L008b - Wed 6 May 1998 / Mer 6 Mai 1998 1
The House met at 1828.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PARTNERSHIPS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS EN NOM COLLECTIF
Mr Tsubouchi moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 6, An Act to amend the law with respect to Partnerships / Projet de loi 6, Loi visant à modifier des lois en ce qui concerne les sociétés en nom collectif.
Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Madam Speaker, I'd like to share my time with the members for Northumberland and Dufferin-Peel.
I'm pleased to present for second reading the Partnerships Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill will affect the Partnerships Act, the Business Names Act and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1956.
This bill will allow limited liability partnerships to be formed to protect non-negligent partners from personal liability for another partner's professional negligence. Currently in Ontario, in cases where a partnership has been sued and found negligent, all partners face the risk of losing personal assets like their family home if there's a shortfall in the company's liability insurance coverage.
We felt it was unfair for a partner to have his personal assets threatened because of negligent work undertaken by another partner, quite possibly a partner not in the same office or even in the same city. I should point out, however, that these changes apply only to liability arising from professional negligence and do not extend to damages caused by a partner's fraudulent actions.
Before our government took office, we made a commitment to support this initiative that would modernize outdated business laws. I am pleased to say that Ontario will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to recognize these partnerships. The changes represent a modern and more flexible legislative framework, which better reflects the role of the auditor in today's marketplace.
After extensive consultation with the business community, we believe this is a win-win situation - it's simple and fair to all. Negligent partners remain personally liable in the case of negligence. However, non-negligent partners will be protected and accounting clients will continue to receive high-quality auditing work from LLP organizations.
These partnerships will be required to provide accurate professional services. Standards of accountability and duty of care related to auditing will remain very high since successful plaintiffs will continue to have recourse to the firm's and negligent partner's assets and insurance.
Mandatory insurance provisions, which will be set by the governing association, will ensure successful plaintiffs have access to a minimum level of funds. Beyond that, many LLPs will obtain additional insurance.
Finally, we are ensuring that the public is well informed of the proposed changes. The Institute of Chartered Accountants will be working with firms interested in becoming limited liability partnerships to inform their clients of any changes.
In addition, the government intends to communicate to the public through a variety of ways the effect of this proposed legislation, including developing a public awareness program with the industry and posting LLP-related information on our Web site.
This government is taking a careful, measured approach to LLPs. For that reason, only chartered accountant firms may practise as LLPs for the time being. However, we will consider LLPs for other professions if their governing bodies can demonstrate a need for this type of organizational structure related to their work while at the same time protecting the interests of the Ontario consumer.
I believe it is crucial that we continue to improve overall business-to-government relationships by developing business improvement initiatives with our clients and ensure more efficient government service delivery to businesses in Ontario. I urge all members to support these changes.
Before I end, I would like to convey that we do have a number of areas of support which the Institute of Chartered Accountants has obtained, letters of support from such people as the Leader of the Opposition, Dalton McGuinty; Mr Crozier on the opposition benches; the then whip of the NDP government, David Cooke, who indicated at the time that when they were the government this was supported by them and they wish us to continue our work. There have been many talks with the leader of the third party, Howard Hampton, as well.
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a privilege for me to be able to rise and speak on this particular bill, because as we address the issue of liability it certainly comes very close to home. I've been very concerned about some of the frivolous charges of liability that we've seen in the past, both as have been charged against some of the volunteers, which really has affected our volunteers in our society, and also as we look at this particular partnership one. Certainly some of the court decisions have been less than desirable, in my humble opinion. There would appear to be an unfairness in the past with both volunteers and partnerships.
I speak from experience when I talk about partnerships. For my first two years after graduation as a veterinarian I practised in Seaforth up in Huron county. I'm sure the member for Huron would be very pleased to hear that. I practised with Turnbull and Bryans, who were in partnership at that time. Following that, I spent two years in Napanee practising in partnership with Dr Myron Mills, and after that four years in partnership with Dr Ron Wilson.
All of those years were exceptional years. I enjoyed them tremendously. But the thing I found extremely upsetting was that when I applied for malpractice insurance, as was recommended, and the premium came, I found that it was significantly more than simply two times what it would cost for a single veterinarian to practise. Of course I was rather concerned, expecting it would be a discount for two. I phoned the insurance company to find out why on earth there would be such a significant difference, and they explained to me that at that time, as this bill is explaining, I was responsible for the liability of myself as well as my partner. Similarly, my partner was responsible for his liability as well as any negligence or malpractice that I might carry out. Consequently, it was almost three times the cost of a single practitioner, and certainly chartered accountants are experiencing the same kind of thing.
Most of our professional groups, if not all of our professional groups, are prohibited by their respective acts from being able to incorporate their practices, although some professions will go to the extent of incorporating their property, their buildings and then leasing back their professional partnership to that corporation. As you're aware, I'm sure, Madam Speaker, with corporations and other groups who can form partnerships and go into a corporation there is automatically a limited liability, because all you can sue for is the value of that particular corporation. So we are left with professional partnerships that have higher risks than other organizations, higher liabilities than other organizations, and they have to pay a higher cost for liability insurance.
I know you don't like to look to the south, but nevertheless, that's where we see a lot of the liability problems, and in the US almost every state has some sort of, or allows, a limited liability partnership. Over there, it recognizes the benefits and the need for this particular bit of legislation.
What is a limited liability partnership? This is a new type of legal entity; it protects one partner from the liability of a negligent act of their partner. In other words, the non-negligent partner would not have to end up paying for the other partner or would not necessarily be in the position where they could be sued. That, I think, is tremendously important in this particular bill.
However, I do want to stress that there is protection for the public, because it is the same as if that individual was in practice on their own. They would be responsible for that negligence or that malpractice. Also, there would be, for both partners, the protection for fraud or breach of contract, and in that case both partners would be responsible for that. So by doing this, there is a strong incentive for both partners to monitor each other to make sure that work is properly carried out.
Chartered accountants, traditionally, have carried liability insurance, first, if they could obtain it and, second, if they could afford it. But if they didn't have any insurance to cover it, then their personal assets would certainly be in jeopardy. This bill is all about fairness. It's about clearing the path to promote business. It's about reducing barriers for business. There's no question that red tape in this country is strangling small business. Small business and entrepreneurs across Ontario have been strangled with red tape and with taxes, and legislation such as we're trying to bring in will help clear up this awkwardness for partners, particularly in the chartered accountant business.
It certainly calls for a new approach, as we're looking at the whole area of helping businesses. I go across my riding, whether it be Brighton, Campbellford, Colborne, Port Hope, Cobourg, they're telling us to hold the course, they're telling us to help small business by reducing taxes - reduce red tape, reduce the paper work, get government out of their face. That's what this government certainly has been doing.
This bill will help. Partnerships add a lot to entrepreneurship. There's the flexibility; there's that added ability to specialize and work together. This bill will be a new tool for the chartered accountants and for other professions down the road if they want to ask the government to recognize their particular profession. There will of course have to be legislation to recognize their particular act.
This is an excellent example of government listening. Certainly, the opposition call everyone that we address or that comes to us special interest groups and say that we don't listen to them. This is an example of a very narrow interest group that indeed we have listened to. I think the opposition often equate listening to caving in to every whim and demand that might come along. That is what had been going on with the previous two governments. They would try and satisfy and look after every group that came along, and back and forth, and weave here and there. Even Bob Rae made the comment, "It doesn't matter how much you give, you can never ever give enough to some special interest groups."
1840
I would suggest that this government has been one of the most consultative governments this province has ever experienced. Starting back in 1991 the party toured the province, consulting with every group it could possibly find, and from that information designed the Common Sense Revolution, our platform. We extensively consulted on the throne speech and on the budget. It was probably the most extensive consultation that was ever carried out for a throne speech. We have spent more time debating each and every bill that has gone through this House. We have spent more time on committee hearings per bill than any other government ever has. The Who Does What exercise: AMO came to us later on and said, "We want these changes." We agreed to every change they came to us with, except leaving 5% for the local school boards to bill property tax owners.
On reg reform, which I was particularly involved with, with the Minister of Environment and Energy, we did extensive consultation. Madam Speaker, you as a critic for the Ministry of Environment will recall the extensive consultation and how we worked it around to make sure we had the best possible regulations coming out. We were on the road with three different draft bills prior to first reading, something other governments have never carried out. Bill after bill we've recognized through consultation, and we have made amendments to those bills.
We are carefully listening and carefully consulting and responding to good advice that we receive, and this has been good advice. I would encourage that other professions look favourably in this direction, and look to doing something about their partnerships. I'll certainly be speaking to members of my profession, and possibly that will be coming down the road.
The Honourable David Tsubouchi, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, made reference to the support that we have from all three parties, so I look forward, Madam Speaker, to unanimous support on this particular bill, particularly when all three parties agreed to it back in the spring of 1995, including the party that you represent here in the House.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, and I look forward to unanimous support when we get around to the vote.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wish to make a few comments in support of Bill 6, which is actually an act to amend several pieces of legislation: the Partnerships Act, the Business Names Act and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1956.
This legislation is somewhat new in this country. In fact, I think Ontario will be the first Canadian jurisdiction which will have a limited liability partnership statute, although most American jurisdictions have passed such legislation in the past.
The purpose of this legislation is enabling in that it allows professional groups, in this particular case the chartered accountants, to amend their governing legislation to allow them to form limited liability partnerships, which is a new form of legal entity. In the future, presumably these other professional organizations, whether it be the veterinarians, as my friend Dr Galt referred to, the law society or the various health professions, could propose similar legislation as is being put forward by the Chartered Accountants Act with respect to this legislation.
