STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
CONTENTS
Monday 18 October 1993
Employment Equity Act, 1993, Bill 79, Ms Ziemba / Loi de 1993 sur l'équité en matière d'emploi, projet de loi 79
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Ms Harrington
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Duignan
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Ms Akande
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Tilson
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Beall, Kathleen, legal counsel, employment equity legislation and regulations project, Ministry of Citizenship
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Joyal, Lisa, legislative counsel
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
MONDAY 18 OCTOBER 1993
The committee met at 1550 in room 228.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Projet de loi 79, Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We were on section 22 when Mr Tilson moved a recess. My sense is that we're ready for the vote. We should proceed with that unless there are some members who want to raise questions on that particular section.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I just looked at section 22; it's a very confusing section. Perhaps some of the experts who are here can help me out. I have some trouble with a section that permits the entry to "any place at any reasonable time" without a warrant. I have a lot of trouble with that.
To show you how paranoid the government is about this legislation, and it is paranoid, I don't understand how you can have a section that says, in subsection 22(2), "In the course of an audit, an employee of the commission may enter any place at any reasonable time," and then, in subsection 22(5), "If a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon oath that there are in a place documents or things that there is reasonable ground to believe will afford evidence relevant to the carrying out of an audit, the justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing" it. Why would you have to get a warrant from a justice of the peace when in clause 22(2)(a), it says, "An employee of the commission may enter any place at any...time" and get any piece of documentation he wants?
If this is the way this piece of legislation is drafted, you can take a look at subsection 22(6). It says, "If a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon oath that there is reasonable ground to believe it is necessary that a place being used as a dwelling or to which entry has been denied be entered so that an employee of the commission may carry out his or her duties under this act, the justice of the peace may issue a warrant...." You don't need a warrant; it says you can go in at any time.
Who are we fooling here? You've given this extraordinary power where you don't need a warrant and then you're trying to tell people what a benign piece of legislation this is, turning around and saying, "But you can go and get a warrant." Who needs a warrant? All this is related to an audit and you can go into any place at any time and get any document you want without a warrant, so who are you kidding that you need a warrant?
If you want to be consistent about it, as you should be, and if you want to do it properly and give people the benefit of the doubt and fair rights under the law, it seems to me that subsection 22(2) should say that you need to get a warrant for those purposes. That's what you say in 22(5) and 22(6). Why don't you say it in 22(2)? Who are you trying to fool?
Letting people go in and search and seize without a warrant -- who do you people think you are? This is absolutely unbelievable. Are you that paranoid that you can't go out and spend the time to get a warrant? You're just going to go and barge in any time you like? Are you serious? This is absolutely amazing. This legislation, however well intended, shouldn't mean that you step on people's basic human rights. This is supposed to be benign and good legislation. What are you doing trampling over people's rights, not having to get warrants and things of that nature? If this piece of legislation is so right and so good, why are you so paranoid?
Mr David Winninger (London South): Is the speech almost over?
Mr Harnick: No. I think I'll go on a while more.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): We had this argument the other week when you weren't here.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): But you don't seem to listen.
The Chair: Mr Harnick --
Mr Harnick: I'm not finished yet, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Let me ask you a question. There may be others who want to speak and you may want to reply to them. Would that be easier for you?
Mr Harnick: Then let me ask a question. Mr Mills says this is taken care of and you discussed this last week. I know that he, as one of the most responsible and hardworking members of this Legislature, immediately after speaking about this last Tuesday or Wednesday probably spent the balance of last week and I'm sure worked well through the weekend to answer the questions about why you don't need a warrant in 22(2)(a) but why you're allowing a warrant in 22(5) and (6). I'd be really interested if the member would tell me, after all the hard work I know he's done, why we can trample on rights in 22(2)(a) and why we have rights in 22(5) and 22(6). Who are we trying to fool, Gord?
Mr Mills: Last week we had some discussion on this, very much so, with Mr Tilson. I'm not a lawyer, Charles, but I've handled a lot of legislation like this, as you probably well know. Mr Tilson was talking about tax laws and that this isn't a different law, but the Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act have the same sort of wording, that you can stop anybody anywhere and you can search the premises; you can do what you like. When you come into this situation -- and I have -- that person will say: "I don't care what this says. Get lost." Then I gently remind them, "You don't want me to have to go and get a warrant, do you?" Then he says, "I didn't know you could do that," and I say, "Well, you can do that." So he says, "Okay, let's get on with it."
