REVIEW OF 1996 REGULATIONS REPORT
CONTENTS
Wednesday 10 December 1997
First report on regulations, 1997
City of Brampton Act, 1997, Bill Pr89, Mr Spina
Mr Joseph Spina
Mrs Janice Atwood-Petkovski
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr Philip Kaye, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, all. Welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, December 10, 1997. We have two main orders of business: consideration of the report on regulations and, secondly, Bill Pr89.
REVIEW OF 1996 REGULATIONS REPORT
The Chair: Our first order of business is consideration of the first report on regulations, 1997. You have a document titled Draft Report on 1996 Regulations. I would mention that this draft report is still confidential until tabled. To better explain the draft report on regulations, we'll be calling on both our clerk, Tom Prins, and the research officer who has prepared this report, Philip Kaye.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Why is the report confidential?
The Chair: It hasn't been tabled. It's a draft report. Are you suggesting --
Mr Caplan: I'm just asking, why is it confidential?
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to explain this further.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): The annual report is confidential until it's tabled in the House. All members of the assembly are privy to that information before it's distributed anywhere else.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a question on the approach. I have some difficulty understanding how we can discuss, in an open public committee, a confidential report that's going to become confidential again when the committee work is completed and stay confidential until it goes to the House. If it's going to be a confidential report, it would have to be discussed in closed committee prior to it going to the House.
The Chair: Do you wish to make a motion to that effect? Did you wish to make a motion for an in camera session?
Mr Hardeman: I'm not in a position to know whether it needs to be confidential. If it needs to be confidential, then I would make a motion that we have it in closed committee hearing.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'll make a motion to that effect, that this is confidential and should be in camera. I think the parliamentary assistant has a good point. It really belabours the point, how can you have something confidential when you've got the doors open and "members of the public" present? It's a strange situation we're in. My motion stands, I guess.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): What's the motion?
Mr Hardeman: The motion that we go into closed session.
The Chair: The only thing I will mention is that, given tradition, it apparently has not been an in camera session in the past.
Mr Caplan: Then it shouldn't be a confidential report.
Mr Sheehan: There is nothing in it that's confidential. I don't even know why we had the question. It's just a good working paper. Let's read it, and let's talk about it.
Mr Caplan: So it's not a confidential document? We can deal with it in a public forum?
The Chair: Any further discussion on this motion?
Mr Sheehan: This motion to go in camera?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Sheehan: Get a seconder if you can, and then we'll vote it down.
The Chair: We don't need a seconder. I hear no further discussion. Are the members ready to vote on this motion? All in favour of the motion presented by Mr Ruprecht? Those opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
Mr Ruprecht: We have another motion: that this report be named non-confidential.
Mr Caplan: He makes a good point.
The Chair: I may have been given some information in error. I understood it to be confidential, anything that's not tabled.
Mr Hardeman: I would ask if this report is still confidential. After this meeting if it somehow got out to the public, I would like to know who was going to be accused of leaking this information.
The Chair: I notice your report is stamped "Confidential" and mine isn't.
Mr Hardeman: I think the issue does need to be resolved. If it's a confidential report, you discuss it in confidence; if it's a public report, we hold a public meeting on it. For me to decide whether it should be a confidential report, I would not be able to make that decision personally until we've had the discussion. I can assume that when I get a document that has a stamp on it that says "Confidential," that report should be discussed in confidence. After the report has been discussed, if we want to make it public, we would then proceed to make it public.
Mr Sheehan: Can I suggest we get the hell on with this, because this is nonsense.
The Chair: I would like to get on with this. Let's just recognize that some people have reports marked "Confidential" and some people have reports that aren't marked "Confidential."
Mr Ruprecht: There's a motion on the floor. You can vote it down, but it's on the floor. The motion I made is on the floor, that this report be named non-confidential. Let's get on with it and do it. Vote it down if you like.
The Chair: I've been advised that we should recess for two minutes until we get an answer with respect to whether this should be marked "Confidential" or not.
Mr Ruprecht: So I withhold my motion? I suppose that's what you're asking me to do. It's on the floor.
The Chair: I'm just declaring a recess.
The committee recessed from 1012 to 1015.
The Chair: I wish to reconvene our meeting, agenda item number one, considering the report on regulations. Our clerk has additional information, which I would ask be explained to the committee.
Clerk of the Committee: Just by way of clarification, there have been many examples in the past where the committee has debated a confidential report yet the report does remain confidential until it's tabled in the House, or, as Mr Ruprecht was suggesting, we can move a motion to have this report be no longer confidential. Those are our two options. Whatever the committee's decision is, we can proceed along either path.
The Chair: I would entertain motions.
Mr Caplan: I think you have a motion.
The Chair: Could you repeat the motion that is presently on the floor?
Mr Ruprecht: That this report be deemed non-confidential, so that members of the public can be present.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Chair: What was the context of the vote that we just had before you recessed?
The Chair: We had a motion to go into closed session on the assumption that this was confidential.
Mr Spina: We voted the closed session down. Is that correct? So does that not presume that anything discussed after that point is clearly on the public record and non-confidential?
The Chair: I guess we are saying the debate would be public but the report is assumed to be confidential at this point.
Mr Spina: Does that mean it's out of order, if it's confidential and we are in public session?
Mr Caplan: That's what the motion addresses.
Mr Spina: I'm trying to understand Mr Ruprecht's point, that's all. Is that correct? Is that one way to interpret it?
The Chair: Do you want to answer that?
Clerk of the Committee: There have been many examples in the past where we have debated a confidential report in open session. Obviously it's an open session. The public is here; that's public. Technically, the report itself is confidential until it's tabled in the House. Obviously, some of that information may have been discussed in committee.
Mr Spina: So Mr Ruprecht's motion is in order. Thank you.
The Chair: We have a motion to declare this report non-confidential. All those in favour? Those opposed? I declare the motion carried.
I would now ask our research officer, Philip Kaye, to run through an explanation of the report.
Mr Philip Kaye: As revealed in my covering memo, the draft report is divided into five parts: (1) the origins and nature of the committee's mandate regarding regulations; (2) statistics on regulations during the past 10 years, focusing on 1996; (3) regulations reported as violating the committee's guidelines, and just one regulation is included here; (4) a summary of a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada in which an Ontario regulation setting probate fees is being challenged -- this case involves two of the principles expressed in the committee's guidelines; and (5) appendices which contain the committee's formal terms of reference and statistics on the 1996 regulations arranged by act and ministry.