In a general partnership, the partners are liable for all the partnership's debts and liabilities. In contrast, the partners of a limited liability partnership are not personally liable for the negligent acts of another partner or an employee who is directly supervised by another partner. The limited liability partnership, however, will continue to be liable for the negligence of its partners and its employees. So the only liability that is limited in a limited liability partnership is the liability of the non-negligent partners for the negligent acts of other partners. All partners continue to remain liable under contracts entered into by the firm or the partnership and for any damages caused by fraud of one or more partners.
The removal of the liability for negligence of fellow partners will not, in our belief, make chartered accountants, in this particular piece of legislation, any less careful, which I'm sure is the concern of some people in this House. It is clear that the assets of any partner who acted negligently for that particular act will continue to be available to the successful plaintiffs for the payment of damages; and of course the remaining partners will continue to have strong incentives to monitor each other's work in the desire to preserve the partnership's reputation and assets.
It appears that chartered accounting partnerships are faced with a liability and insurance crisis, as are many professional organizations in this province. I know in the legal profession it's somewhere around $10,000, $11,000, $12,000 a year for insurance premiums, which makes it more and more difficult for professional groups to do business. The international insurance market does not, with respect to chartered accountants, permit sufficient coverage with respect to large potential liability associated with auditing financial institutions and other public companies. For this reason, Bill 6 is amending the Chartered Accountants Act, 1956, to permit these firms to form or to continue as limited liability partnerships.
The likelihood of a person being unable to recover fully against a chartered accounting limited liability partnership is very slim. Potential plaintiffs will continue to be protected by the high levels of insurance coverage of the firm's assets, including accounts receivable, leases, furniture, everything else that the partnership owns and the personal assets of any partner who proves to have negligently caused damage to the plaintiff.
This is another piece of legislation that our government is putting forward which we believe will protect these professional institutions. This particular bill, as I indicated, only applies to the chartered accountants, but there have been indications that such groups as the law society may be interested in amending their legislation. Nothing in the bill restricts the option, for example, of lawyers becoming limited liability partners through an amendment to this governing legislation. The Ministry of the Attorney General, we believe, is currently considering a proposal in the context of other amendments to the Law Society Act, although that isn't before us with this legislation. It no doubt will be considered by other professional groups.
At this point, professions that have a governing body that can determine the need and oversee the process are the means of testing the limited liability partnerships and the government wants to take a careful, measured approach to this form of business structure.
I would submit that our government is moving cautiously. There is obviously an insurance problem. There is a problem with some of these professions with respect to their insurance. This is a solution to that problem. We believe we're proceeding in a prudent way. I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation.
1850
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I would certainly like to comment on the fact that our party agrees with the general sentiments across the way on this bill. We think it's a very necessary step for this government to take. It's a step that essentially makes eminent sense, considering the pressures of insurance and liability with which a partner may be faced.
We certainly don't agree with the member for Northumberland, who said, "This is all about a government that is now totally listening." If this government were really listening, it would be listening to the towns and cities across this province that are desperately asking for this government to take some steps on road safety. This government stubbornly refuses to allow red-light cameras at high-collision intersections. If this government was really listening, they would allow the cities that are having these red-light runners who are running red lights in epidemic fashion at least to try these pilot projects of red-light cameras, which are working all over the world, from Australia to Arizona to England to New York City. But this government only listens to certain things; it's very selective.
As I said, our party believes this bill is necessary, it's functional. We certainly agree that in the long run, if it's not done, it could possibly increase costs for the consumer. As you know, as insurance costs go up, as there's more litigation, the consumer who needs the services of chartered accountants could possibly be harmed by higher costs for their services. We see it as a necessary step, and something that we are happy to support in this House.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to respond to the speakers from the government tonight and to indicate general support in principle from the caucus of the New Democratic Party for this bill. Although it's a new evolution in the Canadian jurisdiction, it's a long time coming to understand that there are groups that are not incorporated, businesses that do require some kind of limitation on liability, and this act purports to do that in partnerships.
There are always issues raised around consumer protection when this kind of issue is brought forward, issues that I am quite confident, from my experience over the years in relationship to chartered accountants, that the profession is very able to answer. We will benefit from having a very short review of this legislation in a committee situation, where any of those issues have an opportunity to be explored, to be explained and to be put to rest, and we can ensure, as we embark upon what I think is very important legislation, that we do it correctly in the province of Ontario, and that it sets a precedent and a hallmark for other jurisdictions to look to in the Canadian family of provinces.
It's important for me to say personally to the chartered accountant community that our desire to have that kind of a review and to ensure that the legislation is done quickly comes much more from our experience with the way in which legislation has been drafted in previous sessions of this Parliament and the way in which mistakes have been made, and to ensure that all voices are heard. It is not with any intent to try to delay the legislation. We will facilitate moving quickly on this.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further questions and comments? Minister, you may sum up.
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Really, this is about trying to provide some fairness, some balance, and at the same time working with some of the business community in our province, and also protecting consumer interests at the same time.
I would like to thank my colleagues from Northumberland and Dufferin-Peel for their comments, and also the members for Oakwood and Beaches-Woodbine for their comments and support of the bill.
There is much to this in terms of making sure we protect the consumer. Part of this is to ensure there are proper levels of insurance in place. Part of it is also about disclosing to the general public through advertising, through the indications on letterheads, designations of the firms, but also with retainers, so people clearly know they'll be dealing with limited liability partnerships.
I would like to thank the Institute of Chartered Accountants for its cooperation and willingness to work with our government and the other parties to come up with a fair scheme for the consumer in which the proper disclosures are made and the proper protection is in place for the consumer as well.
This is a fairly simple bill. It is about four and a half pages in length, including the French translation. It's very straightforward. I think we have tried to address the needed things. It's part of our government's mandate to try to work with the business community to ensure that we work for job growth, that we work to protect jobs in this province.
Certainly I wouldn't characterize this as red tape, but much of what we have done through the red tape bills we have passed through our government really speaks to taking obstacles from business that have become outdated and that have lost their reason for even existing. Much leads to the discussion on this bill because we're looking to modernize this area.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Colle: As I said in my brief two-minuter, in principle we think this is a necessary bill and it's something the government needs to do. We certainly are in agreement in presenting this bill and we will support it. We have some comments to make. Hopefully we can clarify the contents of this bill for the public also, because some bills may seem to be very minor in nature but in the long run it's how they affect the public and the consumer at large.
Before I get into the bill itself, I want to commend my colleague from Essex South. I should mention I'd like to share time with him and with my colleague from Downsview on this Bill 6. Could I have consent, Chair? Okay.
My colleague from Essex South, who is a CGA himself, has been doing a lot of the grass-roots work behind this bill for the last couple of years in trying to find out whether the bill was necessary, whether the bill was required. I've talked to him on numerous occasions about it, for he was the previous Liberal consumer affairs critic. Although this pertains to CAs, he thought this was a good bill and a necessary bill and something that would certainly enhance the work of CAs and their ability to deliver their service across Ontario in a more affordable, efficient and effective way.
Again I would like to thank the member for Essex South for his work and guidance in that area. I think it has really helped in terms of bringing this bill here today.
I would like to mention too just in passing that one of the members, and I know it wasn't a malicious comment, basically said, "This is a very narrow interest group." As you know, this government sometimes tends to put people into pigeonholes as being narrow interest groups.
I don't think the CAs need our protection from being called a narrow interest group, but they're like all kinds of groups, small and large, in this province that need advocacy and that need help from government. Whether it's the CA association or whether it's the carpenters' union or whether it's mothers on disability allowance, they all need advocacy from government. They come to government for that reason. I don't think it's, you might say, proper for a government to categorize everybody as very narrow interest groups.
From a personal perspective, my contact with CAs is from an annual program that we do for the elderly in my riding who earn I think under $16,000 a year. What the CAs have offered to do without my asking, and I think they offered to all members, is that volunteers with full CA credentials will come into your riding. For the last two or three years they have come into my riding night after night during income tax time, and they've done the income tax forms for elderly seniors who couldn't afford to pay for them to be done.
I've talked to these volunteers personally and they're really, in some ways, no different from any other group of people in society who are trying to make a living. Those are the ones I've met who are doing income taxes for people late at night at St Hilda's Towers in my riding, or were doing it at the Doug Saunders building, which is a Metro co-op building. They would come in every night and with great, I'd say, kindness go through the income tax of people who didn't have English as a first language. They did that without any kind of prompting. They did it willingly. That's been my contact with the so-called very narrow interest group.
1900
Like any other group in society, they are in our communities. We all know CAs, and sometimes they get a bad reputation as being too bookish or whatever, but in this case my contact with them as an organization has been a very positive one in terms of volunteering to help seniors who might get ripped off if they go to the corner travel agent or wherever to get their income tax done and be charged $100 or $200 for a very perfunctory income tax form. I just wanted to put that on the record. Not to say that the CAs of this province need my defence, but there's no need to categorize everybody in this province and put them into pigeonholes. It doesn't help any of us if we do that, because life isn't that simple.
In terms of this bill itself, if you look at the impact on consumers, one of the most interesting aspects of it that I found was that one of the things that's happening in our society now, in our world of commerce, is that a lot of new cutting-edge businesses are coming on board with a lot of potential for litigation because they deal with, let's say, venture capital, they deal with new growth areas in high tech, so-called, and other businesses whose main assets are intellectual capital rather than real, tangible capital. It sometimes becomes a very tenuous area for a CA to get into, without being concerned about what happens if there's litigation as a result of representing this new cutting-edge firm that deals with, as I mentioned before, intellectual capital.
What this bill can possibly do is limit some of the risk factor. By limiting the risk, it can possibly lower the potential for higher insurance rates. If you look at the US example, there's been an epidemic of litigation that has not only hurt the CA profession in the United States but also the medical profession, the legal profession, the architectural profession. I think the CAs are responding to the direct pressure that has been put upon their associates in the United States, where there has been a heightened level of litigation.
