection 174(1), which allows a municipality to assign to any person a function, but with the Attorney General's prior written consent, which is the protection for the Attorney General's power to maintain standards for the administration of justice. For those reasons, I oppose the motion.
Ms Castrilli: I appreciate the parliamentary assistant's position. It is, however, not consistent with what people in the field are saying. I would remind him that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the city of London and the town of Orangeville all requested the flexibility that is here. It would seem appropriate under the circumstances, in a piece of legislation that is required to make life as easy as possible for municipalities as they take over this onerous responsibility, to amend the legislation to allow them to perform their functions to the best of their abilities.
Mr Flaherty: I don't think the honourable member and I have any disagreement in principle with respect to the assignment by municipalities.
Ms Castrilli: Delighted to hear it.
Mr Flaherty: The difference is that we believe the Attorney General must retain responsibility for setting standards for the administration of justice and therefore must retain the power to consent or not to consent to such an assignment. That is the difference between the position you're advocating and the position we maintain on behalf of the administration of justice in the entire province.
Mr Marchese: This interests me because I have often been worried about the Conservative government's desire to download and offload things to municipalities and about how standards are being maintained or kept provincially. I have noticed that this government sometimes isn't interested in that particular area of provincial standards. I note with interest that Mr Flaherty is upholding this notion of keeping provincial standards related to this bill. In this regard, I support that because I worry about provincial standards being upheld and maintained. Making sure the province has an area of control in this regard is not a bad thing. I want to congratulate the government for worrying about provincial standards, at least in particular areas.
The Chair: Further debate? We will vote on the motion. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
The next two amendments are similar, but I believe the government motion is a little more specific and we will deal with it first.
Mr Flaherty: I am impressed, of course, by Mr Marchese's conversion this morning, reminiscent of St Paul on the road to Damascus.
The Chair: I know you like him, but let's proceed with the amendment please.
Mr Flaherty: In order to emulate that spirit, I propose not to proceed with the government motion on page 9.
The Chair: We will proceed to page 10.
Ms Castrilli: I was hoping to vote on the government motion, but I am delighted to deal with our Liberal motion with respect to this.
The Chair: I am really enjoying this committee, Ms Castrilli.
Ms Castrilli: I am delighted you are, Chair. We're trying to do our best.
I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 169.1 of the Provincial Offences Act:
"Protection from personal liability
"169.1(1) No proceeding shall be commenced against any person for an act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a function under an agreement under this part or for an alleged neglect or default in the performance in good faith of such a function.
"Municipality not relieved of liability
"(2) Subsection (1) does not relieve a municipality of liability in respect of a tort committed by a person referred to in subsection (1) to which the municipality would otherwise be subject."
The reason for this particular amendment is to have it clearly understood that municipalities, as long as they are acting in good faith, will not be liable. They are, of course, not absolved of any action that is committed outside of the act and of any tort that is committed.
This is consistent with what was asked of us by most of the presenters and it is also consistent with other legislation we have. It establishes a good-faith test that is reasonably understood in law. I think this was probably an oversight on the part of the government. I don't understand why they withdrew their motion, but here's ours.
Mr Flaherty: There is a difference in wording between the motion which I withdrew and this motion, although they are similar. I support the Liberal motion because we agree in principle with the position it advances. I would say, though, that it is not -- I say this respectfully -- accurate to say that the proposed motion would relieve municipalities of responsibility. It does maintain, as set out in the motion, that municipalities are responsible for the torts of persons. Having said that, I support the Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: Let me just clarify: I was not indicating that this motion in any way resolved the issue of wrongdoing on the part of municipalities at all. Subsection (2) is very clear to that point, that there would be a continuing liability on the part of municipalities for wrongful actions.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? The motion is carried.
We are on to page 11, which is a government motion.
1050
Mr Flaherty: I move that clause 173(b) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "fees" in the first line and substituting "fines."
This is a drafting improvement that supports the intent of Bill 108 by replacing the word "fees" with the word "fines." The amendment ensures consistency throughout the bill, since "fines" includes "fees."
Ms Castrilli: I think this is a vast improvement in the bill. I have no objection.