Looking at the report itself, this committee's terms of reference regarding regulations are contained in two sources: the Regulations Act and the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. In 1969, the Legislature added section 12 to the Regulations Act to provide for the appointment of a standing committee on regulations. The previous year, the so-called McRuer commission had recommended the creation of such a committee, explaining that, and I quote from near the bottom of page 1, "It is a primary function of the Legislature to make the laws, and it is responsible for all laws it makes or authorizes to be made."
Section 12 of the Regulations Act states that every regulation stands permanently referred to the Legislature's regulations committee, which must consider the scope and method of the exercise of regulation-making power but not the underlying policies or legislative objectives. I've highlighted a consequence of that provision near the top of page 2. "Thus, an evaluation of the need for a particular regulation and its effectiveness is outside the committee's mandate." Section 12 also says that the committee must report to the assembly "its observations, opinions, and recommendations," which it is doing in this report.
The other source of the committee's mandate regarding regulations is standing order 105(k). This standing order lists various guidelines for carrying out the committee's statutory mandate. For instance, there must be statutory authority to make each regulation. Under the standing order, the committee cannot inform the House of a violation of the guidelines without first giving the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to explain the alleged violation.
With regard to statistics on regulations between 1987 and 1996, the graph at the top of page 3 shows changes in the number of regulations filed during the past 10 years. During the first eight years covered by the graph, the average annual number of regulations was 785. During the past two years, the average annual number of regulations was 557, which represents a drop of almost 30% from the 1987 to 1994 average.
The regulations filed in 1996 were made under the authority of 148 acts; 14 of the acts, or 9%, accounted for over one half of the total regulations. The Planning Act, the Highway Traffic Act and the Crop Insurance Act generated more regulations than any other act. Over two thirds of the regulations fell under the authority of five ministries: municipal affairs and housing; transportation; consumer and commercial relations; health; and agriculture, food and rural affairs.
An overview of the regulations filed during 1996 raised some questions regarding possible violations of the guidelines respecting statutory authority, precision of language and retrospectivity.
In accordance with the standing orders, letters were sent to three ministries and Management Board inquiring about the potential violations. After examining the responses, the legislative research service has decided to bring forward one regulation in this draft report which is a violation of the retrospectivity guideline, but only by seven days.
In the draft, the committee says the following in regard to reporting one regulation:
"In reporting only one regulation, we wish to emphasize our belief that the beneficial effect of our work extends beyond the discovery and rectification of violations of our guidelines. We think our mandate in itself has a positive impact upon the drafting process. As Smirle Forsyth, a former assistant clerk and clerk of committees of the Ontario Legislative Assembly wrote almost 20 years ago:
"'Perhaps the most important result of the work of scrutiny committees is that their vigilance gives departments of government a lively consciousness that critical eyes are kept upon them.'"
The regulation which is reported makes various amendments to the general regulations made under the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993. Most of this regulation was retroactive by one week without statutory authority to do so. The ministry answers that it was intended that the regulation be filed one week earlier. That did not occur because of an administrative misunderstanding. The ministry regrets the delay in filing and indicates that it will do its part to ensure that there is no recurrence.
The draft report ends with an outline of a case which is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada, where there is a challenge to an Ontario estate regulation dealing with probate fees. Two of the principles expressed in this committee's guidelines -- the requirement for statutory authorization of a regulation and the distinction between a tax and a fee -- have been raised in this case. The action was launched by Marie Eurig, who is the executor of the estate of her late husband, Donald Eurig. She applied for an order that she be issued letters probate to enable her to administer his estate without paying probate fees. In so doing, she sought a declaration that the regulation which required the payment of these fees was illegal. She lost at the Ontario Court (General Division) level and then appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In the Court of Appeal she submitted that the probate fee was not properly authorized under the Administration of Justice Act. That fee escalates from $5 per $1,000 on the first $50,000 of an estate to $15 per $1,000 on the part of an estate that exceeds $50,000.
It was further argued that these amounts constituted a tax and not a fee, in which case it was contended that certain consequences flowed from the Constitution. First, if the probate fee was an indirect tax, it was contended that it was beyond the competence of a provincial Legislature. Second, if the fee was a direct tax, it was said that the Legislature could not delegate to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to impose it.
With regard to the issue of statutory authorization, it was argued that the Lieutenant Governor in Council's fee-making powers under the Administration of Justice Act were limited to defraying the costs of granting probate. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, concluding that the act in question did not require that a court fee must bear a direct correlation to the cost of providing the particular service. Rather, the fee must seek to contribute to defraying the costs of the court providing the service and not the costs of court administration generally. Probate fees were seen as being valid within this framework.
As to whether a probate fee was a tax, the court ruled that the fee was not a charge for a public purpose and thus was not a tax. The probate fee was considered to be part of a regulatory scheme for the administration of justice in the general division of the Ontario Court.
The Court of Appeal judgement closed with a reference to the constitutional argument that the delegation of taxing power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council was implicitly prohibited by the Constitution, as a tax levied by the Lieutenant Governor in Council would neither originate in the Legislative Assembly nor be recommended to the assembly by message of the Lieutenant Governor.
It was further alleged that even if taxing power could be so delegated, the act which delegated the power to tax must itself be recommended to the Legislative Assembly by message of the Lieutenant Governor.
The court responded that the short answer to these arguments was that the fees in question were not taxes. It did, however, make reference to the delegation argument by referring to a 1978 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, including comments of Mr Justice Pigeon. The reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is described on page 8 of the draft report. The draft ends with a statement that the committee will be following developments in the Eurig case closely, as the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada should be of assistance in the interpretation of the committee's guidelines.
1030
There are four appendices at the back of the report. Section 12 of the Regulations Act is reproduced in its entirety in appendix A. As I mentioned, section 12(3) says that the committee cannot make reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes.
Appendix B lists the guidelines which the committee applies in reviewing the regulations. There are nine guidelines listed. In addition to these guidelines, the practice of the committee has also been to assess whether a regulation complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The two guidelines which were raised by the Supreme Court of Canada decision which I just outlined were: guideline ii, which says that, "Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties," and guideline viii, which says that, "Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee, or the like)."
Appendices C and D contain statistical information on the regulations filed in 1996. Appendix C lists the acts which generated at least 10 regulations and appendix D lists various ministries and authorities and the number of regulations filed last year for which each is responsible.
That completes my overview of the draft report.
The Chair: Do members of the committee have any comments on this draft report, or questions for Mr Kaye?
Mr Caplan: First I'd like to thank the staff for preparing the report. I found it quite helpful and it was actually very well written.