That, in the long run, not only hurts the CAs but hurts the customers they are serving, and in turn it means higher costs for the consumers of this province who need the services, who buy the products of the companies they represent and are providing the service for. This is one link to Bill 6 which seems to be fairly remote and distant from the ordinary consumer, but it gives the consumer possible protection against higher prices.
It means too that you'll have a greater availability, a variety of CAs to go to since the partnership situation allows more people to stay in business, therefore there's more variety, more choice for the consumer. If this bill isn't put into place, what happens is that one of the partners who isn't directly involved with the service being provided could possibly lose his or her home, car, cottage and personal assets. That is frightening to anybody, considering what can happen in a litigated matter before the courts. By the time you get through the court proceedings a year or two later, you lose your home, your boat, your car and the shirt off your back even if you win.
This tries at least to give some protection to a partner who may not be protected as it stands right now. I think that's a fair and just thing to do. I'd like to remind the public that this doesn't mean that the firm isn't liable; the firm is still liable. Therefore, if you have a problem with the contract provisions, the so-called provisions you had anticipated from the CA firm, you can still go the litigation route. In my understanding of the bill it's quite clear that it still permits this, therefore you have recourse despite the fact that there are limitations on that partner, who may not be involved, to have some protection in terms of the personal wealth and assets they may have accumulated within the family over a lifetime. I don't think any of us here would want to see, whether it be a CA or whether it be a doctor or lawyer, lose their personal assets through this process when they're not directly involved in the case themselves.
It's also interesting that in the United States, in looking at this type of legislation, 51 states now have it. I think all the states are now doing it. Therefore, it's something that there is a template for, that there is a benchmark for. They're doing it in the United States, so it's nothing that revolutionary, although in Canada, if I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the first jurisdiction - the minister can correct me on that later - that is going to attempt to this. Perhaps this may be a forerunner of typical legislation that we introduce, maybe for CGAs, perhaps for lawyers, for instance, but this doesn't preclude that from happening down the road. This deals specifically with CAs and their limited liability.
I should mention that there's no real tax implication here. It doesn't give CAs a tax advantage. There's no real cost, I think, directly to government, from our look at the bill, in terms of increased perhaps supervision, monitoring. I don't think so. There doesn't seem to a deterrent in terms of what this bill is going to cost the taxpayer. In the long run it probably will save the taxpayer some money, all the other variables being controlled, because it'll cut down the cost of litigation and it will cut down perhaps the cost of insurance, which all professionals now have to get.
We hear the horror stories of doctors, especially in the United States, where they have to pay premiums of $1 million, $2 million, to practise medicine. We in Canada don't want to see that type of litigation frenzy come here because in the long run it means higher fees. Whether it be for accountancy services or medical services, I think as Canadians and Ontarians we don't want to see the spread of that type of litigation mania in Canada. It's something that will again drive up prices for all Ontarians and it's something we've tried to stop from coming into Ontario.
In terms of the government's attitude, I think in this case here they've looked at it and they see that it's a necessary step. I've commended them for listening too. I know they've talked in the past with our former leader Lyn McLeod, who supported it, and our present leader does, so we think the government is doing something that is required here.
We have no qualms about that. We hope this proves to be a good case study to see if this can be replicated. I hope the minister, who is here tonight, will monitor the situation so that if there are other requests similar in nature, perhaps we can use this template to go on and improve and protect consumers and professionals who are always, considering the cost of doing business today, under that kind of threat.
That is what we think is good about the bill. We certainly don't think this lets the government off the hook; I know the member for Northumberland was saying that it proves again that the government is listening, that the government is perfect. As he's proud to say, the business of Ontario is business. I think the business of Ontario is people. That's how we try to judge things: How does this help people? We think this is good for business but it's also good for people, the consumer, the ordinary person.
That's why I hope the government will also listen more to people from the other side, and as I mentioned earlier, what I'm very concerned about is that this government refuses to listen to the police officers across this province, the mayors, the councils, who are asking for red-light cameras at high-collision intersections. There are thousands of motorists who are running red lights and who are doing it without any kind of second thought, and this is a government that calls itself a law-and-order government. I wish they would think of listening more across the board.
1910
In terms of liability, if there was an accident at a high-collision intersection where someone ran a red light, I'm just wondering whether someone wouldn't or shouldn't sue the Premier of this province, Mike Harris, if they get hit by a motorist who runs a red light. I wonder what the liability is there for this government when the evidence is clear that they should act in this area as they have acted on Bill 6. They have heard from, as I said, police officers from all over the world, safety experts, the international insurance association, and they're all saying red-light cameras save lives, prevent injuries. This government says: "We don't care. We don't want red-light cameras. We're right. We're not going to listen."
I wish that they would follow the lead of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs here in Bill 6, that the Minister of Transportation would also listen to the public who want protection. That's what this bill is about. It's about a little bit of protection. It's about taking care of a problem out there, and that's what government is for. Governments are to take care of - whether it be business or people - needs; not all needs, but they have a role to play. This government here has intervened in the marketplace to do something positive, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I know the neo-cons and the Reform types over there may not like that, but the small-c conservatives, the old Davis Tory types over there, know there's a place for good government. Don't be ashamed to stick your nose where you have to stick it to help people. Don't listen to neo-cons all the time who say: "Red-light cameras are against our ideology. We don't want them. We don't want to listen to the member for Chatham-Kent about his school bus bill because it's against our ideology." Put your ideology aside, as you have done here, and help people. That's what the people of Ontario are saying, whether it be the CAs, whether it be the police association, whether it be nurses. Put your ideological baggage aside and look at things objectively and do what is right and what is good, efficient and fair.
This Bill 6 is a fair piece of legislation. We're supporting it. That's why we're asking you to open up and listen to other Ontarians who also want you to do things that help Ontarians, large, small, in between, and not just to always look through your ideological glasses at things. Take your ideological lenses off and look at things for what they are. Ontarians don't want radical ideology from either the extreme right or left; they want a middle-of-the-road approach, and this Bill 6 is a moderate approach. You don't see people marching in front of Queen's Park saying, "Stop Bill 6." People are saying, "It seems to be a rational bill, a good, decent bill that helps people." That's all they're saying, and that's why they're not marching on Queen's Park today, because this is a reasonable bill.
I hope you support this bill. We know we will. I hope you also will support the introduction of lifesaving red-light cameras at high-collision intersections that are killing people all across the province. We need you to act on helping to save lives, and in our hospitals too. Don't close those 35 hospitals. Listen to people. Don't close the six emergency departments in Toronto. That's also something you should be listening to.
Those are my comments. It's a good little bill that does what it should do, and we're supporting it.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I'm pleased to rise this evening to say a few words on Bill 6, notwithstanding the fact that we need some emergency repairs to dikes on Pelee Island. I'll leave that for another night. I am reminded, though, that the member for Northumberland was talking about listening and he was saying about how they have gone along all the roads in Ontario. He and I had a discussion the other night where the problem is that, going over all the roads in Ontario, with the downloading it's difficult to find a provincial highway, because they all belong to the counties now. But we'll leave that for another night as well.
The member for Oakwood did make mention that I have, as the previous consumer and commercial relations critic, been following the bill as well as this particular subject for some time. I don't mind saying that it was back in April 1996 that I first wrote to the minister - at that time Minister Sterling - to indicate that we certainly would support legislation in this area that would cover the matter of limited liability partnerships.
I too am appreciative that at any juncture leading up to this bill, both Minister Sterling and Minister Tsubouchi have been helpful, as well as Dave Wilson of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. I mention that because we don't get to the point of second reading debate on these bills without having had some information along the way, both from ministries and from those who are interested in the success of the bill.
Others have mentioned the different aspects of the bill they favour. I think the one I appreciate the most is its fairness. It's what's fair. We have limited companies. Obviously many of us are familiar with what those are. Some of the public may not always have an intricate knowledge of what limited companies are, but certainly those of us who are discussing the bill understand why it's necessary to limit liability and what the rationale is behind limiting liability. There are simply good reasons why we should do that.
This bill, in its explanatory notes, points out that it "provides for the formation of a new type of legal entity, a limited liability partnership." We're aware that "in general partnerships, the partners are liable for all of the partnership's debts and liabilities. By contrast, the partners in a limited liability partnership are not personally liable for the negligent acts of another partner or an employee who is directly supervised by another partner. However, the partnership continues to be liable for the negligence of its partners and employees."
What it really says, in a nutshell, to those who may be watching at home and may be interested, is that if you're a partner in a limited liability partnership and a partner is negligent, you won't lose your home, your personal belongings, your automobile. You are liable to have those assets of the partnership that you own at risk and, rightly, that should be. The partnership certainly should be liable. But I don't think anybody of reason wants to take away anybody's home and personal belongings unless that person can be held personally liable. Frankly, that's what it's all about.
It was mentioned earlier that this bill has support from all three parties, and I'm pleased to say that it's my understanding that it does. There are few things in this Legislature where we get unanimous agreement. Personally, I think that's unfortunate, but in a case like this, where we can get all three parties in the House agreeing to the relative merits of the bill, even at this stage of this government, it's certainly refreshing that something like this comes along from time to time.
It was mentioned earlier that the primary concern we should have is the public. We want to protect the public, and I've not known any of the chartered accountants, the certified general accountants or any of the other known accounting designations, the certified management accountants - all of them have the public's interests as paramount.
1920
This bill will do nothing to take away from that. In fact, it may even enhance that because, as has been mentioned, liability insurance is difficult if not impossible to obtain under some circumstances, and with the introduction of this bill I believe that will be made easier and chartered accountant firms may now be able to do work in a field that at another time, because of its risk, they may simply have refused. Under this, in the interests of the public, a chartered accountant firm can take on that responsibility and in its own way protect the public.