The Chair: Further questions, debate? All those in favour? The motion is carried.
Page 12 is a government motion.
Mr Flaherty: I move that section 174 of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Delegation
"174(1) Subject to subsection (2), a municipality has power to assign to any person a function that an agreement under this part gives to the municipality.
"Attorney General's consent
"(2) An assignment to a person other than the municipality's employee requires the Attorney General's written consent, obtained in advance.
"Group of municipalities
"175. An agreement under this part may also be made with two or more municipalities, and in that case sections 162 to 174 apply with necessary modifications."
We've had some discussion relating to assignment by municipalities of duties this morning and the government's position that the Attorney General should, for the purpose of standards preservation, have the right to withhold or grant his or her consent to such assignments.
Section 174 is a new section. This amendment authorizes municipalities to delegate functions given under a transfer agreement. The delegation can be made to municipal employees and to others with advance, written consent of the Attorney General. This amendment responds to the municipalities' need to achieve efficiencies in service delivery and the flexibility to structure their proposals in a way that will meet the unique needs of local communities.
Ms Castrilli: In the spirit of cooperation that is prevailing here this morning, let me say that this is one motion that we agree with. In fact, it is part of what we were trying to say under 166, to give municipalities the freedom to assign to the appropriate individual or individuals the duties under this particular legislation. I actually commend the government on this particular motion and wish that they had supported ours on 166.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): The record should show that Parliament's working.
Mr Marchese: Don't get carried away.
Ms Castrilli: The record always shows that.
Interjection: We'll remember what you say.
The Chair: All those in favour? The motion is carried.
Page 13 is a Liberal motion.
Ms Castrilli: I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 175 of the Provincial Offences Act:
"Language rights preserved
"175. Any delegation of power to a municipality under this act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from existing language rights, including those rights recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act (Canada), the French Language Services Act (Ontario) and the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario)."
This is quite a substantive motion that I hope the government will take very seriously.
The Chair: Before we proceed on that, Ms Castrilli, I'd like you to help me with whether or not the motion is in order. Can the province bind the federal government?
Ms Castrilli: We had anticipated that you might raise that question. This was the motion as was presented to us by the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario and we felt it was important to put it in exactly as they had set it out. It is of course the French Language Services Act (Ontario) and the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) which the province has jurisdiction of, and I'd be quite happy to have the motion read simply the "French Language Services Act (Ontario) and the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario)."
I'm deleting, therefore, I should add for clarity, "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act (Canada)," although of course those are pieces of legislation that prevail over the province as well.
The Chair: If you could proceed with your rationale to your motion.
Ms Castrilli: As I had started to say, this is quite a substantial motion. At the moment the francophone population of Ontario has the right to access the courts -- anybody in Ontario, quite frankly, has the right to access the courts -- in either official language in designated areas; that is, where the population warrants as defined under the French Language Services Act.
Municipalities are exempt from that particular requirement from that legislation, this has no application to the municipalities, and this particular legislation does not make it clear that municipalities have an ongoing responsibility with respect to the rights of a significant portion of our population.
This is an amendment that was requested by the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario. I think they made a very powerful argument that not to include this in legislation would deprive a significant number of citizens of their current rights under the law in Ontario and in fact may be an infringement of their rights as they exist in Ontario.
I would hope the government would view the wisdom of this amendment and state for the record in the legislation that it is critical that the rights that currently exist for residents of Ontario are not diminished by this particular piece of legislation.
The Chair: Just for the record, members of the committee, it's my understanding that Ms Castrilli has made a new motion from that which is printed on page 13 and that the words "the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act (Canada)" have been deleted from the original printed motion.
Having said that, further debate?
Mr Marchese: I would like to hear from Mr Flaherty, because we have a similar motion, as you know, on the next page. The language is slightly different, but it's a similar one and I have serious concerns about the government and what they are planning or not planning to do with this particular issue. I would like to hear his arguments before I move my motion.
Mr Flaherty: This is an issue that was canvassed in the hearings. I listened carefully and had, I thought, some useful discussion with the representatives of the association and also with those who presented on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association on this issue.