I think this is the real thrust behind this legislation, that most normal, ordinary sort of folks in this position will say, "Of course," but you will get that awkward person, and I think that provision is to qualify for that. As a layperson, that's how I'd see it.
Mr Harnick: Let me respond to that. You see, you've hit it right on the head. You've said that most people, if asked, "Can I come into your premises and search?" are going to say, "Yes, you may." If they don't say that, then you're going to go and get a warrant and you're going to search the place.
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: But if they say no, you're then going to go out and get your warrant and you're going to search the place, and you're going to get that warrant on the basis that a justice of the peace is going to say you have evidence that shows you're entitled to the warrant.
What I'm pointing out to the member is that what this act says is very different from the scenario you now put out. Here you don't have to say to the person, "If you don't let me in, I can get a warrant." What you're saying here in section 22, and I want the member to read it very carefully, is that you can do it without a warrant: "In the course of an audit, an employee of the commission may enter any place at any reasonable time."
He can say: "Buddy, I'm with the commission, and if I'm with the commission, I can come into your place of business at any reasonable time and search. I can do that and I don't even need a warrant." Your right to say, "Go and see a justice of the peace and convince him you have some evidence that warrants you getting a warrant," is gone. You just have to roll in and say, "Sorry, I'm with the commission, and people with Bob Rae's commissions can do anything they want in the province of Ontario."
1600
Mr Mills: I don't think Bob Rae has any commissions.
Mr Harnick: This is Bob Rae's commission because this is Bob Rae's piece of legislation. The fact is that if you provide for the warrant in 22(5) and 22(6), then you can provide for the warrant in 22(2), and you should provide for it. If you don't, it only shows that you're a totally paranoid group of people. It also tells me that this benign piece of legislation is obviously not so benign if you have to usurp people's basic human rights to facilitate the operation of this act.
You should strongly consider providing for the warrant in subsection 22(2). If the legislation is so good, denying people their rights shouldn't be necessary. I don't know why you wouldn't at least accept the amendment of 24 hours' notice. I suspect your answer will be that it'll give the employer time to destroy all the documents that could hurt him.
Let's think of something else, then. Go back and seek a warrant. If you don't have consent to come in, get a warrant. Is that so terrible? You acknowledged that's the way you do it under subsections 22(5) and (6). Why are you not doing that under subsection 22(2)? Why are you taking away those basic rights?
Until you answer that question, and you're obligated, I say, to answer that question, no one should vote in favour of this section. I know you will, because you've got your marching orders. We go through this with every bill and we make the same speech with every bill. If you can tell me with some reasonably intelligent and logical answer why there's no warrant there but there are warrants in the other subsections, maybe I'll vote for the section. But right now, not a chance, and you shouldn't vote for it either.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, we're relying on you for an answer.
Mr Winninger: We've certainly been down this road before. I recall that with Bill 74, the Advocacy Act, Mr Harnick's party made the same arguments Mr Harnick is making today. At that time, when his party objected to these powers of entry, we did a little research and came up with literally dozens of statutes that provided similar powers of entry, many of which were passed by a Conservative government when in office in the province.
Mr Curling: That doesn't make it right.
Mr Winninger: So I'm not quite sure why Mr Harnick objects to these powers of entry here --
Interjections.
The Chair: Some order, please.
Mr Winninger: -- where it's paramount that there be such powers of entry, while in other statutes powers of entry are allowed for activities far more innocuous than the kind of activities this act is addressing. At the end of the day, I don't think these powers of entry are at all unusual and are quite appropriate under the circumstances.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm not going to speculate on the level of paranoia, but I have a more technical concern that picks up on Mr Harnick's comments. In clause 22(2)(a), as he's pointing out, the right of entry seems to be fairly absolute and then in other circumstances, 22(5) and (6), a warrant is required. Section 36, the offence section, provides an offence for hindering, obstructing or interfering with the commission or employees in the execution of a warrant or otherwise and then provides an exception in the case of refusing to produce documents or things.