I have a question in regard to standing order 105(k). If these provisions are broken by an act or a regulation, what is the recourse? What happens then? I note that in the one challenge you had, they said, "It was only a week late and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again." But let's say it was something far more substantial than that. What kind of recourse is there, should the provisions of this standing order and of the Regulations Act be broken?
Mr Kaye: Let's say, for example, the committee finds that there has been a violation of the guideline regarding statutory authority and the committee concludes in its report that a particular regulation or part of a regulation has not been authorized by the statute under which it's purported to have been made, and the ministry disagrees with the committee's conclusion -- or even that the ministry does agree. What does the committee say about the violation in the report? The committee has various options.
If you look at the end of the standing order, there's a reference to the committee from time to time reporting to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations, which means, in the example I'm giving, the committee may simply observe -- and this would be an opinion as well -- "We feel that this regulation or part of this regulation has been made without statutory authority," and end it at that point. So there would be an observation from the committee that the committee's guideline in this area has been violated, but nothing further would be said.
Another option for the committee is to carry this kind of observation one step further and make a formal recommendation. In so doing, the committee has two kinds of recommendations it can make. It can recommend that the regulation be amended so it is in compliance with the act under which it is made, or the committee could recommend that the act be amended to authorize the regulation the way the regulation has currently been drafted. Those are the three options. Really, it's two broad options: an observation and opinion or a recommendation.
Mr Caplan: In that situation -- and I do think of several in specific, but just in general -- if a piece of legislation is adopted by the Legislative Assembly which seems to violate some of these guidelines, how would that be dealt with by this committee? What would be the mechanism to deal with something like that?
Mr Kaye: When you say the assembly may adopt legislation in compliance that's in conflict with the guidelines -- the guidelines are applicable to regulations, as opposed to statutes, in the sense that these guidelines are invoked when the regulations are being reviewed. Under the Regulations Act, which creates this committee, in section 12, which is found in appendix A, subsection 12(3) says the committee cannot make "reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes," in which case the committee does not have the authority to comment on the policy expressed in the regulation-making clause of a bill.
This is an issue which was raised in 1988, when the committee conducted hearings on the regulation-making process, at which point the committee recommended that there be an amendment to the Regulations Act authorizing the committee to look at enabling clauses and bills, that when a bill went to a standing committee, the bill would be referred to the regulations committee to look at the enabling clause. This committee would need the entire bill referred so it could examine the enabling clause in the context of the bill. After examining the enabling clause, the committee would pass on its advice to the standing committee which was reviewing the entire bill. The proposal that the Regulations Act be amended to authorize the committee to look at this part of a bill was never implemented.
Mr Caplan: So that amendment was proposed, but it was never adopted.
Mr Kaye: Right.
Mr Caplan: Okay. I'd be very interested in following up, because it seems to me to be a somewhat sensible way of operating, to ensure that what you're doing is in accordance with the guidelines you set. If you do have a body, a committee which is responsible for reviewing the regulations, that would be an appropriate body in order to have some scrutiny to make sure everything is in compliance.
We do have a subcommittee of this committee. I wonder if it might be appropriate for that subcommittee to take a look at this question, to revisit it and perhaps make some recommendations, have some discussion. Obviously, if that amendment failed, there were some very valid reasons why it should not proceed. But I'm wondering if it might be appropriate to revisit that in the subcommittee and perhaps have a report back to this committee on the viability of that kind of arrangement.
If it is appropriate, I would move that motion, that we refer this question to the subcommittee. They can take a look at it and then report back to us at some later time.
The Chair: Are you recommending we have a subcommittee meeting to discuss this, and to hold this report until we get the results of that?
Mr Caplan: No, I think we should proceed with the report. As you well know, I'm the newest member here and I'm trying to understand and learn about various aspects of lawmaking, if you will. I would very much like the opportunity to discuss the issue as Mr Kaye has elaborated on it.
1040
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, did you have a comment on that point?
Mr Hardeman: Yes, on that issue, I don't disagree with providing the opportunity for the subcommittee to discuss the issues of the operation of the committee, but I would have some concerns, as were just outlined by the research department, that the issue of this committee reviewing legislation as to the enabling clauses for regulation-making authority has been reviewed by this committee. Recommendations have gone forward to give this committee that authority. I'm not aware of when that happened or why it happened, but the result of that was that it was not acted upon, because the power-giving authority for this committee decided this committee should not have that responsibility.
I would, I suppose, question the need or the appropriateness of having the committee reviewing exactly that same function, to see whether we should recommend once again that this committee have that type of authority.
Mr Caplan: I wasn't suggesting that. As I listened to Mr Kaye, I believe he said the past review or the suggestion that this process take place was about 10 years ago. From time to time I know we do review various aspects of authority, of legislation, and 10 years would seem to me to be an appropriate amount of time to revisit something, particularly since it was recommended, I believe Mr Kaye said, by this committee. Although it was not adopted, it was recommended by the committee. It may be appropriate -- I believe it is appropriate -- to look at it again. By referring it to a subcommittee, we can look at the reasons, pro and con, that were reviewed 10 years ago, whether they're still applicable or not, and report back to the committee. The committee can then choose to do with it what it will. It would then, of course, have to be referred on to the Legislative Assembly, which would then approve or not approve whatever those recommendations are.
It seems to me to be a very reasonable process, and one that would give way to a lot of reasoned thought, so I would move the motion that the subcommittee review this particular question. I'm not going to specify any times or dates. I guess it would be at the call of the Chair for that subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay. I guess this goes back to what Mr Hardeman was saying. I'll ask the clerk to -- have you been discussing this with someone on the phone while we've been talking?
Clerk of the Committee: If I understand your point correctly, you are talking about going to subcommittee and possibly expanding the committee's mandate to look at --
Mr Caplan: No, just having the subcommittee revisit the question and see whether or not it's valid --
Clerk of the Committee: -- that we should be looking at these enacting clauses first?
Mr Caplan: Yes. But the subcommittee, of course, would have to report back to this committee, which in turn, if things were supported, would have to report to the Legislative Assembly.
Clerk of the Committee: I can confer with Philip as well, but I believe that would probably be something we'd contain in the report; we wouldn't pass the report first and then have the subcommittee go back and possibly reopen it.
Mr Caplan: That's not in the report.
Clerk of the Committee: No. But that would be a recommendation the committee would make. You could move that kind of recommendation, that it be included in the report.