Nothing in Bill 108 affects the Courts of Justice Act. This act protects French-language rights for court proceedings and will continue to apply in all areas of the province. Trials will still be offered in French.
The amendment is not required. We will make our best efforts to work with the municipalities to ensure that the transfer agreements reflect their communities' needs. Currently, many municipalities provide services in French where there is a local demand. This government believes that municipal governments are capable and responsive to the needs of the citizens in their communities. We are confident that they will ensure the successful transfer of the administration and prosecution of provincial offences. As responsible government partners in the administration of justice, we are certain that municipalities will ensure they are meeting the needs of the members of their communities. Legislation may not be the most appropriate means of achieving an appropriate and efficient service level. For those reasons, I oppose the motion.
The Chair: Further debate?
1100
Mr Marchese: I'm a bit disappointed with that. We have seen some municipalities, like in Sault Ste Marie, where some of these places want to declare themselves unilingual, which clearly worries me about what municipalities may or may not be doing and the kind of culture they may want to perpetuate.
Mr Flaherty argues that the municipal government is capable of responding to people's needs. If that were so, I'm not quite sure why we have the French Language Services Act to begin with. It is clearly there for a purpose. It's there to be proactive as a government in terms of assuring and ensuring that we have French-language services across the province where it is clearly in demand or necessary. With what Mr Flaherty is saying, we would not have needed the French Language Services Act, and it is because of that that we need the protections that are there. This bill does not apply to municipalities, so I am quite frankly worried about the kinds of agreements that this province might get into with --
The Chair: Sorry. This bill does not apply to municipalities or these pieces of legislation do not apply to municipalities?
Mr Marchese: Bill 108 does not apply to municipalities, so when we transfer or release to municipalities responsibility for the administration and prosecution of these offences, there's no guarantee that these services would also be offered in French. We believe that to be true, and we are worried.
I don't quite understand why the government cannot simply include a clause that maintains existing language rights. We have it now. We include language that maintains that and then we have no disagreement and we need not work out anything between us and municipalities; it simply maintains what we've got.
Why the government would be proactively undermining those rights is beyond my understanding. If we have it in place now, continue your proactivity as a government to maintain language rights. If you do not, you are intentionally or unintentionally eroding those basic rights. I'm very concerned that this government is conscious of what it's doing, and if it's doing it consciously, I have a serious problem with it. If it's a misunderstanding or an oversight or they think somehow we might be able to work it out, I just don't believe that judgement in relation to this issue is a wise approach to take.
I urge Mr Flaherty to reconsider this or stand it down if he needs some time to reflect on it with his members, but I believe he's going on the wrong track if he pursues this course.
Ms Castrilli: I'm more than disappointed; I'm absolutely shocked at the government's stance on this particular issue. We have current legislation that gives language rights to a significant portion of our population. This legislation will have the effect of potentially disfranchising a significant part of our population and of leaving them with limited access to the courts. I think it's in violation of the current legislation that we do have with respect to language rights.
I'm curious why the parliamentary assistant believes they can deal with this -- his words -- through the best efforts that they can make under the memorandum of agreement. If it is your intention to give language rights, to continue language rights in Ontario, then clearly say so. Why would you rely on best efforts under a memorandum of agreement? Why would you jeopardize the rights of citizens and residents of this province? I find that totally beyond comprehension. These are rights that we have felt as a province were worthy of protection. We have enshrined them in legislation, and then we are willy-nilly ignoring that legislation through a back door in Bill 108. That's certainly not acceptable, and certainly best efforts in a memorandum of understanding is not acceptable.
Mr Flaherty: It appears we may have a different view with respect to the degree of responsiveness and responsibility of municipalities in the province. I noted during the hearings, as I am sure the members who are present noted, the comments by the representative of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton who was here to the effect that they would meet the language service needs of the members of their community. He said that without hesitation. That is again an indication of the responsible attitude that municipalities, I am sure, would take to this subject.
The Chair: Let's try Mr Colle.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I was here during the deputations and you had the Canadian Bar Association, Mr Saint-Aubin, representing. They were unequivocal. The Canadian Bar Association was unequivocal in condemning this act's basically regressive intentions of eliminating basic rights of Ontarians before the courts in an ad hoc fashion. They were unequivocal in saying that is what 108 is doing, that Ontarians have these rights of language before the courts of the Ontario government.