It strikes me that what you have set up is the possibility that if an employer, for whatever valid reason, says, "No, I don't want you to come into my place of employment," the employer, the way this section and section 36 is worded, could be charged with an offence for obstruction, because the exception section applies only to documents and things and not to the entry itself. In fact, there is no right of refusal for an employer in the offence section to refuse entry because of unreasonableness or whatever, because of that section.
Actually, I think Mr Harnick is on to a valid concern. We did vote in favour of a 24-hour notice and Mr Mills did make the comment about destruction of documents; I don't think that is valid. I said the last time we were commenting about this that I'm not certain that the best way to resolve this is always to dump it into courts and pay lawyers a lot of money; there may be better ways to handle the issue of disputes around timing and access and other issues other than going the full warrant route. I am concerned about the impact of that particular provision related to the exception clause in section 36. I could see a battle ensuing between an employer and the commission right from the word go. There is a possibility, it seems to me, to charge the employer for refusing access as an obstructive act under section 36 because the exception clause doesn't go that far.
I'm wondering whether the government and the members would think about that. There may be a fairly simple amendment that could deal with the issue and say that if there is that refusal, there should be an exception so that if you're going to make them go to court and deal with the warrant, then you make them go on all issues, not just the document issue.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'd like to refer this to legal counsel, please.
Ms Kathleen Beall: Perhaps I can assist by quickly going through the distinction between the provisions within section 22. In subsection 22(2), it gives an employee of the commission the authority to enter any place at any reasonable time and request the production for inspection of documents or things relevant to an audit, and upon giving a receipt, remove the documents for purposes of making copies and then return them.
As is rightly pointed out by the members of the opposition, if the employer refuses entry, then you would go to subsection 22(6) which is the procedure for going to a justice of the peace to get a warrant for entry. However, if the employer has allowed the employee of the commission to enter, but then refuses the request for production of documents under clause 22(2)(b), then you proceed to subsection 22(5) which is the warrant for search.
Subsection 22(6) deals with refusal of entry under clause 22(2)(a), and subsection 22(5) deals with failing to produce documents upon request under clause 22(2)(b). Those are the legal purposes for those two sections, to provide a remedy for what happens when an employee of the commission attends at the workplace and to fulfil the powers given to them under subsection 22(2).
I can advise the members of this committee that there are other sections in other pieces of legislation which provide for the right to enter into a workplace without a warrant for the purposes of enforcing legislation. I'd also like to point out that under subsection 22(4) an employee of the commission cannot enter a dwelling place without the consent of the occupier except under the authority of a warrant. That is in keeping with the general common law concept that a person's dwelling house or home is subject to greater privacy than a workplace.
Mr Harnick: I don't have any problem with somebody coming and saying: "I'd like to come in and look around your house or your business or whatever. You have the option to consent and let me do it or I'm going to out and get a warrant." But this is a sneaky section, because nowhere does it say what a person has to be told of his basic rights, whether he has to let them in. As soon as the person says, when he gets there, "I have the right to enter this place because the legislation says I have the right to enter," once you tell someone that you have the right to enter, that person quite properly is going to think you also have the right to do whatever you want when you get there because the legislation says you have a right to be there.
This is very misleading legislation. If you delete section 22 altogether, then all you have is the basic common law right of saying: "I'd like to come in and see your premises. Will you let me do it and will you produce certain documents?" If the person says no, then you go back and you get a warrant.
But here you have the sneaky aspect of subsection 22(2) that says: "I have a right to be here because the law says I can come in this place at any reasonable time. Now cough up your documents." How's a person to know that the rights dealing with that are different from the rights dealing with whether you're entitled to be there or not?
I think this is a very misleading and very dangerous section. If the government has nothing to hide, why can't we use the normal rules we always use? Why do we need this section at all? "If you won't let me in, I'll go get a warrant." It's as simple as that. Why are you misleading people with giving them the right to entry and telling the person whose premises you're entering --
Mr Fletcher: It's the same with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. You have the same right.
Mr Harnick: No, I don't think it's the same.
Mr Fletcher: Yes, it is. Go check.
Mr Harnick: When you're telling somebody that they have the right to be there, it only follows that they have the right to do whatever else they want when they get there. It seems to me that a person can consent to that, and a person can be asked whether they consent to your being on the premises and reviewing certain documents, but if you say no, then you go and get a warrant. This section is misleading in that regard.