Mr Caplan: I see no reason to do that. In fact, if you want to take it as a notice of motion arising out of this report, the recommendation to visit in subcommittee some questions and the one I specified, that's fine with me. However, I don't see that it needs to be a part of this particular report.
The Chair: Mr Spina, does this relate to this discussion?
Mr Spina: Yes. I may be being overly simplistic here, but I'm concerned about a subcommittee now developing into a greater red-tape issue, because that's clearly what seems to be coming out of this. As I say, I apologize if I sound as if I'm being overly simplistic, because I'm not a lawyer, and there are others here who certainly have far more legal training. But it appears to me that this is an issue of whether a regulation, a matter of policy, contravenes a matter of statute. My simple question is, if there is a statutory piece of legislation that is in place and a regulation contravenes that, then where's the problem here? In my opinion, legislation always seems to supersede any regulation or any policy. If that's being overly simplistic or if I didn't understand the issue here, then please correct me, but if it's a matter of changing regulations and policies to comply with legislation, then, damn it, do it. That's not something that has to be done by this committee; that can be done within the ministries themselves.
Mr Caplan: I appreciate the words of my friend opposite. With respect, that's not the point I was making. Certainly, regulations must be in line with statutes; there's no question about that. The point was that in order for that to happen and to ensure that everything is in line, there was at one time a recommendation from this committee, about 10 years ago, to ensure that such a thing did happen, that everything was in line and that it would be reviewed by this committee.
I'm saying I think it might be an appropriate opportunity, 10 years later, for this committee to at least discuss in subcommittee -- and they could give us the result of the discussions in subcommittee -- whether or not it is appropriate to review and revisit that question, to ensure that everything is kept as it should be and in line with the normal processes we have. I'm not seeking any great kind of red tape situation.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Why don't we vote on it?
Mr Spina: My point, if I may respond, is that to me it only seems appropriate if there's a rationale behind it. Respecting the case that Mr Kaye brought forward, if there's a contravention of some sort that has taken place between a regulation and a piece of legislation, then correct the regulation unless the piece of legislation must be changed for justifiable reason. I can understand that. But just to arbitrarily say, "Well, 10 years later we should be revisiting this because it's appropriate," sounds like a make-work project, sir. I would never be in favour of it.
Mr Hardeman: I have a question on process more than on the substance of the request. The clerk mentioned the issue that if this committee was to make such a recommendation, it should be made in this report as opposed to sending the issue to the subcommittee and back to this committee to make another report.
To the clerk, am I wrong or is it a reasonable assumption that on regulations this committee reports to the Legislature once a year, that this is the report on the regulation issues as they have been compiled for the events, and from this report to the next year we will be dealing with private bills, as opposed to regulations? This is the regulation part of the committee's work today. If we were talking about adding to the report to make recommendations to the Legislature, these recommendations should be part of this report or they would become part of next year's report. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Mr Kaye: The practice of the committee has been to table reports on regulations roughly once a year.
Mr Caplan: Has it always occurred that way?
Mr Kaye: For the last several years, that has been the case. A major exception occurred in 1988, when the committee decided, apart from doing the kind of report which is before the committee today, to hold public hearings on the regulation-making process itself. Some of the issues that were addressed were: the mandate of this committee, opportunities for public participation in the making of regulations and also the question of giving the Legislature a power to disallow regulations. Those were some of the issues that came up.
The question of this committee having any authority over enabling clauses in bills was looked at as part of that review of the regulation-making process that occurred, and it led to a separate report in 1988 which was called the Second Report, 1988. But since that date, there has never been any kind of committee report devoted to the regulation-making process per se. The committee's reports have focused on the actual review of the regulations filed with the registrar of regulations.
1050
Mr Sheehan: Mr Kaye, have there been any examples or any cases that point out the inadequacy of the stipulations set out in standing order 105(k), other than this one that went on the probate?
Mr Kaye: In terms of cases which I followed over the past year, I really couldn't say for sure that was the only case, except in terms of cases involving statutory authority and the question of whether a regulation prescribed a fee or a tax. I believe this may have been the only one.
Mr Sheehan: If that's the case, and 105(k) is now 10 years old, and with the legal profession having been through kind of dire straits for the last 10 or 12 years because the real estate market has gone for a dump, it would seem that these stipulations set out in 105(k) have stood the test of time, because I'm sure if there were more than a few cases it would have jumped right out at you. It would seem this oversight function of this committee has in fact been pretty well thought out and nobody seems to have been able to poke too many holes in it.
The next thing you have to take as gospel, or at least I do, is that the Legislature is supreme. What the Legislature says, does. Since we are a creature of that Legislature, we are not likely to be creating a lot of law at this level; we may make some recommendations.
It appears to me that there's no need for a subcommittee, because what your report says to me is that whoever designed 105(k) did a pretty good job, anticipated all the areas of concern and hasn't been subjected to a successful challenge. I have a question about the mindset of the judge regarding jumping from $5 for up to $50,000 and then going to $15 for anything over that. I have a problem with his definition of "tax." But the process here seems to be pretty tight and pretty conclusive. I would say that we don't need a subcommittee, and we should get on with it.
The Chair: Mr Hardeman, and I also know our clerk has some additional information.
Mr Hardeman: After sitting here and hearing the debate, we find ourselves with a problem. I think the standing orders are quite clear on what is expected of this committee as it relates to the regulations and its function. If we are going to suggest that this committee should have a different responsibility and a different function, that should come from the Legislature down to this committee, not from this committee up to the Legislature, suggesting to the Legislature that we want or that we need more authority and more responsibility in this committee. If the Legislature feels it's appropriate that the standing committees have more or different responsibilities, that's the direction it should come in. I will not be voting for the suggestion that is being put forward.
The Chair: I would ask our clerk for any further explanation.
Clerk of the Committee: Just to clarify it, I think we've got two paths forward to resolve the issue brought forward by Mr Caplan: You could either move a motion right now that we make a recommendation that the committee's mandate be broadened to include looking at enabling clauses, or we could pass the report today, subject to approval of the subcommittee. In other words, we'd be delegating the responsibility for passing this report to the subcommittee, and the subcommittee could therefore have a meeting on this issue and decide if that's something they wish to include or not include in the report. If the committee so decides, it could be with unanimous consent of the subcommittee, and if the subcommittee is not unanimously agreed, it could come back to the committee; or it can be with a majority decision of the subcommittee, at which point the subcommittee could therefore make the decision what to include in this report, if this report is to be amended and therefore to table it or not. That motion could also be voted on.
Mr Caplan: Could you not pass this report, and then, as a matter arising, move the question I have put to a subcommittee to examine that question?