By now entering into this agreement with municipalities, you are saying that these agreements will not have these rights. It is on an ad hoc basis, leaving it up to individual municipalities to decide whether or not they're going to enter into agreements and have these rights in each individual agreement. It's going to be a checkerboard, hodgepodge, ad hoc delineation, granting of rights.
This is fundamentally wrong because it contravenes the basic premise of equal rights before the courts. The Canadian Bar Association representative said that. The francophone jurists were unequivocal in saying, "Why are you doing this?" It is not right to basically leave it up to individual municipalities because you are going to get certain municipalities that are going to choose not to include these basic language rights in prosecution, in the administration of the courts, because they're going to be down at the local level.
It is just mind-boggling to try to figure out the government's rationale. Is it the cost you're worried about? Is it the political fallout you're worried about, that some municipalities have taken these unilingual stands in the past? Where does the opposition come from to giving people basic rights before the courts which they now enjoy throughout Ontario? Why on God's earth would this government do this at this juncture? Where is the pressure coming from not to grant these basic language rights to Ontarians?
It is a regressive part of this legislation. By omission, by not giving francophone Ontarians equal rights before the courts when these are transferred to local municipalities, you as a province are basically saying: "We don't care what you do at the local level. It's up to them." And you know what's going to happen. There are going to be a lot of municipalities that are going to basically disallow Ontarians the right of due process in their own language. That's what you're doing.
This is a good bill which I think addresses the issue of letting local jurisdictions deal with local issues under the Provincial Offences Act. It is answering something that people have asked for for years. But by not giving these rights across the province and by basically allowing these rights to be abrogated in this bill, you are essentially making a good bill a very bad bill and it's setting a very dangerous precedent. As you're devolving a lot of responsibilities down to the local level, if you don't keep basic standards like language rights in this devolution process, and the most fundamental of all processes, the right to be heard in your own language, I think it really again is frightening.
What is the rationale here, and who is motivating this omission of basic rights? Again I am just echoing the very firm concerns raised by the deputants before this committee last time we met, where they said: "You have to include this. By not including it, you are basically putting people on a Russian roulette type of system, that depending on which municipality you live in, you're going to have the right to be heard in your language of choice."
1110
It was unequivocal. They asked for this amendment. In fact, the amendment we're putting forward here is essentially repeating that intention from the Canadian Bar Association and the francophone jurists, who said, "You must include this if you are going to essentially continue the basic rights Ontarians enjoy in other areas."
To do this is setting a dangerous precedent and I, for the life of me, cannot figure out where this is coming from. If you say, "We'll leave it up to the municipalities in good faith," some municipalities will do it in good faith. We heard Grant Hopcroft from London say they've got no problem with including the rights. He said they would do that. But there are going to be some municipalities which will not include those basic rights, and you know that.
You had over 90 municipalities say they want unilingual municipalities in this province. You know that some of those 90 will not give basic rights to people in their own langauge. That is what the provincial basic responsibility is, to put in standards and to put in basic protections. You're walking away from that responsibility and I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent if you don't support this amendment.
Ms Castrilli: Just a couple of points: All of the legal experts who came before this committee said this was a major shortcoming of this bill and that this particular motion was required to protect and continue the rights of the francophone minority in this province.
I just want to state for the record that the understanding the parliamentary assistant gave with respect to the position of Ottawa-Carleton is not entirely correct. Yes, they did say they would continue to provide French-language services, but in response to a specific question by me as to whether this particular amendment was one they could support and would welcome, they said yes. I wouldn't want the committee to be of the impression that Ottawa-Carleton was not in favour of this particular motion.
It is a critical portion of our submissions that we cannot ignore the rights of Franco-Ontarians. We have been warned that if we do so, we do so at our peril, that we will see litigation spawned as a result of that, particularly charter challenges which will be brought against the government. Why the government would want to expose itself to that kind of possibility is beyond me. Let's do the honourable thing, let's do the right thing, let's continue the protection that Franco-Ontarians have won and deserve in this province.