1610
Mr Curling: First, I want to appeal to the government side, and I said this earlier. If you're making this legislation, do not make it so confrontational and adversarial in nature, because you're going to end up, as my colleague stated, with a lot of legal fees and battles in court, and the individual this legislation is intended to help will not be helped.
I want to see if I understand this properly. Clause 22(2)(a) says you have a right to "enter any place at any reasonable time" and (b) says you "may request the production for inspection of documents or things that may be relevant to the audit." Two issues seem to be stated here. One is the right of entry, that the commissioner has the right to enter the premises. The other, which is sort of frightening, is subsection 22(5), and I read it because of emphasis. It's scary:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied on evidence upon oath that there are in a place documents or things that there is reasonable ground to believe will afford evidence relevant to the carrying out of an audit, the justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing an employee of the commission...."
It goes on to say they can take it away and make copies. There is nothing about confidentiality. After you've gone through and made the plan about how you're going to go about employment equity, here is someone who will take private documents away. There's no signing of confidentiality for it all. The fact that they can take it away and make copies outside tells me there is intrusion on the employer, no protection of confidentiality whatsoever. Nowhere in here, in any part of this legislation, is there any protection in that respect.
I feel that is very confrontational. I emphasize again, this legislation is not about employer only or employees only; it must be balanced, of bringing about fairness, and it doesn't seem so. It seems to be confrontational. It seems to be setting up a system that will not help those it is intended to help. I just want to remind you about that and hope we can pursue it in that way.
The Chair: There are no further speakers on the list. Therefore, I think we're ready for the vote on this section.
All in favour of section 22? Opposed? This section is carried.
Section 23: discussion? There are no amendments.
Mr Fletcher: Before we start again, I would like to inform the committee today that there are a few sections the government would ask be stood down since they contain amendments which are consequential to sections which were stood down earlier. These sections would be out of order for the committee to debate at this point.
The government is going to request that sections 24, 25, 26, 28, 36.1 and 38 of the bill be stood down since they do contain amendments which are consequential to section 11. I'm asking the committee members ahead of time if they would agree to stand some of these sections down.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Would you review those, please.
The Chair: Yes. Would you repeat that, Mr Fletcher, slowly.
Mr Fletcher: I will give the sections and I will also give an explanation of why. They are sections 24, 25, 26, 28, 36.1 and 38, as they contain amendments which are consequential to section 11, which has already been stood down.
Also, the government requests that section 33 be stood down as it contains amendments which are consequential to section 10. Earlier in the clause-by-clause debate, this committee introduced an amendment to section 10 addressing seniority in the context of the review of employment policies and practices, and as this motion was not dealt with and section 10 was stood down, section 33 contains some technical amendments which arise from section 10 and, therefore, we would like to have that stood down until after completion of section 10.
Also, section 27 of the bill addresses applications of the tribunal in cases of disputes arising from joint responsibility and section 35 addresses the protection of confidential personal information. The issues of the joint responsibility and confidentiality of information were also raised in the debate on section 14, and section 14 was stood down. Therefore, we would like sections 27 and 35 to be stood down until after section 14 is completed.
Section 50 contains regulation-making authority for the bill and is dependent on the substantive provisions of the bill. In keeping with the usual procedures in clause-by-clause debate, we'll be seeking to have this section stood down until all of the substantive provisions of the bill have been dealt with.
Also, on section 51, which addresses the interaction between the Employment Equity Act and the applications of the Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights Code, the government is still in the process of considering amendments to this section, and we propose that this section be stood down until these amendments are completed.
The Chair: As the Chair, if there's going to be a long debate about whether or not we stand this down, I would propose we go through this item by item.
Interjections.
The Chair: All right, let me take speakers. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Before item by item, I want to speak in general about this. Item by item is just, of course we should.
The parliamentary assistant came in today again and was suggesting amendments and requesting sections to be stood down, and he was going so fast I couldn't even write it down.
I think the government must decide if it has a bill or not. I don't think they do have a bill. If they do have a bill, it's not properly written; it has so many amendments. It is not even that they brought in enough amendments to say, "We have listened," but the fact is, they're asking that this be stood down. They neither have the amendments nor anything to do with improving this legislation.