Clerk of the Committee: In general, we wouldn't pass a report with the potential of the subcommittee reopening that report.
Mr Caplan: No, it's not anything that stems from the report; it's not like any factual information in the report per se. It's further questions which arise out of, as I think the parliamentary assistant has said, the mandate of the committee and the scope of the committee. Is that not what the subcommittee --
Clerk of the Committee: To come up with a completely additional report? I'll confirm that yet again. I'll get back to you in a moment.
Mr Spina: I have one question. I'm still trying to understand. I guess I'm trying to get down to brass tacks here. If this report is adopted as presented by Mr Kaye, why is there any reason to go beyond that? Why do we need a subcommittee? What's the ramification if we do not accept Mr Kaye's report, with due respect, sir? It appears to me, based on Mr Sheehan's question, that there seems to be a single incident here that has prompted this exercise that has gone right to the Supreme Court of Canada. It appears to me as if this whole report has been constituted around this one challenged case in the system, since Mr Kaye has not been able to provide any other examples of where this really has been a problem.
My question is, what's the ramification of either accepting the report and saying thank you very much or turning down the report?
The Chair: Mr Kaye, do you deal with that area?
Mr Kaye: In reference to including the case that has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, it has been included in the report for the reasons I've mentioned in that it can provide assistance to lawyers in the research service who review the regulations on behalf of this committee.
We do review regulations. We review all the regulations that are filed with the registrar of regulations. Some of these regulations prescribe fees, and sometimes the issue may arise as to whether the fee is in the nature of a tax. If there is a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether a fee has been properly authorized by an act or on how to assess the distinction between a fee and a tax, that judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada will assist the lawyers in the research service when reviewing regulations on behalf of this committee. That is the reason for including the case.
Mr Spina: With due respect, if the Supreme Court makes the decision, then what does it matter what we say? As the Supreme Court makes a decision, it becomes a matter of law and precedent, and that's going to supersede whatever this committee decides on.
Mr Kaye: That is why the part on the report on the Supreme Court case is basically just a summary of the case, because you are correct in what the Supreme Court says, that it would be binding in terms of principles of law. But it would certainly be of assistance when we would be reviewing the regulations on behalf of the committee.
Mr Spina: Are you trying to pre-empt the Supreme Court here?
Mr Kaye: No.
Mr Hardeman: I stand to be corrected by far greater experts than I am, but I think we need to understand what this report is. It is before this committee to deal with the regulatory powers that have been exercised by the government in the year 1996 in total. The only parts of this report that are highlighted are the parts where there have been some differences of opinions or different approaches used that would warrant us as a committee to look at those cases and see if that's a standard that is being used throughout the process and not being caught.
1100
I would also point out that the committee would have the ability to delay the passing of this report to a future meeting if you felt there were other areas that had not been researched properly. There may be regulations out there that someone has brought to your attention that weren't properly done but that the researchers did not find. I think the end of the report, as thorough a job as research has done -- I would point out that this is the report of this committee going to the Legislature stating as to how the functions of regulatory powers have been used or abused in that year. In my opinion, the only reason to mention the Supreme Court case is that it was a regulatory power that was used by a minister, someone has decided that it was inappropriately used and it has gone to the court to prove whether it's right or wrong, not whether we agree or disagree with that regulation at all. We are just judging the process of regulatory powers, as opposed to what is right and wrong in each one. That's my opinion. Research can contradict me if they wish.
Mr Kaye: There's certainly no judgement made regarding the case that has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. As I've said, what's in the report is merely a summary of the case itself. But certainly the committee is free to decide not to include any reference to the Supreme Court of Canada case at all. It does not involve a regulation filed in 1996, and if the committee feels it doesn't add to the report, then certainly the committee is free to decide to remove all references to this case.
Mr Sheehan: That brings us down to what the purpose of this report is. It's a nice information piece, and I thank you very much for it, but what's it about? I read through the introduction, and it doesn't tell me what the thing is about, but it seems to suggest that it should be asking and reporting on two questions: First, has this committee in fact had an opportunity to provide the oversight on all the regulation-setting of the government? On that, I find it doesn't say that we have. Second, does it constitute our approval of all the regulations set or the process involved in the setting of the regulations? I would say the report is silent on that.
If the purpose was to comment or assess the effectiveness of this committee, it doesn't deal with that. It sets out very nicely the things that we should be doing and that we can do -- and I find 105(k) very instructive -- but it does not comment on whether the committee has done its job.
Mr Kaye: If you look at page 4 of the report, under "Regulations Reported," there's a statement that says, "The committee's review of the regulations filed during 1996 raised some questions.... " That statement is saying the committee has reviewed all the regulations filed in 1996, which is also referred to in the very first sentence of the report, "The committee presents this report on regulations filed during 1996," and 564 regulations are cited.
Mr Sheehan: With respect, Mr Kaye, I was on the committee in 1996, and we did not review all the 500-and-what-have-you regulations that were passed by the government.
Mr Kaye: Which committee?
Mr Sheehan: We're talking about this committee.
Mr Kaye: Right.
Mr Sheehan: You're stating that we reviewed the regulations filed in 1996?
Mr Kaye: This raises the question in terms of the committee's process. In the past, the committee made the decision that members would delegate either to outside lawyers or lawyers within the legislative research service the responsibility of reviewing the regulations published in the Ontario Gazette to assess whether there have been violations of the committee's guidelines. If the initial assessment was that there may have been a violation of the guidelines, the lawyers working for the committee were advised to then correspond -- and this is in accordance with the standing orders -- with the ministry involved and request an explanation as to whether or not there had been a violation.
Those responses would then be reviewed by lawyers working on behalf of the committee. There were certain possibilities that could arise. The ministry could respond and say, "Yes, there is a violation of the committee's guidelines." Those regulations would be brought to the attention of the committee. If the ministry, on the other hand, disputed the violation, the committee has had the practice of relying on lawyers working for the committee to assess whether or not they agreed with the ministry.
If there was an agreement with the ministry in the sense that yes, there is an explanation, there really is not a violation of the guidelines, the committee has said, "We will rely on your judgement, and you don't need to bring that regulation forward." However, if after you review and research the response of the ministry, the ministry is challenging whether there has been a violation and you still think there is a violation, "Bring it to us" -- the committee -- "and we will decide whether we support your interpretation of the regulation or the ministry's." But this committee has never, since the very beginning, looked at each and every regulation that has been filed with the registrar.