Mr Marchese: This is not a minor issue. This is serious. I am not quite sure that the government, through this committee and its parliamentary assistant, understands the import of the seriousness of this particular issue. You are intentionally, after having had this discussion, condoning the loss of existing language rights. If it were unintentional, it would have the same import, but this is very intentional because we're talking about it. Many have, in their deputations, expressed their concerns to you and we are expressing our concerns to you with respect to the setback for the francophone community in this province, the effect this bill would have on them.
I could understand if we were talking about "distinct society" language, because we know M. Harris is very concerned about that kind of language. We're not dealing with that at the moment, but by disregarding what we are moving here, both the Liberals and ourselves with our motions, you are in effect raising some very political sensitivities and raising political issues that I think Mr Harris would like to avoid.
We are entering into that field of federal elections where there are a number of problems we are dealing with with respect to the unity of this country, and this issue is a big one. Once it becomes very public to the general population in Ontario and beyond, we're going to have a political problem on our hands, it seems to me. You can easily correct it by including the language we are proposing.
I don't think it's a big problem for you as a government, given that these rights exist in law at the moment. You're not doing anything other than what is already practised in Ontario. Undoing that or doing something different that undermines existing language rights, you are putting yourselves and ourselves as a province and as Canadians in serious political jeopardy, I believe. It's not a small matter.
I'm surprised that some of you don't want to reflect on this in terms of either standing it down or coming back in the afternoon to give you time to reflect on this and to give you time to reflect with your Premier about whether or not he agrees with what you're doing. I can only assume that if you don't want to talk about it, your Premier has seen the effects of these changes and is in agreement with you, if we go through it in this way. If that's so, it's worse, because then the Premier cannot say he knew nothing about what this committee was doing. If you pass it in this way, you will have made him an accomplice to the work of this committee.
I believe, Mr Flaherty, this is a serious blunder that you're committing. The motion we're putting forth is a simple one and should not affect you, your party or many municipalities which I think want to abide by the existing laws we have embraced. I urge you to reconsider this.
Mr Flaherty: I appreciate the comments by the opposition members. With respect to the Ottawa-Carleton submission, which was raised by Ms Castrilli, they said they wouldn't object to the amendment but they did make it clear that the legislation would not change the level of services they provide to their citizens in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
I'm surprised by the comments of the member for Oakwood. We've listened to that member lecture us in the Legislative Assembly for weeks on the responsiveness and responsible behaviour of municipalities in Ontario, but today he changes his tune and the municipalities now become irresponsible and not responsive to the needs of their citizens.
It is important to note that Bill 108 does not affect basic rights before the courts, as Mr Colle said. It does not jeopardize trials in the French language on an ad hoc basis, as has been suggested, and it does not affect the right to be heard in court in one's own language, be it English or French. Section 126 of the Courts of Justice Act is not affected by Bill 108. Subsection (1) says, "A party to a proceeding who speaks French has the right to require that it be conducted as a bilingual proceeding." That is the law of the province of Ontario with respect to trial proceedings.
Nothing in Bill 108 affects the Courts of Justice Act. The Courts of Justice Act protects French-language rights for court proceedings and will continue to apply in all areas of the province.
Ms Castrilli: If that's the case, say so.
Mr Marchese: I'm still puzzled as to the objections by Mr Flaherty. My understanding is that municipal prosecutors, unlike provincial prosecutors, are not bound by Bill 8. Therefore, an accused who speaks French would be provided with a translator rather than a French-speaking prosecutor, as an example.
I'm not sure. On the one hand they talked about standards before, making sure we maintain provincial standards. The effect of our language around this particular motion, the effect of these motions that we have put forth is to ensure provincial standards around language rights. That's what I agreed on with Mr Flaherty earlier, on an earlier motion. The effect of our motion is to make sure that we ensure standards around language rights. It's as simple as that.
Why do we apply one standard in relation to one issue and then on the other we simply revert back to saying we should trust municipalities? I don't understand that. It seems to me inconsistent that he would argue differently depending on whatever issue they want to support or oppose. Why not maintain some consistency around this and ensure language rights are maintained, just to be sure? You have nothing to lose as a party in making sure that existing language rights are maintained. I don't understand the inconsistency here. Mr Flaherty, I'm quite puzzled by your answers.