Mr Chairman, if you want to rule and want to rule properly, you would have seen in your sense that the fact is that they haven't got any legislation here. We were at 22 when we started today; 11 sections were stood down. He was going so fast, two, four, six, eight, about another 12 he is asking us to stand down.
I don't think they're ready. I don't think they have a bill. This is very important legislation. It has been in trouble from the beginning. People say it lacked consultation. It took a long time to come forward. It took them about two or three years to even bring it forward. Now, while we are in clause-by-clause, we have stood down more than half of the clauses.
1620
I am saying in general that my party is prepared to step back a bit and allow the government time to take all the wonderful bureaucrats you have in place, who are well equipped to assist the parliamentary assistant and the government, the minister and the commissioner, to come forward later, on a date when they're ready.
I think we're wasting our time. Every time I try to be relevant on all this matters, I hear it's all changed and they're not ready. I just want to say that in general.
Interjections.
The Chair: Quiet down, please. Mr Harnick?
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: I understand I have the floor now.
Interjection.
The Chair: I'll put you on the list. Would you like a response? Were you asking a question?
Mr Curling: If he can just tell me straight: Are you going to withdraw the legislation now?
Mr Fletcher: The legislation will not be withdrawn.
Mr Harnick: I thought you were going to say, "What legislation?"
Mr Fletcher: The explanation that was given for the reason to stand down certain sections was that they were impacted by other sections that were already stood down. The amendments are ready; it's just that we haven't dealt with the amendments that we did stand down before. That's why we can't deal with these sections.
Mr Winninger: A very reasonable approach.
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, I've got to tell you that attending this committee today is like watching a rerun of a bad movie, in terms of all the other pieces of legislation I've had the opportunity to be involved with in the justice committee. Every single piece of legislation is the same: Bring it forward, debate it, have committee hearings, do clause-by-clause, and halfway through the clause-by-clause realize that the bill is a disaster and then go ahead and start to amend the whole bill piecemeal; stand down this section, debate this section. We're going to debate what the name of the bill is and when it might become law and what the short title is going to be called.
The fact of the matter is, you're dealing with what is going to be a very important piece of legislation. My friend Mr Winninger, as much as his partisanship makes it difficult for him to answer these questions, will be the first person to tell you that you can't develop a piece of law and discuss one section without knowing the section that comes before it and the section that comes before that or the sections that come after it. When a piece of law is created, and I'm sure legislative counsel will say the same thing, it's not a bunch of non sequiturs that you're putting together and calling law. Everything has to do with what comes before it.
Mr Winninger: Don't drag me into your illogical arguments.
Mr Harnick: Maybe it's too logical for you, but the fact of the matter is, we did this with the advocacy bill that Mr Winninger went to great pains to talk about a moment ago. They brought in 200 amendments because the piece of legislation was such a disaster, and we ended up coming back and doing it all over again.
Mr Fletcher: So? That's my job.
Mr Harnick: Mr Fletcher says, "So? That's my job." Mr Chair, could you keep order here so I could put these things on the record without having this man saying, "So? That's my job," in my ear?
The Chair: Disregard the interruption, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: He's the parliamentary assistant who's carrying this bill through the Legislature. Here we are doing clause-by-clause and he doesn't even know the sections that are ultimately going to be debated. How can you carry on with this nonsensical process if you don't even know what the piece of legislation is? I will bet you right now that they haven't even had the courtesy in the ministry to show Mr Fletcher what the amendments are, because my bet would be that they aren't even written yet. If they are written, surely Mr Fletcher would have seen them. My bet is that he hasn't seen them and he has no idea what 20 or 30 or 40 amendments are coming.
You can't possibly talk about this bill now if you don't know what you're going to be talking about. Half of the sections are about to be jettisoned or changed. Why are we sitting here wasting the time of all of these people who have made it part of their day to come here, only to be told: "We've got 52 sections here, but don't worry; 26 of them are about to change. We're going to stand those down, and eventually we're going to come up with amendments." Those 26 amendments, or whatever they are, 50% of the bill, are going to impact on the sections that are not going to be changed. I don't know what to say about those sections unless I know what the changes are.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would ask the Chair to rule on just who is wasting time here, because our government is prepared to proceed on several sections that are not being stood down.