Mr Sheehan: Can I ask you -- first, you're suggesting that some nameless lawyers who are not members of this committee are in fact acting as surrogates of this committee.
Mr Kaye: That's the way the committee has operated in the past.
Mr Sheehan: Is that set out somewhere in the great big rule of life?
Mr Kaye: Pardon? I didn't quite hear.
Mr Sheehan: Is that set out someplace in the rules of procedure of this committee? What you're saying is that lawyers from whatever ministry would act as a surrogate of this committee to vet the propriety or lack thereof of regulations brought forward by a ministry. That's what you're saying.
Mr Kaye: No, that's not quite what I'm saying.
Mr Sheehan: Who are these lawyers who vet these things to say whether or not they're pure?
Mr Kaye: There are lawyers employed by the legislative research service who, as one of their responsibilities, review, on behalf of this committee, the regulations published --
Mr Sheehan: For the registrar of regulations? Is that where they are?
Mr Kaye: No, not part of the registrar of regulations. There are really three groups of lawyers involved in this regulation process. You have the ministry lawyers, you have the lawyers in the office of the registrar of regulations and then you have lawyers in the legislative research service who, as one of their responsibilities, look at the regulations.
Mr Sheehan: Who was that last group? I'm sorry.
Mr Kaye: Lawyers employed in the legislative research service. We are research officers and we also can serve as counsel to this committee or the Ombudsman committee.
The regulations that are published in the Ontario Gazette have been reviewed by lawyers working for the registrar of regulations. That office applies the guidelines found in the standing orders. The guidelines have an initial application by lawyers working for the registrar of regulations. But after the regulations are published in the Ontario Gazette, they are reviewed by other lawyers, the distinction being lawyers working for the office of the registrar of regulations technically are employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General. The other group of lawyers, lawyers employed by the legislative research service, are employed by the office of the Legislative Assembly. They are employed by the legislative branch.
This second review of the regulations is conducted by lawyers employed by the research service on behalf of this committee. After reviewing the regulations, if there are problems, we then correspond with the directors of the legal branches of the ministries, a third set of lawyers involved in this process. We correspond; we assess their responses. Where we have a disagreement with the ministry and we feel there has been a violation, we then bring the problem forward to the committee. Problems can vary. One year there may not be any regulations, or few regulations, to bring forward; other years there may be more.
1110
Mr Sheehan: My last question then is, at what point does this committee get to pass on the propriety or lack of propriety or the purity or lack thereof of a regulation? I have never seen anything brought forward to the committee saying, "We have a committee coming out of MOEE that says the following, and we think it's wrong." Does it ever come to this room on Wednesday morning?
Mr Kaye: There are regulations brought forward in the reports. The number can vary from report to report. This morning there happens to be only one regulation. The last report had nine regulations brought forward; I don't have the exact figure for the one before that.
One of the regulations brought forward two reports ago involved the regulation dealing with northern Ontario travel grants. This committee felt in that report that part of the regulation was not authorized by the statute. Before it reached that point, we had communicated with the legal branch of the Ministry of Health, and they acknowledged that it appeared that this part of the regulation was made without authority. It was brought forward to the committee. The options which I just outlined in terms of the committee's decision-making powers were given to the committee. The committee had the option of simply observing and expressing an opinion that part of the regulation was made without authority or recommending that the regulation be amended to comply with the Ministry of Health Act or recommending that the Ministry of Health Act be amended so as to authorize the regulation.
Mr Sheehan: I think the process works, but I think I've missed maybe one meeting of this committee since I got elected, and I don't remember anybody ever bringing forward a regulation such as you're talking about just now, about northern affairs.
Mr Kaye: That regulation goes back two reports, so certainly you were not here.
Mr Sheehan: Obviously. Would you do me a favour, then? Give me a copy of it, please.
I'm through. Thanks.
The Chair: If the committee wishes to wrap this up, I have questions from Mr Leadston and Mr Caplan, and then I think there's a motion from Mr Hardeman.
Mr Leadston: We've perhaps been having some intellectual stimulation for well over an hour, and I was wondering if we could refocus. I believe there's a motion on the floor.
The Chair: Not from Mr Caplan, as I understand, no. There's a suggestion on the floor.
Mr Leadston: All right, then can we deal with the motion on the report?
The Chair: I guess you've asked a question. I have Mr Caplan on the docket, and then there is a motion from Mr Hardeman, as I explained. Let's see what develops.
Mr Caplan: I don't wish to belabour anything. As I say, I really am trying to understand the purpose of this committee, what we're supposed to be doing here. I take this work very seriously. I want to acknowledge that Mr Sheehan made some very excellent comments about the mandate of this committee and what we do here. My suggestion has been, to follow up on what he was saying, that it is appropriate for us to take a look at the process of this committee, why we're here and what we're doing. I certainly support what he said earlier. Mr Chair, you have my suggestion.
Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I didn't say I think we should review it; I thought I said earlier that I agreed the process seems to be working very well because they've only brought one case forward. That's what I said. I didn't say we should be looking at the process.
Mr Caplan: And nine the previous year, as you had inquired. I certainly appreciate the committee members taking this very seriously, and I look forward to revisiting this at a later time.
The Chair: You've suggested a subcommittee meeting, and I wish to have the clerk pull together a subcommittee meeting. There's this agenda item, and I understand in the fall there was at least one agenda item that could be considered by the subcommittee. So I would like to have a subcommittee meeting.
Mr Caplan: Very good. Thank you. If you want, Mr Chair, I'll move adoption of this report, or if you want to let the parliamentary assistant do it, that's fine with me too.
The Chair: It was indicated to me previously that there was a motion by Mr Hardeman. I don't want to usurp his --
Mr Hardeman: Mr Chair, notwithstanding the considerable debate we've had concerning the issues, we've had minimal debate on the report, and it seems to be quite an acceptable, well-drafted report to deal with the regulations of 1996. I would recommend that we adopt the report and table it with the Legislative Assembly.
The Chair: We have a motion to adopt this report and to table it with the Ontario Legislature. All in favour? Those opposed? I declare that motion carried.
Anything further? I declare this order of business closed.
CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1997
The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr89, An Act respecting the city of Brampton. I would ask both the sponsor, Mr Spina, and the applicant to approach the witness table. The sponsor for Bill Pr89 is Joe Spina, MPP. I would ask Mr Spina for some brief introductory remarks, and the committee would also wish to be introduced to the applicant.
Mr Spina: Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to bring this forward. With me today is Janice Atwood-Petkovski, who is from the legal services department of the city of Brampton. In fact Janice will probably -- not probably; you will -- be the one who will give the explanation behind this.