1120
Mr Colle: Again in terms of municipalities, I think you're just trying to be very convenient for yourself. In this case here the government finds it politically advantageous not to impose fundamental standards, so it's caving in, essentially, to people who may not want to have French language rights. You're finding it convenient to do this in this case here.
If you had some fundamental, basic precepts in terms of what is right and wrong, you would have listened to the Canadian Bar Association, which said you are taking away rights by not including this amendment in the bill. You were here when they told you that these basic rights of being heard under the Provincial Offences Act were now being jeopardized by not including these protections. The Canadian Bar Association said that to you, as did the francophone jurists. They presented a very detailed brief saying that you are jeopardizing rights for francophone Ontarians. That's what they said -- it wasn't the members of the opposition saying that -- but you refused to listen to them, for your own political convenience. That's what you're doing.
If you are so sure that these rights are being protected and not being hindered and that all the Courts of Justice Act provisions are in place, why don't you go along with this amendment? What is your agenda here? Why are you refusing to take that very direct advice from professional organizations which said Bill 108 is not protecting those basic rights as you devolve these provincial offences and their administration and prosecution down to the lower level? They told you some municipalities will not sign agreements that will include these basic rights, and they can opt out of those agreements for basic rights of language. You know that.
For this government to pretend it doesn't know that -- sure, the Premier knows what's happening, because we know nothing goes to committee or goes through any kind of legislative amendment unless he and his office know about it. We know this is a very centralized government. Your own members have said that it's totally run out of the Premier's office. There are no illusions that he doesn't know about this. For him or you as the parliamentary assistant to pretend that you don't know what's at stake here is really hard to fathom. You've got it on the record that people are concerned about what this is doing, and not to include this amendment of basic language rights protection as you devolve this down to the lower municipalities is taking away a right.
Therefore, if you're saying the rights are there, support this amendment. Then there's no contradiction in what your position is. If you support French language rights all the way down to the Provincial Offences Act courts, go ahead and support this amendment. What is the problem with this amendment? Can you explain what it is? Is it the cost? Is it some kind of conflict with other legislation? Why are you afraid of just reaffirming those rights? Reaffirm those basic rights.
The Chair: I want to alert Mr Marchese that the next amendment is similar.
Mr Marchese: I realize that point.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments with respect to the Liberal motion? All those in favour?
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote, Mr Chair.
Ayes
Castrilli, Colle, Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Doyle, Flaherty, Munro, Ross, Young.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mr Marchese: In my motion the language is slightly different but the intent is the same. For the record, I would like to read:
I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 175 of the Provincial Offences Act:
"Language rights preserved
"175. An agreement under this part does not affect existing language rights, including those recognized by the French Language Services Act and the Courts of Justice Act."
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I'm going to rule that this has been dealt with by the former Liberal amendment and is out of order.
We appear to have concluded the amendments with respect to section 1. Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 1 is carried.
We will proceed to section 2. I believe we're on to page 15 of the package, which is a government motion.
Mr Flaherty: I move that clause 70(3)(c.1) of the Courts of Justice Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(c.1) regulating the duties of municipal employees and other persons who act under the authority of agreements made under part X of the Provincial Offences Act."
The background of this is that clause 70(3)(c.1) of the Courts of Justice Act has been extended to include persons other than municipal employees who may perform court-related duties under a transfer agreement.
Ms Castrilli: We're in agreement with this motion and for exactly the same reasons. You'll see that the next motion to be presented is identical.
The Chair: I do. I see no further questions or requests for debate. All those in favour? That motion is carried.
Ms Castrilli: In light of the previous motion, we withdraw this particular motion.
The Chair: Shall section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The section, as amended, is carried.
We are on to section 3. That would be page 17 of the package of amendments, which is a government motion for section 3.
Mr Flaherty: I move that the definition of "municipality" in subsection 206.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and the county of Oxford."
The rationale for that is to ensure that all municipalities are eligible to participate in an agreement with the Attorney General to perform Provincial Offences Act functions.