I dare not repeat anything that's said before, except the fact that I'll be speaking to Minister Leach about some aid for Pelee Island's dikes, I will leave you and the others of my colleagues in the House to say that I look forward to this bill receiving its debate this evening, going on to its next step, and being passed in the near future with all our agreement.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'm very pleased to support this bill and I'll be brief and to the point. There are three reasons for supporting this bill, ladies and gentlemen. The first is that this is really is an issue of fundamental justice; the second is, quite simply, it's important for competitiveness of the profession of accountancy; and, third, it shows real common sense. The real question is why it took so long to get here.
Dealing first with the background of this legislation, it's a very short piece of legislation which creates a new legal entity, a limited liability partnership, which, as you know, simply states that partners are not personally liable for the negligent acts of another partner or employee supervised by another partner. However, it does not mean that the partnership is not liable for the negligence of its partners and employees. By contrast, in a general partnership all of the partners are liable for all of the partnership's debts and liabilities.
This is, as I indicated first off, an issue of fundamental justice. Picture yourself in a situation where you, through no fault of your own, are sued for the wrongdoings of another. That is the kind of situation that one is seeking to resolve through Bill 6, the legislation creating a limited liability partnership. There's no question that someone who has been found guilty of negligence, of inappropriate action, should be liable for the consequences of that action, but there is no rhyme or reason, nor would you expect it in other areas of your life, why someone who is totally innocent of the wrongdoing would be held liable for the wrongdoings of another.
That's what we're trying to do here. We're simply trying to protect the innocent partner from the consequences of the actions and the wrongdoing of another partner with whom he may have had no dealings at all with respect to the action at hand. This is in essence what the legislation is seeking to redress and it is a welcome piece of legislation and one that will be watched carefully because, as we know, the chartered accountants are the first to ask for this kind of protection, for this kind of legislation. It is not legislation that exists anywhere else in Canada and it will allow Ontario to pioneer a very worthwhile endeavour which I'm sure will be watched and monitored. I urge the minister to pay close attention to this legislation and how it is implemented and what its consequences are.
The second reason that I think this ought to be supported wholeheartedly is because of the issue of competitiveness. This is a government that talks a great deal about how important it is to be competitive. They don't always succeed, but they're very good at the rhetoric. This is an area where the government can put its money where its mouth is. Although it has taken its money out of a lot of other people's mouths, nevertheless this is an area in which they can do something constructive.
I point out that there are 35 states that have similar legislation. The profession has rightly pointed out that, in order to be competitive in that market, to be able to be at the same level as the best, they need legislation that will give them the same advantages as their neighbours to the south.
What are the consequences of not enacting legislation of this nature? I would just like to read to you some of the comments that have been made about the seriousness of the consequences for Ontario citizens and in particular the business community. These include threatening the availability of audit services by discouraging the best and the brightest people from entering the profession and from becoming partners; limiting services by discouraging practitioners from accepting some engagements such as initial public offerings in the key growth areas of technology and other businesses whose main assets are intellectual capital and other intangibles - exactly the kind of businesses that the Ontario economy needs. Practitioners will also be discouraged from assisting directors in their expanding corporate governance responsibility. Too, there is the issue of increased costs because of insurance and other factors that will be passed on, possibly placing the cost of audit services out of reach of consumers and small businesses.
Clearly, the consequences of not enacting limited liability partnership legislation are simply too serious to ignore. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we take this step this evening to consider this legislation, to consider it gravely and to pass it on to the next stage.
The third reason we support this legislation is because, quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen of the government, this is real common sense, and it's about time that we saw some of it in this House. There is an issue here of natural justice, as I've pointed out. We should not penalize innocent individuals for the actions of guilty parties and, therefore, it is absolute common sense to support this legislation. There is the common sense of ensuring that one very vital business in our country remains as competitive as possible.
Ultimately, I think this issue has been studied a great deal. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, as you know, has worked for a very long time to ensure that we understand this legislation, that appropriate proposals are put forward and that there is nothing in this legislation which is outlandish or insensible.
I would simply like to read from a letter from the institute, which is dated October 27, 1997. I will quote a paragraph which shows the nuts of the question for the association.
"LLPs would strengthen the viability of the public accounting professions by permitting public accountants and others who operate within partnerships to protect their personal assets - by limiting their personal liability when they are not the partner involved in a claim. This minimal protection of uninvolved partners is signalled to the public by the use of the letters `LLP'...."
I think that statement really summarizes what this is all about. This is about protecting the innocent and it is about ensuring that it is only the guilty that are liable for their actions.
Then we come to the question, why did it take so long? We know for a fact that various leaders of parties have supported this legislation. Leaders of my party have been very supportive. Our former leader, Lyn McLeod, and our current leader, Dalton McGuinty, have taken extraordinary steps to make sure this legislation was considered before the House. In fact my leader, Dalton McGuinty, last December, when the proposed legislation was in danger of being lost, wrote a letter to insist that this is an item that should be heard. Despite those efforts, as you know, the legislation died on the order paper and it is now being reintroduced.
Why would something that is as clear, as concise, as fair, as good for business, as commonsensical, be ignored and take so long to get to this Legislature? I think that is a question that only the government can answer. For my part, let me say that I'm delighted to support this legislation, I'm delighted that the government is finally doing the right thing and I look forward to dealing with this legislation in committee, and ultimately in third reading, and giving it swift passage.
1930
The Acting Speaker (Ms Frances Lankin): Further debate?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to begin by putting on the record that we, as a caucus in this Legislature, certainly support this bill in principle and want to see it move forward. We want to recognize the very diligent and involved work of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in bringing this forward and recognize the very legitimate reasons that it is before us here today.
My comments will be focused less on the bill, because I believe members before me have spoken adequately and eloquently about what's in the bill. As everybody has said, not a big bill, not a hard bill to really understand, presents very well, and I think that's a testament to the work of the institute.
However, there is a concern about the process and the abuse of process that we've seen in this place over the last some two and a half years by this government as we've tried to ram things through without the proper process, without due diligence, without the thought that's necessary, and then found ourselves a week or two or a month or six months later having to revisit and make corrections because we didn't honour the process that this place has put in place over a long number of years to make sure that legislation that comes before us that we have the responsibility of doing due diligence of gets the hearing that is called for and in the end is the best that can be presented and put in place so that everybody concerned or affected feels comfortable that it is in their best interests.
That is why we're today, as a party, asking that this piece of legislation be passed tonight at second reading and moved to committee where those out there who have some interest, some concern, some thought on this who want to bring it to a table that is set for them to come to may have that opportunity. The essence of what we do here in this Legislature is tied very intimately to the possibility of the general public out there coming and being involved and hearing from us what we propose to do, and in turn having a chance to respond and make suggestions, perhaps bring amendments forward that are voted on and that at the end of the day all of us feel comfortable are in the best interests of the people we serve.
In fact, when I speak to negligence where process is concerned in this place, I think to some degree we all stand somewhat tainted. When the Liberals were government, they changed the rules so that they could speed up the process and get legislation they felt very strongly about and wanted to get through in a quicker fashion. When we were government we did the same thing. We changed the rules so that we could get legislation that we felt was in the best interests of the public through in a more timely fashion, in a quicker fashion. I think at the end of the day any party that does that does the public out there a great disservice, a great injustice. I think over a long number of years in this place people have sat down and put in place processes that are checks and balances.
Any of you who have studied political science or the way that politics works or government works in a jurisdiction such as ours know that checks and balances are absolutely essential in the passing of any legislation to make sure that at the end of the day it does what it suggests it is to do and that is also protects those who may be affected indirectly by some of the consequences of that bill.
In this place people work very hard to develop and bring forward changes to legislation, changes to regulations, changes to the rules that govern all of us when we work together to try and make a living or develop communities or do business. We bring it forward and it's introduced in the House for first reading. Normally that passes without too much comment. Then it's brought before the House by the governing party; it's their call when pieces of legislation are brought to the House.
A good government, in my mind, does that in partnership with the opposition parties and with the House leaders of the opposition parties. They bring it forward for second reading and at second reading there is significant debate on the principle of the bill. At that point, normally there is a vote taken and that bill goes to committee. At committee that could be a very speedy process if there's not a whole lot of take-up by people out there on the call for input or any concern. Committees often move very quickly to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and then bring it back to the House for third reading and some further less-extenuated debate and then passage of that particular bill.
That's the way this place has operated for a long number of years. On the odd occasion all three parties, usually in a situation of some emergency, bypass those processes and move to a vote on second or third reading on an evening such as the one we have before us tonight. It is with that process in mind that we have respect for due process and due diligence in looking at pieces of legislation so that when it's all said and done, we have in front of us something that will do what the group that brought it forward expected it would do, and that will protect the interests of others out there who may be directly or indirectly affected, and that's what I'm hoping will happen in this instance.
I have no reason to be, at this point in time, critical of this bill, although today as we did some research - not just today but over the last three or four days since the bill was introduced to the House last week, we've done a bit of talking to some folks. Even though there isn't a great uptake or upheaval or uproar about this, there certainly are some folks out there who want a bit more time to take a look at it, to see how it impacts them and perhaps to come forward and have some discussion with us about this and what we might do to improve it or to make it work for them, perhaps in a different and more positive way.
We have to understand too that this bill is the first of its kind in Canada, so it sets a precedent for every other jurisdiction in the country. I think it behooves us, if for no other reason except that we're the first ones doing it, to do it right and take the time necessary to make sure that we look under all the stones and uncover anything that might be out there that needs to be uncovered and feel comfortable that we've done that. I know I personally would not feel comfortable unless I participated in making sure that that process happened and that we call this House back to take the time necessary to do this, not just in this instance but with all of the bills that they will bring forward. Hopefully, that will be allowed.