Mr Harnick: That's not a point of order. He's just wasting my time.
The Chair: Mr Harnick actually has unlimited time.
Mr Winninger: That can be a blessing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. It's not a point of order.
Mr Harnick: It's one of the kindest things Mr Winninger ever said to me. The fact is, you have people here. I see people here from ARCH and I see all these people from the ministry; all these people show up and want to know what this bill is and they want to know what it's going to be about. You've had extensive hearings and now you're going to change 50% of the bill so the 50% you're not changing obviously has to be seen in a totally different context. It doesn't make sense to sit here and waste everyone's time, because that's what you're doing. If you don't know the bill that you're going to be debating -- Mr Fletcher just said --
Mr Mills: Trust us.
Mr Harnick: No, I can't trust you.
Mr Winninger: We're with the government.
Mr Harnick: Yes, you're with the government: "Just trust us." I've seen what's happened in the province of Ontario for the past three and a half years, and Mr Mills keeps saying, "Trust me." I might be naïve, but there comes a point where trust is gone, and I think we've reached that point.
Quite seriously, we have seen, in every single piece of legislation that's come before this committee, the same thing happening. Every bill is changed. We had 200 amendments with the Advocacy Act. We had the same kinds of things with every bill that has appeared before the justice committee.
How can you proceed with it? How can you proceed with this bill when you don't even know what's going to be in it? At least favour us with seeing the amendments so the things we talk about now we're at least going to know whether there's any relevance.
I have no idea what you're going to do. Section 24, for instance, talks about: "The commission may, without a hearing, order an employer to take the specified steps to achieve compliance with part III if it considers that any of the following circumstances exist," and then it enumerates seven circumstances.
The amendment our party is making with respect to this section is simply that it replaces reference to the Employment Equity Tribunal and with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and leaves it to the Human Rights Commission rather than start --
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: Just a second, Mr Fletcher.
Mr Fletcher: Are we discussing section 24?
Mr Harnick: I'm using that as an example, if you'll listen to me.
Mr Fletcher: Is that what we're doing?
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, if you can't control the parliamentary assistant, you can't control anybody.
The Chair: I'm having a hard time controlling you, Mr Harnick, and it's hard to control other members as well. Please continue.
Mr Harnick: Surely he should be the model of decorum here with the big title and all the people who are here who are working for him.
We may have some considerable things to say about these sections. We don't know what section 24 is going to be amended to. We don't know how that might impact on section 23 or section 25. How can you carry on with this charade at this time? Bring us the amendments, let us see them and then we can start our work. You're amending half the bill. How can you carry on with this proceeding? Why are we wasting time here?
It seems to me we should be adjourning this proceeding until the amendments are brought forward and then we can discuss them. Maybe Mr Fletcher can favour us with some idea as to when these extensive amendments are going to be available and why they've had to amend the bill to the extent they have. It's very easy for Mr Fletcher to tell us the sections he's going to jettison and replace, and he says it so quickly so you'll think the list is small. We couldn't even write them down, he went so fast. But the fact is, half the bill is now in question. What are we doing here? When are we going to see these amendments, and why is the bill being amended so extensively?
1630
Mr Fletcher: The amendments will be debated and discussed after we pass all the other pieces of the legislation. The fact is that many of the amendments are technical amendments due to changes in sections that have already been stood down. Sections 24, 25, 26 and 28 are technical as they provide a little bit of consistency with language for the term "plan" or "plans" in the subsequent sections. That's a technical amendment. That's what most of the amendments that have been stood down are, technical language amendments, because they impact on something else that has been stood down. The amendments will be here when we're ready to debate them.
Mr Harnick: That's not the question. That answer is not a satisfactory answer. "The amendments will be here when we're ready to debate them." It's as though the big stick is coming out and you're saying, "Pass all these sections, and then we'll bring in the amendments." Quite frankly, I don't trust the government and I don't trust what it's about to do. I'm not prepared to debate and pass amendments on the understanding that then there's going to be more amendments and we'll get to see them for the first time once we've passed all of these. That's almost blackmail.
Mr Mills: Oh, come on.
Mr Winninger: Just relax.
Mr Harnick: I'm very relaxed, but it seems to me --
The Chair: I would ask the members not to make too many comments; otherwise it prolongs the discussion.