The Chair: Questions, debate? All those in favour?
Mr Colle: What's so unusual about the county of Oxford? Every time there's an amendment, it's the county of Oxford.
The Chair: We're in the middle of a vote, Mr Colle, and I'm going to rule that the motion is carried.
Page 18, which is a government amendment.
Mr Flaherty: I move that subsection 206.1(3) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Employees and others
"(3) The functions given to a municipality by a part X agreement may be performed,
"(a) by the municipality's employees;
"(b) by a combination of the municipality's employees and the employees of another municipality, if the municipalities have an agreement under subsection (3.1); or
"(c) by any other person, with the Attorney General's consent, as described in subsection 174(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.
"Joint performance agreement between municipalities
"(3.1) A municipality that has entered into a part X agreement may enter into an agreement with one or more other municipalities for the joint performance (by a joint board of management or otherwise) of the functions given to the first municipality by the part X agreement.
"Attorney General's consent
"(3.2) The joint performance agreement requires the Attorney General's written consent, obtained in advance."
1130
The background to the motion is that subsection 206.1(3) has been revised to respond to municipal concerns raised at public hearings on Bill 108. The subsection complements the new section 174 by specifying the process for municipalities to delegate Provincial Offences Act responsibilities. Under this section a municipality may delegate responsibilities to its employees, to another municipality's employees or to a non-municipal employee with the Attorney General's consent.
Subsection 206.1(3.1) is a new subsection. At public hearings municipalities noted the need for greater flexibility in service delivery options to meet local needs. This subsection addresses that concern because it allows municipalities to create joint management boards and to delegate responsibilities to them with the Attorney General's consent. This alternative strikes a responsible balance between flexibility to achieve administrative efficiency and maintaining proper justice standards.
Ms Castrilli: This is a good motion. It is consistent with some of the points that we have tried to bring forward and it does give municipalities the flexibility they have requested. I note with some curiosity that the parliamentary assistant is quite willing to introduce motions on the basis of what has been heard during the hearings. This is certainly what municipalities have asked for: the ability to delegate, the ability to enter into agreements with groups of municipalities and not just single municipalities.
I wonder why the parliamentary assistant -- this is a rhetorical question because we have already answered it to some extent -- I wonder why the same courtesy was not accorded to a substantive motion that was put previously which really derogates from the rights of citizens. They have seen fit not to listen in some sections as they have here.
The Chair: I understand what you're saying. Any other comments or questions? Shall the government motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
We will proceed to page 19.
Ms Castrilli: I would point out that this is a Liberal motion. There's a typographical error in the motion. It should read: "section 3 of the bill, subsection 206.1(3)" not "(4)." Because it really is in keeping with the motion that was presented previously by the government, we withdraw it.
The Chair: Are there are any other amendments? I don't believe there are. Shall section 3, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 3, as amended, is carried.
Section 4: Any debate or questions? Shall section 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 4 is carried.
Section 5, which is the short title: Any debate or questions? Shall section 5, the short title of the bill, "Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1997," carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 5 is carried.
Shall the long title of the bill, "An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration," carry? Opposed? The long title is carried.
That appears to be it. Shall Bill 108, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Ms Castrilli: Are you permitting debate at this point?
The Chair: You're quite right, Ms Castrilli.
Ms Castrilli: This is essentially a good bill. It is something the municipalities have asked for. I think a great deal of thought has gone into this bill and some of the amendments we have passed today have strengthened the legislation to make it do what it is intended to do and to ensure that the administration of justice continues unabated.
However, it is with a great deal of concern that I put to you that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. I would like nothing better than to support this legislation. Nevertheless, I cannot in good conscience support a piece of legislation that abrogates from hard-fought rights of citizens and residents of this province.
Without the critical amendment that is required to protect French-language rights in this province, particularly at this very critical time in our history as a province and as a country, I find it unconscionable to put forward this bill and indeed to support it. It is therefore with a very heavy heart that I will have to vote against the legislation. I would suggest to you that even the title is wrong, because there should be added to it, "An Act to abrogate from the rights of citizens."