We've had some interesting experiences over the last two and a half years with pieces of legislation that have been brought before us here in great haste sometimes not completely thought through. We've found in the middle of it, sometimes in debates, that there were major mistakes, and unfortunately at the end in some very significant instances, we found a week or two, or a month down the road, as the government began to try to implement it, that there were great mistakes in the bill and we had to come back and spend more time changing that.
I'm hoping that the government in its new format, in its new desire to be seen to be listening and to be more attentive to the concerns of citizens and constituents out there, will, with all bills, be willing to take the time necessary to make sure that the process that has been put in place over a long period of time in this place and in this province is honoured and used in the way that it was anticipated by those who did that.
1940
For example, we change regulations in this province. If you had listened to the government's side, you would think that a lot of the regulations that now exist in Ontario all of a sudden came out of the blue someplace, that somebody in government woke up one night in the middle of the night and had a vision of how things could be better, came into the House and a regulation was made. That's not true. Anybody who knows about the evolution of laws and rules and regulations in this province knows that in most instances, regulations get put in place when some calamity happens. Somebody gets killed or there's some spill of some sort. A tremendous amount of effort goes into a study when that happens. Then at the end of the day, a regulation is put in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I think due diligence was done initially to put in place laws and regulations that govern the way we work together and respect each other and protect each other. I would suggest that the legislation that presently covers institutes such as chartered accountants and other professionals in this province has been developed in just such a fashion. Over the years, people responding to different circumstances have developed legislation that protects the industry itself, the professionals in the industry and the public it serves. There's a very delicate balance that we try to keep in place when we do that.
It behooves us to make sure that when we're changing something that has evolved over a period of time in the way that we are here - I suggest this is a significant change and sets a significant precedent in the province -we do ourselves and the people we serve more justice when we take the time that is necessary. We still haven't heard in any significant way, it seems to me, from groups out there that we often classify as consumers whom this piece of legislation affects. We at least owe the people a chance, the opportunity to hear of this bill in a more fulsome fashion than perhaps they have up to now so that they might respond to that as well, so that we might find a way in the end to balance the various concerns and anxieties that may arise.
I hold up to you for your consideration, by way of example, how groups can come together around challenging circumstances and situations. In this instance, we're looking at a profession that finds itself sometimes threatened with extinction by way of a lawsuit that may be brought, that if it's extended to its fullest extent, might put a company out of business, might do irreparable harm to a very upright and dignified profession that works very hard to do the best it can but finds itself from time to time in a situation where, because of the negligence of a member or even a staff person, has to defend itself and may find itself out of business.
On the one hand, we want to make sure that consumers have the protection of going to the law for recourse if they find themselves unduly dealt with or not dealt with in a fashion that is legal or aboveboard. On the other hand, we need to protect the profession, not unlike what happened a few years ago when industry found itself being challenged in courts of law when a person got hurt on the job, was sued, and by way of that suit found themselves out of business. Government got together with workers and business and worked out a new arrangement called the Workers' Compensation Board that found a way to protect all interests in that instance, and put in place some legislation that protected companies, when somebody got hurt on the job, from being wiped out completely, but also called upon them to provide for folks who got hurt on that job. We found a win-win. We found a way to protect consumers and workers and we found a way to protect industry.
This government, as you know, has moved very aggressively over the last two and a half years to tilt the balance that we found there very significantly, so that now we find the companies again have the upper hand and workers out there are hollering and shouting but are not being heard. Their rights are being trampled on and they're not getting the kind of protection and compensation they were used to under the system that was put in place over a long number of years by many different kinds of governments, in partnership with industry, to make that happen.
What I'm saying is that in this instance the change is significant enough in this bill to warrant the due process of this place, to warrant the due diligence following the process that this place presents.
On behalf of my caucus, I'm saying tonight that we are going to support this bill in principle, but we're asking in all sincerity and with all due concern that it be sent to committee so that we might have a chance to hear from folks out there who may have some concern, who may have some thoughts for us that might even improve the bill and extend it to other groups - who knows? - but at the end of the day in this place we're all comfortable that we've done the best we can, that we've taken the time necessary to make sure this is a piece of legislation that will not come back in a week or a month or six months to haunt us because we missed something, and that it will serve, in the way that is anticipated, all of the chartered accountants out there who are registered under that institute and those whom they serve by way of the work they do.
Those are my comments for this evening on this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? Minister, would you like to wrap up?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I summed it up very well the last time I spoke, that really this bill is about balance, at the same time trying to protect consumer interests and giving tools to an industry, a profession, that simply will assist them in servicing the public.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Tsubouchi has moved second reading of Bill 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Madam Speaker, I understand we are referring it to the administration of justice committee.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I indicated to the minister, and I just want to put it on the record as well, that we would be amenable - perhaps it's something we could sort out through the House leaders - to see whether, in light of the time lines in the rules about when a bill can get to committee, that can be facilitated so the bill could get to committee as early as next week. That's something we are prepared to pursue with the House leaders tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Dovercourt. That's not a point of order but it's useful information and I'm sure the House leaders will take that up.
1950
FARMING AND FOOD PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE LA PRODUCTION ALIMENTAIRE
Mr Danford, on behalf of Mr Villeneuve, moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 146, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production / Projet de loi 146, Loi protégeant l'agriculture et la production alimentaire.
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It's my pleasure to introduce third reading of Bill 146. Farming and food production are absolutely vital to our wellbeing in this province. Not only do these activities literally put the food on our tables, the butter on our bread, but they also annually contribute $25 billion to Ontario's economy and employ close to 650,000 people, with new job opportunities being created every day.
Protecting our farmers' ability to continue to produce an abundant supply of wholesome, high-quality and affordable food and many other agricultural products benefits each and every individual who makes Ontario home, as well as the countless others in countries that import our agricultural products.
The proposed legislation would ensure that our agriculture and food industries can continue to thrive, by providing our farmers with the necessary assurances that they can conduct their normal business practices without fear of nuisance lawsuits or unnecessarily restrictive bylaws.
I realize that we do have a law that provides some of this protection, but it is limited and it is out of date. Given the changes that have occurred in agriculture and indeed in rural Ontario, the 10-year-old Farm Practices Protection Act is no longer effective. The population mix in rural Ontario has changed dramatically. Non-farmers now account for close to 85% of the total rural population.
Let me add that as a lifelong resident of rural Ontario, I fully understand the attractions that draw people from the city. It is more tranquil, a less rushed life, and there is a real sense of community in rural living. For the most part, neighbours get along and help each other out, and no one can doubt that in light of the tremendous outpouring of support and assistance in the wake of January's devastating ice storm in eastern Ontario.
But just as the streets in Ontario, and that is in the urban centres of Toronto or London or Ottawa, feature businesses and industries, so do the concession roads of Durham, Middlesex and Lanark. The businesses in rural Ontario, however, are changing. New and innovative types of farming are introducing non-traditional crops and livestock to our countryside. Today's normal farming practices include activities that simply are not covered under the current legislation. More farmers are taking a step beyond production, not only growing the commodities but also adding value right on the farm before they ship those products through the farm gate. Times have changed, farming and food production have changed, but the current act has not changed with them. The proposed legislation recognizes these changes.
Bill 146 would improve upon the current legislation in a number of ways by clarifying what constitutes an agricultural operation and encompassing more businesses. Farmers who raise emu and ostriches, deer and elk, and beekeepers and maple syrup producers, for example, would be added under this new law, spelling out that normal farm practices are those consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards followed by the industry, adding light, vibration, smoke and flies to the current list of noise, odour and dust as the effects that can be expected from normal modern farming practices, and including activities that farmers may undertake on their farms to add value to their own commodities.
Equally important, the proposed act recognizes and balances the rights of those who conduct their farming businesses in rural Ontario with the rights of those who live in rural Ontario. I can say that with confidence because even before the government was elected, we went out and spoke to both farmers and other rural residents, and they told us that this legislation was one of their key concerns. They said that the level of protection provided was not adequate, that the legislation didn't cover a number of modern farming activities, that there was concern about the increasing conflict over restrictive bylaws. We said then that we would put in place a law that protected the rights of farmers using normal farm practices to continue raising the food products we all use; a law that minimized the need for unnecessary, time-consuming and costly litigation; a law that would ensure Ontario's agrifood sector could continue to grow, thrive and create jobs, now and into the future.
The proposed act, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production, does all that and a great deal more. It adheres to our strong health, safety and environmental standards. The new law would continue to be subject to the provincial Environmental Protection Act, the Pesticides Act, the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. Even if the proposed legislation flew in the face of existing standards, our farmers would not. Of all Ontarians, it is the farmers who best understand that our soil and water resources must be protected, for it is the farmers who rely upon those very resources for their daily livelihood.
Over the last 10 years or so, farmers and farm organizations have made tremendous environmental strides right across this province. For example, since the early 1990s the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition has been encouraging farmers to conduct their activities in a manner that respects the environment. Dozens of farm organizations and marketing boards are involved in the coalition, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, AGCare and the Ontario Farm Animal Council. All told, the coalition represents tens of thousands of farmers.
Central to its efforts are environmental farm plans. These individual plans set out opportunities for environmental enhancements and provide a strategy for making low-cost, highly effective changes on the farm. In combination with education workshops, technical advice, peer reviews and funding incentives, the plans are helping farmers make environmental improvements in their own operations. It's voluntary, and it's working because farmers care. So far, 12,000 participants have attended environmental farm plan workshops, close to 3,000 of them in just the last 12 months. The coalition, by the way, had set a target of 2,000 participants per year.