Mr Harnick: It seems to me that if Mr Fletcher could tell us that he will have all of these amendments for us tomorrow, then we can adjourn, we can see the package of amendments tomorrow and we can carry on with our work, and that's when we should be doing this. Don't tell me that I have to pass all the other sections before I get to see the amendments. That's wrong.
Mr Mills: I want Mr Tilson back.
Mr Harnick: He'll be back tomorrow.
Mr Winninger: He is more reasonable.
Mr Harnick: I'm very unreasonable.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you.
Mr Harnick: I'm not finished.
Mr Fletcher: I thought you asked a question.
Mr Harnick: It seems to me if the amendments aren't going to be available until next week, let's adjourn until next week and see the amendments.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Next week? Not tomorrow?
Mr Harnick: No. The timetable will be scheduled based on how fast you can produce your amendments. They're your amendments, Mr White, not my amendments. They're your amendments, and you've been dealing with this bill probably for in excess of a year now. Here we are at the 11th hour doing clause-by-clause waiting for the hammer to fall to send this into time allocation and you haven't even delivered your amendments yet, and now we find out today for the first time that another half of the bill is going to be amended. Come on, Mr White. Tell them to get the amendments before us so we can debate them and get this done, and the good people of Ontario will then have the benefit of this act that you keep saying is so good. Why, if it's so good, is half of it being amended and you're not letting us see it? That's not right.
Mr Fletcher: The government committee members are ready to proceed with what is there. We're ready with all of the other sections. When we've dealt with those sections, and we can go back to sections that have been stood down, we will proceed again with the other sections that have been altered because of those sections that have been stood down.
We can't proceed with amendments that are going to have an impact by changes already made, and I've explained that. I think a grade 6 student could understand that explanation, and I think you should be able to understand that explanation. We're ready to go on with all the sections other than the ones we've asked to stand down. If we want to go one by one, then I suggest that we proceed, instead of debating an issue about what is stood down until we get to the section.
The Chair: I'm prepared to ask the question, but I have Ms Witmer on the list if she wants to comment.
Mrs Witmer: I'm extremely disappointed at what is happening here. Personally, I think there are many people who have time that they could be devoting to other tasks. I think we're wasting taxpayers' money.
Mr White: Let's get on with it then.
Mrs Witmer: You would not even allow me a one-day deferral of discussion on these amendments when I asked for it and indicated to you that we wouldn't be ready. You said, "We will be ready." Here we are, more than a month later, and you still don't have the amendments ready. This is not fair to people in this province; they will not have an opportunity to study these amendments. I find it totally unacceptable. This is the most badly flawed piece of legislation I have ever seen. I would like to move a motion right now that we adjourn until such time that we get all the amendments.
The Chair: A motion for adjournment has been moved. All in favour of adjournment?
Mrs Witmer: Until we get the amendments.
Mr Harnick: Wait a minute; until we get the amendments.
The Chair: All in favour of adjournment until we get the amendments? Opposed?
Mrs Witmer: Recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote. All those in favour of adjournment?
Mrs Witmer: Until we get the amendments.
The Chair: I understood that.
Ayes
Curling, Harnick, Murphy, Witmer.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Fletcher, Malkowski, Mills, White, Winninger.
The Chair: That is defeated.
Mrs Witmer: I understand that the government is in desperate consultation with people throughout this province because the equity-seeking groups are extremely unhappy about the legislation, as they should be. I know they're consulting with the equity-seeking groups, consulting with the business community and consulting with anyone else who is impacted by the legislation. Unfortunately, they don't have the amendments ready. We know there are going to be some very substantive changes made. I find it totally unbelievable that we would sit here wasting taxpayers' time, spinning our wheels, when we can't accomplish anything and we don't give the public an opportunity to deal with the amendments. I can tell you that personally, I don't plan to sit here unless I have all of the amendments.
The Chair: I have no further speakers. I'd like to recommend, if there's no unanimous support to stand all the items down as requested by Mr Fletcher, that we proceed item by item and debate whether we can stand items down as we go. Is there unanimous agreement to stand down the matters as requested by Mr Fletcher?
Mr Harnick: No.
The Chair: Then what we'll do is move on item by item. Section 24.
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, I move adjournment of this debate today.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, adjournment has been moved already.