Chair, I'm presuming this is where I make the motion.
The Chair: The committee will be discussing this bill, and normally in the course of discussion or after discussion there would be a motion for any amendments.
Mr Spina: Okay. Basically, the amendment we are seeking to the bill is to allow the city of Brampton to get special legislation to help regulate some of the activities on public highways under its jurisdiction. For the reasons behind that, I'll turn the microphone over to Janice to give some background on that.
Mrs Janice Atwood-Petkovski: The city of Brampton, like many other municipalities, has a number of what are loosely referred to as street vendors. These are just really small free-enterprise businesses trying to ply their trade. Under the Municipal Act, we have the authority to regulate this kind of activity if it is on private property. Under the Municipal Act, we do not have the authority to regulate the activity if it's on public property. That's what we're seeking.
Essentially, the legislation would enable us to pass a bylaw to regulate the street vendors on public property, that is, on highways, on sidewalks and on the grassy boulevard strips that abut the roadways, and in addition to that would provide us with some ability to confiscate goods where they are in clear contravention of our bylaws.
The Chair: I see no interested parties to this bill. I see questions coming from the committee. Before we entertain questions, I would ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs for comments on this bill.
Mr Hardeman: The ministry has circulated the bill to other ministries and has received no negative comments back, so the ministry does not propose that there's anything wrong with the bill. We are supportive of the bill.
I do have a couple of questions. I thought that at present the Municipal Act already allowed the regulation of this type of activity on public property. At present the Municipal Act does not allow it to be regulated?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: No, that's only under private legislation. The city of Toronto and, as I understand, the cities of Ottawa and Mississauga have private legislation that allows the regulating of street vendors on public property. I'm not sure if there are other municipalities as well.
1120
Mr Ruprecht: I just want to make two short points. One was just addressed, and that is that we've had deputants here before from other municipalities, so that should be fairly easy to pass in terms of the request being made right now.
The second point I think is just as important, and that is in order to cut some red tape, I'm just wondering whether we're continually getting a stream of people here who may or may not waste a lot of their time. In this case, of course, although Mr Spina has looked at this very carefully and I would certainly support his request, whatever it was, because of his very detailed analysis of this, I'm just wondering whether in terms of saving time -- and over the year there are probably millions of dollars involved in having people come in here making these requests. I'm wondering whether there would be any other way to do this so they wouldn't waste their time and we wouldn't waste the committee's time.
The red tape commission, for some strange reason, hasn't looked at this, yet at every second meeting of this committee that I know of -- I've been here for a fairly long time, probably longer than any of you have been on this committee -- we're bringing this up. The Conservative members in the last two years have also said, "Yes, we should look at this to cut time." I'm wondering whether this could be done through the parliamentary assistant or through you, Mr Chair. We should look at this, to try to do this more efficiently.
The Chair: I understand this issue was raised again in the fall. I was absent. I would wish this to be an additional agenda item for the subcommittee meeting.
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: May I address the committee?
The Chair: One other thing I will mention: I understand a paper has been prepared to summarize some of this.
Mr Hardeman: If I could just offer an explanation, I think the previous discussion as to the lack of need for certain applicants to come before the committee to be heard dealt primarily with the tax exemption laws that were being requested, which are fairly standard and apply similarly to all non-profit organizations. I think there was some suggestion that we should find a way as a committee to put them through in a different manner so they wouldn't have to come forward.
I would caution that as we look at simplifying the system and reducing the workload of this committee, we would not want to venture into the area where they're actually changing provincial statutes by an internal method, that we could somehow include that in the streamlined process that says that municipalities or anyone else coming forward with an application could change a provincial statute without coming before the committee or without doing a bill through the Legislature to allow that to happen, as this case would be pointing out.
To explain it to myself and to the committee, going back to my original question about the ability of the municipality to do it, my understanding is that the municipality under the Municipal Act presently can prohibit street vending. This bill is proposing to give the regulatory ability to direct it, as opposed to prohibit it. Again, that's a change in the Municipal Act presently. I'm very supportive of the streamlining process. I think this is the type of bill that would require the actual legislative process to accommodate the need.
The Chair: Before I go to the applicant, is that satisfactory with you, Mr Ruprecht?
Mr Ruprecht: To have the subcommittee look at this? Is that what you're saying?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Ruprecht: Of course, yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just hope it will be speeded up somehow.
Mr Spina: That's the issue in general, though, not this specific one. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, exactly. I know our applicant wishes to make some comments.
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: In all fairness, there is broader licensing ability that the municipality has been given. The previous Municipal Act was quite piecemeal in terms of our ability to license generally. The legislation that came down two years ago, in 1996, broadened out that licensing ability quite considerably, and for that municipalities were very grateful to the government.
But I guess it's fair to say that the emphasis in this is on the enforcement aspect of licensing or not licensing. Whether we've licensed or prohibited, we need further enforcement ability on the public highways, and that's really the gist of this private legislation. It's the confiscatory power whereby, for example, and it's a very practical problem, the enforcement officer approaches the vendor and says, "Listen, I'm going to charge you. You're not allowed to sell on this curb or corner," or what have you, and the vendor says: "I'm not required to give you my identification. Charge me if you can, but you don't even know who I am." That's the practical dilemma. This would allow the municipality to say, "Listen, give me your name or move along, or I'm going to call for assistance and your goods will be confiscated and you'll have to come and redeem them." That's the practical aspect of it.
Mr Caplan: What the deputant just talked about was what I wanted to ask. The confiscation power: Is that something that exists already in other bylaws or other private members' bills that were granted by this committee?
Mr Hardeman: I believe the laws that were previously mentioned, such as in the city of Toronto, include that confiscation provision.
Mr Caplan: In fact, under the enforcement provision, it doesn't say you will do it, it says you may do it, so there is some discretion involved there. If the individual who's contravening the bylaw produces some identification and you can issue an enforcement that way, that may not be necessary.
There are two other things that I wish to ask about this private member's bill. Section 3 talks about regional roads. I understood from the preamble that this legislation was supposed to be for those public highways under its jurisdiction, and in section 3 it says that a bylaw granted under this act can apply to a regional road, which would not be under the jurisdiction of the city of Brampton. I'm a little bit curious about how that's in here and why that is and if that's not somewhat in conflict with the preamble and the nature of what this is about.