Interest is up in the program's incentive grant as well. Eligible farmers claimed more than $1.8 million from the Agricultural Adaptation Council in the year ending March 31, 1998. Those incentive dollars are truly that: For every dollar in grant money, farmers are spending an additional $3 on environmental enhancements to their own farming operations. That's close to $5.5 million in just one year, all to safeguard the environment.
I'm very proud of our farmers, and I'm proud that from the very beginning OMAFRA has been part of the project. Ministry staff have provided technical expertise to develop programs and materials and made their knowledge and support widely available through the local workshops.
When I say I'm proud of the ministry, that's really not a surprise, because the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has long been known as a concerned and active partner in the agricultural and food industries, certainly in rural Ontario. In fact, the proposed plan to protect farming and food production was conceived in partnership with our stakeholders, and that includes all of our stakeholders. Public consultations were carried out across the province by the member for Lambton, Marcel Beaubien, and myself. That's the way we like to do things in our ministry, to ensure that new policy or legislation meets the needs of those it will affect.
The response to these meetings was strong and encouraging. More than 850 people attended the consultations and more than 60 written submissions were received. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and many other commodity groups all contributed tremendously to both the consultation and the actual development of the bill. Many rural residents took the time to voice their concerns and to address the issues as well. Together they all helped immensely in bringing balance to this legislation. That is why the proposed act will provide the added protection to farmers without duplicating other legislation and policies designed to protect the Ontario public.
2000
The new act would deal constructively with emerging concerns around unduly restrictive municipal bylaws. The ministry, farm groups and municipalities will work together to increase awareness among municipal decision-makers about modern farming practices so that the future bylaws can be drafted with full recognition of the demands of running a farming operation. This type of leadership and direction addresses any potential conflicts between farmers and municipalities before - and I stress the word "before" - the bylaws are actually drafted.
Another activity that we're preparing to undertake is a public awareness program that will focus on the realities of living in rural Ontario. This too would be accomplished in cooperation with all the stakeholders, the farm and the rural groups together.
We have to do a better job of informing people who move to rural areas that farms are indeed places of business, that sometimes the crop can't wait until after the weekend to be harvested, that at the height of the season greenhouse operators have to run their lights all night. Many farmers already regularly advise their neighbours when they need to combine or spread manure. Often the timing of these activities can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction, and there are numerous examples of farmers working with their local municipalities providing input into such things as drafting nutrient management plan requirements, for instance.
The Perth County Federation of Agriculture has representation on a municipal advisory committee. A committee of farmers has put in place a 1-888 number which local residents can call to report incidents which they believe are outside normal farming practices. As calls come in, the concerns are addressed and most often resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Measures such as these are designed to head off needless confrontation before it occurs. The vast majority of complaints in the past have been settled either among the parties themselves or with mediation help from OMAFRA staff.
I am confident that this will continue in the future, but if these avenues are exhausted and the dispute continues, the issues can be brought before the new Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a ruling on a specific farm practice. I refer to it as the "new" board because it will be new. Representation from rural municipalities will be increased on that board, and this will ensure that a balanced approach, one that takes into consideration the rights of everyone in rural Ontario, will shape the rulings of this board. Board members will take into account such things as the purpose of the bylaw, the effect of the farming practice on neighbouring lands and whether the bylaw reflects a provincial interest as established under other legislation or policy statements.
This approach of putting awareness and education, conciliation and mediation first and backing these measures with strong, clear legislation is a winner for everyone. Because when Ontario's farming and food sectors prosper, all of Ontario prospers. Sometimes we forget that fact but, as I said before, the agrifood industry contributes billions of dollars to our economy every year. The 67,000 farms, the 1,200 food processing companies, the infrastructure that supports them - it all adds up to hundreds of thousands of jobs, safe, wholesome and affordable food on the table and a quality of life in Ontario that is the envy of the world. I believe, as do many others, that this is something worth protecting. The proposed Act to protect Farming and Food Production is a bill whose time I believe has come.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I would like to share my time with the member for Cornwall as well as the member for Kingston and The Islands.
We're pleased tonight to rise and speak to Bill 146, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production, at this third reading. It's interesting to note that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was speaking about this bill in quite glowing terms, and rightly so. It's a bill that we support. I was interested to notice that this article that they wrote is dated September 1997, and here we are now at third reading of the bill.
This initiative by the Harris government was a commitment in their revolution document. It was something they wanted to do for the farm community. The Harris government has been very quick at bringing forth legislation that they did not discuss in the Common Sense Revolution, but in this regard, something they told the voters and the farm community they were going to be involved in, they've been very slow.
The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has had nearly three years now to bring this bill forward. Let me say that there's no doubt that agriculture has changed. Agriculture has always been in a state of change. We even have museums in this great province that show the changes that have taken place over the many, many years in the agricultural community. Agriculture has changed dramatically in the 25 years that I've been farming.
We need to develop a Farming and Food Production Protection Act to meet the needs of an industry that is ever-changing, to meet the needs of new technologies, to meet the needs of the new demographics that are taking place in rural Ontario.
The number of new farm operations in my area is actually quite small. Regrettably, there are not a lot of new young farmers entering into agriculture in my area. What is happening, not only in Essex and Kent but across the province, is that other farm operators are buying or renting from retired farmers. Therefore, the farm size is increasing. The 50- and 100-acre farm is not as prevalent as it once was, and many farms can be in the thousands of acres. So indeed, our farms are increasing in their land base.
What is happening because of that is that homes in rural Ontario are being bought by persons from urban centres. Indeed, in some areas homes are being built in the countryside by persons who simply wish to live in that area. They move to the country looking for many things: a change from urban life, of course, and a certain belief that there will be tranquillity for them in the rural area. Indeed, there can be and there is.
However, rural Ontario needs protection for its farmers and agricultural community from nuisance complaints that might occur from those persons who move into those rural areas. They maybe weren't aware that agriculture today, with the machinery available and the size of the machinery available, the demands of getting to marketplace on time, the demands of fighting against weather conditions, whether those weather conditions be good or adverse, will cause farmers to work perhaps 24 hours a day, perhaps day after day.
I've heard, through our committee hearings, that people weren't aware that huge lights might be shining into their backyards. They weren't aware that greenhouses will have lights on 24 hours a day. They weren't aware that grain dryers and other equipment runs as much as 24 hours a day, perhaps for weeks on end. We have a situation of bright lights; we have a situation of some noise.
2010
Some persons perhaps felt that when they moved to the country, it was going to be completely quiet. This bill will help address nuisance complaints that would arise from odours, noise, dust, light, smoke, vibration and flies. This bill recognizes the modern technology and the modern farmer of today. We need to address legitimate complaints regarding farm practices. There must be a mechanism for dealing with those legitimate complaints, but also we must allow for normal agricultural practices to take place and to develop a dispute resolution process to deal with those legitimate complaints and to deal with frivolous complaints. So we have a required change to meet the new agricultural community of today. It's a required change and it's a welcome change.
This new act will assist in the changing technologies of today, in the demographic changes we see occurring in rural Ontario and in the changes that are brought about within government, amalgamations whereby councils that were once basically rural councils are now being mixed in with urban council representatives. I think the municipalities have looked for guidance in regard to this particular issue of normal farm practices and bylaws.
The rural-urban mix that is happening in Ontario today has created a situation even about the interest that councils would have about agriculture. Many rural communities fear that there may be a dominance by urban communities. After all, these larger centres have more votes and may even have more votes within a ward. Both the farming community and municipalities have been seeking guidance from the government in this regard.
Most farmers are good stewards of the land, the water and the air, and it only makes perfect sense that they would be, because these three elements are important to their personal livelihoods. The land is where they provide an income for their families, so that they can have their children grow, attend university, perhaps farm, perhaps take on other livelihoods of their own. The farmer's best interest is to be a good steward of the land, the water and the air.
Most farmers respect their neighbours; they respect both their non-farm neighbours and of course their farm neighbours. But in any society or within any group of people there are maybe a few who disregard those people around them, and then we need laws or regulations for those who have a disregard for the community that they live in.
A good example would be persons who pass school buses when the red lights are flashing. We need something that will give an enforcement mechanism to those people who would flout the law, endanger the lives of young children by passing school buses when the red lights are flashing, and I proposed Bill 78, which would help in that regard.
Investing in agriculture requires a lot of capital; it requires a lot of dollars. Perhaps that's part of the reason that we don't see as many young farmers taking up in this industry. Farmers have to deal with risk, the risk of weather, and we know much about weather in eastern Ontario with the ice storm of this winter. Of course we need to have strong safety nets to protect farmers through adverse weather. That can be done through an excellent crop insurance program.
Market fluctuations - farmers live in a global market. Indeed, many of our prices are set in Chicago. We can help out with market fluctuations, with market revenue or what some people would call GRIP, and with a strong commitment to NISA, the net income stabilization account.
These are things that governments can do to enhance and protect those core programs within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs so that farmers can reduce their risk in circumstances totally beyond their control.
One of the most glaring areas where they don't have control would be in regard to the weather: too little rain, too much rain, hail. The devastation that can be brought to an area in any of those regards can cause the agricultural community to see their crop vanish almost totally.
This government, since we returned to this House, has talked about listening. There were public hearings in regard to Bill 146 and there were some very good presentations, very constructive criticisms of the bill. There were 14 amendments put forward in the committee to this government that now says it wants to listen, but only one amendment was accepted by the government. It happened to be an amendment that our party put forth, that the third party put forth and that the government put forth. So in reality, the government only accepted its very own amendments and none of the others were accepted from either opposition party - constructive amendments to Bill 146.