Mr Flaherty: The member uses the phrase "abrogate rights." I repeat that there is nothing in this bill which would lessen the provision of services required by the Courts of Justice Act. That is the act that protects the right to trials in the French language. As I've already stated, subsection 126(1) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that, "A party to a proceeding who speaks French has the right to require that it be conducted as a bilingual proceeding."
Bill 108 provides for memoranda of agreements to be entered into, and the best way to work out the roles and responsibilities for services -- French is a good example, where the government takes the view that discussion with municipalities is a good approach, through the memorandum-of-understanding discussion.
Ms Castrilli: Chair, unfortunately no one really believes what the parliamentary assistant has said, not the francophone minority, not the French-language lawyers who service the francophone minority, not the Canadian Bar Association, and I suspect, deep down, not even members of the government caucus.
Mr Young: Speak for yourself.
Ms Castrilli: If indeed you believe that this legislation, in contrast to every legal evidence that we've had before this committee, does not diminish or take away rights from the francophone minority in this province, say so. Have the courage of your conviction and say so. Not to do so is to leave the door open to precisely that and we have warned you here today that you do so at your peril, that you are inviting litigation, that you are inviting strife in this province, and that is totally unacceptable.
Mr Marchese: We think -- and Mr Flaherty is the spokesperson for this committee -- that Mr Harris is making a serious mistake. He argues there's nothing here that limits the linguistic rights of the francophone community. We think he's wrong, quite clearly, on this, and a number of people have spoken to that.
If ever there was an area where, even if we are wrong and he's right, he might want to make a mistake by simply including the language that we have presented in a motion, this would be a good time to do it. If he's saying that nothing here takes away from linguistic rights, then it would be very wise to support our motion that says an agreement of this part does not affect the existing language rights. If rights are not affected, this would be slightly redundant but it wouldn't be a big deal. You would protect yourself and protect the rights of the linguistic communities. Why wouldn't you do that? It isn't a big deal.
Every now and then where there is some doubt as to your opinion, the government's opinion, and those who oppose it, both parties and other people of the general public, if that is the case from time to time and you refuse to accept language that simply confirms what is already law, sometimes it's not a big deal, but in this particular instance it is a big deal.
This is not a minor issue. You're causing political problems with this because there is a great deal of doubt and disagreement as to whether linguistic rights are protected or diminished. Because many believe their linguistic rights are diminished, you would want to assure them that that is not the case by accepting our language, and you are not doing that. You are intentionally rejecting our suggestion, our advice. During a federal election this is the worst time for you to propose what you are suggesting and to refuse to accept what we are proposing. It's the worst of times.
I know that the parliamentary assistant has already made up his mind. We have made our points. We think he's treading on very dangerous ground for his party, both provincially and federally, and for our country.
Mr Flaherty: The memorandum of agreement contemplated by Bill 108 is the best way to work out roles and responsibilities for services. French is a good example of where discussion is a good approach.
Mr Marchese: Again, memorandum of understanding is not the best approach. We talked about standards earlier. He made the argument as to why standards are critical in the particular amendment that we spoke of earlier and I agreed with him in relation to standards there. He's now saying it's the memorandum of understanding that we need in order to deal with this. If ever there was a time to have provincial standards, it's around this issue. You are wrong, Mr Flaherty, in this regard, most emphatically.
You raise your eyebrows. It's not just from political disagreement that I make this -- I have sensitivities around this. As a former teacher of English and French, as someone who supports "distinct society," the language, as someone who believes in linguistic rights for the francophone community, I feel strongly about this issue. I don't take lightly the fact that you believe that simply a memorandum will do. This course is incorrect.
The Chair: Further debate? Shall Bill 108, as amended, carry?
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Danford, DeFaria, Doyle, Flaherty, Gilchrist, Munro, Ross, Young.
Nays
Castrilli, Colle, Marchese, Sergio.
The Chair: Shall Bill 108, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion shall carry.
We appear to have concluded our deliberations on Bill 108. Before I declare an adjournment I would ask that members of the subcommittee meet after the meeting.
This meeting is adjourned until May 15 at 10 am when we will discuss clause-by-clause of Bill 109.
The committee adjourned at 1144.