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: No. That's due to the fact that in the region of Peel, the city of Brampton, along with the city of Mississauga, has an enforcement department and enforcement officers, and the region itself does not have an enforcement mechanism. By this kind of provision, we take over the enforcement of our bylaws on regional roads as well as city roads.
As you're driving through Brampton, you wouldn't know whether you're on a regional road or a city road. We would and the region would. But by agreement, we do the enforcement on all of those roads within the city of Brampton. Certain roads become regional roads as you drive along them, and so it just confuses the issue to have two enforcement divisions. We've streamlined that by having the city of Brampton provide the enforcement within the entire city of Brampton, whether it's a regional road or a city road at that particular point.
Mr Spina: With due respect, Mr Caplan, I guess we should liken it perhaps to the existing city of Toronto before the amalgamation, where you have one Metro police department and regardless of whether it's a Metro road or a city of North York road, essentially Metro police have the authority to enforce laws depending on whether Yonge Street was considered to be a regional road or a local road in the city of North York. It's really not all that different.
The Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant have something to add on this?
Mr Hardeman: No, it's okay.
The Chair: I'll go to Mr Sheehan then.
Mr Sheehan: Just for clarification, under this bylaw, without this confiscatory power that this bill will give you, can I as a vendor just thumb my nose at your enforcement officer?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: If you're on the public highway. You're not required to show our enforcement officers any ID. Therefore, they are unable to issue a ticket, unless they call the police in.
1130
Mr Sheehan: But don't you have a licence that must be visibly displayed?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: If they are licensed, if they have obtained a licence from the city of Brampton, then we know who they are. But if they haven't obtained a license and they simply come into the city and arrive and sit themselves down on a corner boulevard somewhere, our enforcement officers cannot --
Mr Sheehan: No enforcement power at all.
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: Effectively, no.
Mr Hardeman: To the applicant, going back to Mr Caplan's question and the preamble of the bill, it talks about giving regulatory powers on the roads "under" their jurisdiction. At the end of the bill it says also on regional roads.
Regional roads, although they may be in the jurisdiction of the municipality, are not under your jurisdiction. They may be in the municipality, but they are not under the municipal jurisdiction. In fairness, I would see that as somewhat contradictory. It should say "within" your jurisdiction as opposed to "under" your jurisdiction in the preamble. If it's "under" the jurisdiction, that would say it does not apply to regional roads because they are not under Brampton's jurisdiction. Am I wrong?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: That may be a possible change. I could indicate that this is basically identical, almost verbatim, to the city of Mississauga's private legislation obtained in 1994, including the wording of the preamble. In addition, I'm not sure whether the preamble itself is effectively the law or whether you have to move to the first section.
Mr Spina: If I may add to that, for the purposes of enforcement, it shouldn't matter whether it's "under" the jurisdiction or "within" the jurisdiction, because the city of Brampton has the enforcement authority on regional roads within its jurisdiction. Even though it says "under" the jurisdiction, for enforcement purposes, the city of Brampton has that authority regardless of whether it's a regional or municipal road.
Mr Hardeman: Could I ask, on the enforcement part, is the enforcement done by the region of Peel or the city of Brampton?
Mr Spina: It's done by the city of Brampton.
Mr Hardeman: It's the city of Brampton police force?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: No. The city of Brampton municipal law enforcement officers are our own municipal bylaw enforcement officers; they're not the police officers. It's municipal enforcement.
Mr Hardeman: Then except for this law, the city of Brampton has no jurisdiction on regional roads?
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: No. For example, we have jurisdiction with respect to regulating newspaper boxes, regulating a great variety of things that take place on the public highways.
Mr Leadston: With the greatest respect, I think that before this bill has come to this stage, it has been vetted by the municipality. They do have a problem there. This is their solution. It's been vetted by every ministry within the Legislature here. I think we're nitpicking on wording. There have been greater legal minds than those who are sitting around this table who have vetted this particular bill. I have no difficulty with it at all.
Mr Hardeman: With all due respect to Mr Leadston, I would point out that there is going to be an amendment proposed to change one word that required changing after it had been vetted through all those other channels. So it's quite appropriate for committee members to question wording of the bill.
The Chair: With respect to amendments, there may be one or two amendments. Are we waiting for greater legal minds to advise us on that? We do have one amendment, as I understand, that we could begin with.
Mr Spina: That's all we're looking for.
The Chair: Any further questions from the committee? Is the committee willing to --
Mr Spina: May I make the motion?
Mr Ruprecht: We're more than willing.
Mr Spina: May I make the motion or do you wish to hold?
The Chair: I would ask, yes, until the clerk returns.
Mrs Atwood-Petkovski: There is a further clarification that was brought to my attention by counsel for the legislative committee. In addition to everything else that's been said on the subject -- and I'm not sure that there's going to be any amendment moved in any case -- in the preamble, the terminology "on public highways under its jurisdiction" is probably the most appropriate because when the region has passed the bylaw as stipulated in section 3, that does move those portions of highway under the city's jurisdiction.
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to pose a question to the committee because I'm not clear what --
Clerk of the Committee: Are we wanting to proceed as well with an amendment to the preamble? Under the standing orders, you can only amend the preamble if amendments to the bill have necessitated that type of change to the preamble.
Mr Spina: Is that not up to the committee to determine whether you need that? At this point, all we're doing is making a motion to amend the subsection of the bill.
Clerk of the Committee: Section 2? Yes, there's nothing wrong with that amendment at all. I'm just inquiring about the amendment to the preamble.
Mr Spina: Is it strictly preamble or is it part of the statute? That's my question to you, sir.
Clerk of the Committee: The first amendment that was brought forward dealing with subsection 2(1) of the bill, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that amendment. It can be moved and voted on appropriately.
Mr Spina: My question to you is that I would make that motion, but you indicated that if that necessitates a change to the preamble -- did I understand that correctly from you?
Clerk of the Committee: No. Sorry. A preamble can only be amended if changes in the bill have necessitated that type of change. I'm not proposing that your amendment --
Mr Spina: So we can go ahead with the motion. Thank you very much.
The Chair: If you would go ahead with the motion.
Mr Spina: I move that subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "bylaw" in the second line and substituting "law."
The Chair: All those in favour? Those opposed? Seeing none, I declare that amendment passed.
I would now ask the committee to consider voting on Bill Pr89, An Act respecting the City of Brampton, sponsored by Mr Spina, MPP, Brampton North.
Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
I wish to collapse the next three sections. Shall sections 3 through to section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank the applicants, and declare this order of business closed.
This committee stands adjourned at the call of the Chair. Merry Christmas.
The committee adjourned at 1140.