None the less, we can support Bill 146, as we have throughout first and second readings, the committee stage and here at third reading. The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board will decide what is a "normal farm practice." When that board has its membership put in place, it's imperative on the government and the minister to be sure there are informed and knowledgeable people appointed to that board. They will need to be people who understand the changes that are occurring in agriculture and the changes that may come very quickly to the industry.
This board can dismiss if it is found that the practice that the farmer was involved with was indeed normal, thereby the farmer can continue in the manner he was accustomed to, or this board can order the farmer to cease a practice if it's deemed that what he or she is doing is not normal.
I think it is good to note that in the bill the board can order the farmer to modify whatever endeavour he's involved with to make changes so that his practice would become perhaps, I'll use the phrase a little closer to normal, rather than being a little further away from normal. This is a good part of the bill. It allows some flexibility to the board to allow the farm operator to adjust to what has come forth.
We support Bill 146 and are pleased to speak to it on third reading. I think it's important to note that this bill does not allow the farming community to pollute. It does not allow farmers to work in a way that is totally without restraint.
2020
The Acting Speaker: Order. I don't know which conversation I should follow: Is it this one or that one? I think it's the member for Essex-Kent who has the floor, so if you want to keep your conversation low or go outside, it's your choice. I would prefer to listen to the member for Essex-Kent.
Mr Hoy: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Bill 146 does not allow the agricultural community to pollute. Indeed, agriculturalists will still be working under the Environmental Protection Act, the Pesticides Act, the Health Protection and Promotion Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act, so it would be wrong to say that this bill would allow farmers to pollute. It is in their own best interests to make sure that does not happen. The water, air and soil are most important to their livelihood.
A few days ago the minister was giving an answer to the member for Northumberland. I'm reading from a Hansard transcript. The minister, Mr Villeneuve, said:
"I recall a Liberal government from 1985 to 1990 which said it would double the expenditures on agriculture. Two years later they transferred the farm tax rebate from Municipal Affairs to Agriculture to make it look good - a little bit of smoke and mirrors."
Having been newly elected to this Legislature in 1995, I wanted to go back and have a look at that statement and do a little investigation. A look into public accounts shows the agricultural budget over the many years, and the farm tax rebate was included in the agricultural budget as far back as 1984-85, the last Tory year. So it's safe to say that the Liberals increased the agricultural budget, and that increase was 60% over the Tory spending. I believe the minister would want to know that it was the Tories who took the farm tax rebate from the municipal affairs portfolio and added it with agriculture. It certainly was not the Liberal Party that did that. Having been a farmer, and having been somewhat of a student of politics and watching what happens to the industry, I can say I'm quite proud of the Liberal achievements in agriculture during our term of office.
I have been reading lately that the minister has been making some remarks about just how much money the government is spending, and the smoke-and-mirrors approach the minister took as he incorrectly stated that it was the Liberals that put this transfer of the farm tax rebate into place. I want to say to those who are watching now, on Focus Ontario, July 13, 1996, in an answer to Robert Fisher, Noble Villeneuve said, "Yes, there have been some cuts to agriculture." Indeed the agricultural community knows that, agribusiness knows that, and the minister knew it as well when he told Robert Fisher, "Yes, there have been some cuts to agriculture."
The agricultural community embarked on a "rebuild, restore and reinvest" in agriculture just recently. They know full well the importance of the agricultural community. As a matter of fact, in regard to Bill 146 in this brochure, they talk about the environment. They talk about the need to protect our agricultural land base, all lands, the air and the water. They talk about best management practices, grower pesticide safety courses, nutrient management strategies, environmental farm plans. The farm community is active in making sure that the environment is protected not only throughout their lifetime but for decades to come. They also recognize that research is important. They recognize that market development is important and they recognize that the safety net that I mentioned earlier in regards to risk management is important: NISA, market revenue, crop insurance.
It's with pleasure that I say we support this bill. I think it will help agriculture in the near term. Hopefully, the bill is designed in a way that all of us can see the need for new technologies, technologies that perhaps none of us have ever even dreamt of. I simply say we support this bill at third reading. We wish it could have been before the House sooner, but the government sets the agenda of the day. So here were are at third reading, and hopefully this bill will see its way into law.
As I end my comments, I think you, Speaker, would be interested and very pleased to know that today is the occasion of my and my wife's 26th wedding anniversary. I know you would like them, back in Merlin, to know that.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I also would like to make a few comments on the third reading of Bill 146, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production. The bill was first introduced on June 26, 1997, and second reading was on December 17, 1997. The opposition regrets that it took so long between the first and second reading. All in all, it's here now. We're very supportive. We were pleased to be able to participate in the hearings on the bill. I'm sure that all members heard and learned a lot.
Another issue: Some of the groups in agriculture are very disappointed that the Ministry of Agriculture has been hit so hard by the funding cuts of this government, especially because when the Minister of Agriculture was in opposition, he always complained that the Ministry of Agriculture did not get its fair share of the provincial budget.
Fully 650,000 people are employed in agriculture, the second-largest employer in the province. They not only produce the food; they add value. They also are caught in the changing times; they have to expand their farm operations. The farmers try to improve the infrastructure in the community. They're all willing to share and do their part to produce quality food, protect the air, water and land.
I know that many could not have believed what some of the agricultural people went through in the ice storm in eastern Ontario, especially those people who were in the dairy industry. Their farm fans were off; they couldn't get generators. Some of them tried to milk three times a day, trying to share generators. We heard a lot of great things that the government had done in the ice storm, but I was right out there in it and I saw what was happening. I saw the way the animals had to live; many caught pneumonia and many other things. Anyway, that's enough of that.
We're pleased to participate in the third reading. We're very supportive of Bill 146.
2030
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Some of the members opposite may think, "Why is the member for Kingston and The Islands getting up?" I just want people to know that we do have a very strong agricultural community in my riding. It may be the smaller part of my riding, but certainly the three island communities of Amherst, Howe and Wolfe Island and a very large portion of Pittsburgh township in my riding have a very strong agricultural community.
I would like to remind the members of the House once again that the matter with respect to the ferry subsidies relating to the three island communities has still not been resolved. There are many people, whose families have lived on those islands for many generations, who are still extremely concerned about what's going to happen to their regular ferry service to the mainland. It's their only lifeline to the mainland and they demand that this matter be resolved as soon as possible. These people have been left in an impossible situation, where the government has threatened them on almost a monthly basis, saying, "We're going to cut off subsidies as of the end of December 1997," then "We're going to cut them off as of the end of March 1998" - on a continual basis, and nothing has really happened.
A facilitator has been appointed, Mr Dale Martin. We're awaiting his report. But certainly from what we've heard so far, the results of that report do not look favourable to the people of those islands. I would once again implore this government that those island communities and the 2,000 people who live in them are just as much a part of this province as the other 10 or 11 million people who live here, and they have a right to the kind of services that protect their livelihoods and their way of living. If they were left completely to their own devices and had to fund their own ferry services, they would have to increase local property taxes sixfold or sevenfold.
I once again ask the parliamentary assistant to take this matter up with the minister. It is an agricultural matter as well as being a transportation matter. These islanders, who have lived there for many generations, demand action from this government to ensure that their way of life and the farming activities they're involved in are protected.
I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Essex-Kent and from Cornwall, two gentlemen who have been involved in the agricultural business for a large part of their lives, for their excellent presentations this evening. They speak from the heart when it comes to the agricultural community. All of us can take note of what they have to say here. I was particularly struck by a comment made by one of my colleagues about the cuts to the agricultural community. We once again need to be reminded, especially the day after the budget was presented here, the budget in which the finance minister took such great pleasure in telling us about all the promises made and the promises kept.
Of course, as we all remember, our leader, Dalton McGuinty, pointed out that in two crucial areas promises haven't been kept, first in its plans not to close hospitals, but we all know that 36 hospitals in this province are slated for closure. Another was in its promise not to initiate user fees, because after all, as Mike Harris said, a user fee is a tax. We all know that senior citizens are now subjected to over $200 million of user fees in the drug benefit area.
Also, in the field of agriculture, directly associated with this bill, he made a promise way back in 1994 that there would be no cuts for agriculture. I don't think that any sentence can be clearer than that: "No cuts for agriculture." Yet what has happened so far, in the agricultural budgets over the years? Well, $45.1 million has been cut: $23 million in cuts in the policy and farm finance area, $10 million in cuts to education, research and labs, and $11.4 million in cuts to food industry development.
When I get the opportunity to meet with some of the farmers in my riding, they always bring up the point that where the government ought to be spending some of its money is in the research area of agriculture. Some of these farmers aren't even directly involved in some of the research areas they would like to have the money spent in; in other words, there's no direct benefit to them. But they cannot understand how this government seems to have completely gone out of the research and development business. To my way of thinking, it is almost incomprehensible, because they like to fashion themselves as being the business party, the party that knows what's good for the people of Ontario and that likes to run the province in a business fashion. I know of no business that wouldn't spend at least some of its money in research and development.
I ask the parliamentary assistant, a man whom I highly respect, why don't you make an impression on the minister and tell him to put some of the needed funding back into the research and development area of the agricultural industry? It is certainly needed. Farmers talk to me about it. They know I'm a city boy and don't really understand that much about the agriculture business, but they do understand that there has to be an acknowledgement that we have to spend that money on research and development to ensure that the agricultural products we produce here in this province are going to be of top standards and exportable throughout the entire world. Do something: Talk to the minister, talk to the finance minister. I know you have the ear of these people. Let's put some money back in that much-needed research and development area. If need be, even speak to the Premier about this particular issue.
The final point I want to make is simply this: I'd like to refer to the ice storm that occurred in eastern Ontario. We all know that the ice storm affected the area immediately to the east of Kingston all the way to Cornwall, up to Ottawa and down the Ottawa Valley; I guess Highway 41 was the demarcation between being affected and not affected.