Mr Harnick: No, that was adjournment pending the --
The Chair: All right. All in favour of adjournment?
Mr Harnick: I'd like a recorded vote.
Mr White: It's out of order.
The Chair: It's a different motion.
Mr White: The question is out of order. We just had a vote on it.
The Chair: It would be a different motion.
Mr Harnick: I'd like 20 minutes.
Mr White: No, it's out of order.
Mr Harnick: Anybody can ask for 20 minutes.
The Chair: Mr Harnick has requested a recess. We'll recess for -- Mr Harnick, 15 minutes?
Mr Harnick: Twenty minutes.
The committee recessed from 1638 to 1706.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Mr Harnick had moved that we adjourn. Mr Harnick, that motion is still on the floor, is that correct?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
The Chair: All in favour of adjournment? Opposed? That is defeated.
Mr Curling: It was one, two, three, four, five?
The Chair: Five people. It was defeated.
Mr Harnick: Does he get a vote?
The Chair: Yes, he does.
Mr Curling: Can I ask a question? I know we voted not to adjourn, but the question is, when will the amendments be ready?
Mr Fletcher: I will give you as much information about that tomorrow, if that's possible.
Mr Curling: "As much information"?
Mr Fletcher: Because, as I said --
Mr Harnick: Then let's adjourn until tomorrow.
Mr Fletcher: -- most of the changes that are coming through are technical, based on language changes in sections 10 and 11. Once we can deal with some of the other amendments we have before us that are not being stood down, we will go back to section 10 and section 11 and then deal with the amendments pertaining to sections 10 and 11.
Mr Curling: I heard that already. You see, this is the problem we have. Let's say it is symbolic.
Mr Fletcher: Section 10 and section 11 have already been stood down. Because of the changes to sections 10 and 11, that's what is causing some of the changes to the other sections; as I said before, technical language amendments.
Mr Curling: In other words, you're not ready.
Mr Fletcher: If you would like, I can give you further information about when you will get the technical amendments tomorrow.
Mr Harnick: I've heard all of these nice lines before. What's going to happen is that they'll dump a package of amendments in our laps and we'll end up having to go through the whole bill again. Then the minister will say, "This is taking too long," and there will be a time allocation motion and we'll be told, "You have two hours to do the balance of these." We'll all come in here like little puppets and we'll vote yea and nay and that'll be the end of it. It'll be referred for third reading and third reading will have time allocation of two hours on it. We'll probably be doing this on December 8. That's the way this will go.
I don't think anybody at this committee should deal with the balance of the clause-by-clause until we see these amendments, because this is positively ridiculous. It makes a mockery of the whole process, and the parliamentary assistant can't even tell us with any certainty when these are going to be available. I think this is a complete and utter waste of time. It just shows how totally incompetent this government is with every piece of legislation it's ever brought to this committee. At least they're consistent: Every one's the same.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, Mr Fletcher's been attempting to answer the question. He's done the best he can to provide an answer. Obviously it doesn't satisfy. I think we're quite prepared to move on to the sections that can be dealt with.
Mr Harnick: It's a waste of time.
The Chair: I would remind the members that we do have quorum here. We could continue without you.
Mr Harnick: Go ahead.
Mrs Witmer: It's all a farce and a sham.
Mr Winninger: Don't forget to write.
Mr Fletcher: Wander off. Get paid for not showing up at committee meetings.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Is there a quorum?
The Chair: We do have a quorum. I'd like to ask the members whether they wish to continue or whether they wish to propose adjournment.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, could we ask for a five-minute recess, please?
The Chair: Very well, a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1710 to 1717.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, it's quite unfortunate that the opposition members have walked away from this committee and such an important piece of legislation that this government is ready to deal with today. We have amendments that are ready to go, the people of Ontario are waiting for this piece of legislation, and the performance that was put on by the opposition today is indicative of the stalling tactics that have been going on with the opposition for certain pieces of legislation this government has tried to bring through. Again, I think it's a sad state of affairs when we cannot debate and talk and discuss issues, especially with a piece of legislation that is so important. As they have walked away from the table, I would like to move adjournment of this committee for the remainder of the day and come back tomorrow.
The Chair: All in favour of adjournment? That carries. This committee's adjourned till tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1718.