That period of time certainly brought an awful lot of people together in many of our communities, in many of our cities, to work on the common objective of restoring the power as quickly as possible. No tributes could be enough to thank all those people from clear across this province who were involved in restoring the power, whether they were the linemen who were brought in from all the utility companies, whether they were the volunteers from all over the place or whether they were the people from the communities themselves. The effort put out was just fantastic and the way communities were brought together was absolutely amazing.
If there's one thing I learned during the ice storm, it was that even though there was an awful lot of devastation brought down upon our cities, upon our villages and upon our towns, the communities that suffered by far the most were the rural and agricultural communities.
Most of us who live in the cities and towns were inconvenienced for anywhere from a week to two or three weeks, and it made us realize how much Mother Nature really has control over us on an ongoing basis. It was also an experience in which neighbourhoods and people were brought together. But after the power was restored, we went on with our lives. There may have been a little damage that occurred, and some was settled by insurance companies and some by the fund currently being raised in eastern Ontario. It was certainly a problem for people in the urban areas, but nothing like the problems for the people in the rural areas, particularly the agricultural people.
I hadn't realized, for example, that if you don't milk a cow for a certain length of time, the cow dries up and you cannot use it as a dairy cow for a long time, nine months to a year. I didn't realize that the devastation to the sugar bushes, for example, can have such a long-lasting effect. It's not just a question that next spring comes along and everything grows again and we all go on with our lives.
The devastation wrought upon the agricultural community and the rural communities in eastern Ontario is still going on. Farmers are still suffering from this in an indirect way, in the income they're obviously not getting. In many cases, production probably won't be back to normal: in the case of dairy farming for at least another two to three years; in the case of sugar bushes, it's my understanding that the original prognosis, which was quite bad - for a long time - may not be quite as bad, but it's still going to take anywhere from five to 10 to 15 years to bring that production back into operation.
2040
First of all, I hope that the people in the urban areas try to get a better understanding of that. I know the ice storm is a distant memory to most of us, and to some it may even have sort of a romantic feel about it, but there are still people who are affected by this on a day-to-day basis and maybe for many years to come. I hope we urbanites would reach a greater appreciation of what the farming community went through in dealing with that problem.
Second, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to start making those payments to those farmers who are affected, whose livelihoods are affected, whose incomes are affected on a day-to-day basis; start making those payments immediately and quickly. There's been some criticism about that, that it hasn't been forthcoming quickly enough. Within a department like that, surely they ought to have a better understanding than anybody of how the agricultural communities are hurting as the result of a storm like this. Let's be supportive of them and let's not take the position that now it's spring and things are starting to blossom and bloom etc, the ice storm is just a distant memory.
There are people who are still being affected on a day-to-day basis. They are mainly in the agricultural community. I hope this government and the people of Ontario will stick by our agricultural community and give them whatever support, both morally and financially, that we can. Minister and Parliamentary Assistant, start dealing with that problem immediately so that we can once again have a flourishing agricultural industry in eastern Ontario.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I don't want to take an extreme amount of time, but I want to put on the record a couple of issues.
First of all, for those people who are watching, we are debating the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. If you remember, last fall we were at second reading debate on this bill. At that time, the government, for its reasons - and I wouldn't argue against the reasons - was trying to push this bill quickly. Along with the Liberal Party, they wanted the bill to be passed lickety-split after second reading. I believe it would have been some time last November or last December. I don't remember the exact dates. I'd have to go back to my notes.
At that time, our party, the NDP said: "Listen, we want this bill to go to committee. There may be some very legitimate issues in this bill that this House has not had an opportunity to look at." We wanted to send this bill to committee to give the public, those people affected by the bill, the opportunity to read it, take a look at it and come back before the committee to make recommendations on how to make this bill better.
I remember that at that time the government stood in the House and said: "NDP, you're only trying to stall this bill. That's all you're trying to do. We want this bill lickety-split. We've got it straight. We're smart. We've got all the answers. Everything's fine." The Liberals agreed. The Liberals at that time agreed with you and said, "We believe in agriculture too," just like the Tory government, the way they've cut agricultural budgets - oh, let's not go there; it'll just start another debate. But they also agreed with you. The Liberals wanted this bill passed lickety-split. We abstained and we said: "No, this thing has got to go to committee. There's a due process." As my good friend from Sault Ste Marie said on the other bill, where we dealt with the liability issue, there is a process in this House at committee and it is there for a reason. It's to give the public the opportunity to read the bill, to decide if the bill is okay, and where it's not okay, to make recommendations to the members of the Legislature to amend the bill.
Guess what happened. We sent the bill out to committee and, lo and behold, people came before the committee and said, "You know, we agree with where this bill is going." There were a lot of good parts in the bill. Most people who came before the committee supported it. But there were some omissions in the bill. I refer specifically to a submission - I think it was in eastern Ontario somewhere; I can't remember if it was Kingston or Cornwall, but somewhere in that area. Mr Waterworth came before the committee, along with other people in other communities, and said that when we wrote the bill - the Conservatives, that is - we had omitted deer and elk from the definition of what is covered under the bill. He made some submissions to explain that that is a business in itself and they need to have recognition under the act to make it easier for them to operate their business, for a whole bunch of reasons that are contained within this bill and within this debate.
Guess what happened? After that particular person came forward, along with some others, members of the committee said, "Oh, yes, we forgot something." I look again at what happened when Mr Waterworth came before the committee. Mr Danford, a good Conservative member across the way, said, "Yeah, you're right, we did forget something." Mr Chudleigh, another Conservative member, said, "Oh, yeah, we did forget something." Mr Cleary, a Liberal member, said, "Oh, yeah, we did forget something." And lo and behold, we made an amendment to the bill in order to recognize deer and elk under this particular bill.
The point I want to make is simply this: When you try to rush legislation through this House and you don't give proper time to have a good debate and an opportunity for the public to comment on the bill at committee, you will sometimes mess it up or forget to put in something that should be in the bill.
Here is an example of what could happen when you follow the due legislative process. If the NDP, last fall, had not obstructed the bill and said that we wanted it to go to committee for due process - it's not even obstruction. I'm saying "obstruction." I shouldn't say that because the reality is it's the process. We said, "We want to make sure the bill goes to committee in order for people to comment." If we had not done that, these people would not have been able to come before the committee and ask this Legislature to amend the bill.
The point I make is simply this: In the future, I hope the government uses this as a lesson on how possibly to better deal with legislation. They should slow down. They should take their time to draft bills based on what is going on out there and the best advice they can get, and allow a proper debate in the Legislature, something this government doesn't do very much any more because of the new rules. They can now pass a bill through this House lickety-split, within about five sessional days. Imagine all the mistakes and errors you can make in that time. But if the government were to slow down the process, allow for proper consultation prior to drafting the bill, allow the bill to come for second reading, to have a proper debate where all members of the assembly on all sides of the House can have their say, and then, most importantly, allow the bill to go to committee so the most important people in this province, the public, can have a say, maybe then the government could get it right and maybe then the government could make some claim to having what is a much better bill.
Monsieur le Président, je veux vous remercier d'avoir eu la chance de mettre sur le record les commentaires que j'ai faits. Je veux seulement dire pour mes collègues francophones et pour les autres qui regardent que c'est un bon exemple, ce qui est arrivé dans ce projet de loi, de ce qui arrive quand un gouvernement ralentit et qu'ils sont forcés à prendre le temps d'aller au comité avec un projet de loi.
Simplement dit, le gouvernement voulait forcer ce projet de loi à travers l'Assemblée l'automne passé. Le Parti libéral, eux autres, ont été préparés à aller avec le gouvernement conservateur et à passer cette législation dans deux minutes. Nous dans le NPD, on a dit, «Non, donnez au public la chance d'avoir leur mot.» On a forcé le projet de loi au comité, et une fois au comité, le monde est venu, M. Waterworth et autres. Ils ont fait des suggestions très positives pour le projet de loi, et grace à cela, on acceptait un amendement qui reconnaît les concernes de M. Waterworth.
Ça ne serait jamais arrivé si le NPD n'avait pas forcé la situation. Et je veux dire que je suis fier d'être ici aujourd'hui, membre du NPD, du caucus NPD, avec mes bons collègues Mme Lankin, M. Silipo et M. Martin, qui sont ici ce soir, et d'autres qui sont dans le building en train de travailler. On a fait notre job, on a ralenti le processus législatif comme il doit être pour donner la chance au public de faire un commentaire. Avec ça, on a un meilleur projet de loi.
Avec ces commentaires, j'aimerais vous remercier pour avoir eu la chance d'avoir ce débat. On attend un passage de ce projet de loi, troisième lecture, très vite.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?
Mr Danford: I will be very short in my remarks, but I would like to show appreciation for both parties supporting this bill. I think that has been the feeling all the way through. There has been general support from all three parties on this bill, and certainly from the farming community, the rural municipalities and rural Ontario in general. I think that works well.
There were some comments made about some other aspects of agriculture. They didn't really relate to this bill and we can debate them another time.
Certainly, research has been looked after, as the member for Kingston and The Islands mentioned. I think if he refers to the association with Guelph, he'll find the research is well on its way to recovering and revitalizing the agricultural industry.
I'd also like to comment about the member from the third party who mentioned committee work. We too feel that committee work is necessary. It does give ample opportunity for everyone, and we did send it to committee and we did have meetings across the province.
There was one amendment that I would also mention that was put forth by the government and was passed. It did address Mr Waterworth's concerns. I think it shows that this government was open from the beginning with the consultation process and is willing to move for the benefit of the bill and for the agricultural community and for rural Ontario.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: They were forced into committee by the NDP; they didn't do it on their own.
The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.
Mr Danford has moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to protect Farming and Food Production.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
The House adjourned at 2051.