L060B - Thu 26 Nov 1998 / Jeu 26 Nov 1998 1
RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES
Mrs Ecker, on behalf of Mr Tsubouchi, moved third reading of Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Rosario Marchese): The member for Hamilton West.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the members for Simcoe Centre and Peterborough.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.
Mrs Ross: The bill that we're debating tonight is Bill 25, a red tape bill. As we all know, unnecessary rules and regulations cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars every year. In fact, according to one estimate, that number stands at $85.7 billion in 1993-94 alone.
Red tape costs business money. It ties the hands of business so tightly that it restricts growth and discourages hiring. It can cause serious delays in launching new products and services or expanding a company's operations. It costs consumers money: approximately $12,000 for every household in Canada, according to estimates. And it costs government money, money that could be spent on other things, such as key priority areas of health care and education.
This legislation would eliminate unnecessary and wasteful procedures. It includes hundreds of amendments to more than 100 acts at eight ministries and continues the government's work in cutting red tape and unnecessary regulation.
I would like to go through a couple of the amendments that appear under schedule E, which is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. There are amendments to save time and money and to provide greater convenience for all interested parties under the Land Titles Act. That amendment would allow for hearings to be held in locations other than the registry office or the office of the director of titles. So you can see that would help people and make government services much more accessible for them.
Under the Vital Statistics Act: There is a requirement for a payment for a special fee of 25 cents when a subregistrar issues a burial permit. That's very old and outdated, and I bet you there are a lot of people around here who didn't even know that such a requirement existed, so we're eliminating that requirement.
Under the Registry Act: Because of the changing technological advances that are made, people can now register through the Registry Act electronically. We're changing the act to provide for methods of payments through technological advances that are out there. Currently fees have to be delivered either personally or by mail to a land registry office, so this will make things happen much more quickly and again, because of the technological advances, it's important that we recognize that.
Under the Corporations Act: The amendment will permit directors' meetings to be handled by telephone and other communications technology, saving business time and money. Again, that recognizes the technological advances that are currently out there, and certainly up in the northern communities that would be an advance for them.
Under the Loan Brokers Act: This amendment would permit the ministry to issue cease-and-desist orders against people violating the act. This is a very important amendment, because it allows the ministry the administrative tools to quickly and efficiently deal with people who are violating the act. It's very, very important.
Under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act: There is an amendment in the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act that would establish, subject to the minister's approval, consumer protection programs such as a provincial compensation fund. I think that's a very important amendment, again, to protect the consumer.
A lot of the changes that are in this red tape bill are changes that we brought forward to address technological advances, to get rid of those acts that are no longer necessary and to make things easier and more accessible for people to access government services.
Some of the amendments were made at two ministries after committee hearings, and three amendments have been made at the Ministry of Health.
The first amendment would ensure that specific confidentiality provisions in the bill for health professional quality assurance programs does not weaken the general confidentiality provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act. I'm sure you're aware that confidentiality is a very important issue these days. People are very concerned that their records are kept confidential, so that's an important amendment in this act.
The second amendment adds a cross-reference to non-exemptible registration requirements in health professional registration regulations.
The third amendment at the Ministry of Health removes a provision which would have required health professional colleges, under certain conditions, to consider late submissions from members who are the subject of a complaint. This provision had been proposed to expedite the consideration of complaints.
During the committee process, we heard from a number of people representing various colleges under the regulated health professions who felt that this amendment could lead to abuse and would possibly frustrate their ability to handle complaints within the time frame that they had before them, which was 120 days required by the statute. We listened closely to them and changed the original wording under the Regulated Health Professions Act and returned it to what it said in the first place, because of what they had to say to us.
Under schedule I, the Ministry of Natural Resources: There are several amendments under the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I'd like to go through a couple of those as well, so people understand the types of things that we're doing through this red tape bill.
Under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act: That act is being amended to ensure that industry contributions to the forest renewal fund are exempt from the federal goods and services tax. This will ensure that all of the money that is collected is dedicated to forest renewal. I know the Speaker is very interested in forest renewal. That's a very, very important amendment.
There are three acts relating to forestry on private land and three outdated and obsolete acts. The three that are related to forestry and private land will be consolidated under the Forestry Act and the three that are outdated and obsolete will of course be repealed, because there is no longer any use keeping them on the books.
Under the Forest Fires Prevention Act: That act is being amended to allow restricted fire zones to be declared or rescinded by minister's order rather than regulation. That of course is in order that we can provide much faster service to the people. I'm sure if there was raging fire, Mr Speaker, you wouldn't want to see us have to come back to get the regulations changed. You would like to see us move on that very quickly, so that's exactly what we've tried -
1840
Interjection.
Mrs Ross: Yes, the Speaker would want to see something happen very quickly. That is why that amendment is in there.
There are many, many amendments in here that address accessibility to government services, address technological change, address providing service quicker, faster, and getting rid of outdated and old acts that are no longer required.
An amendment at the Ministry of Natural Resources would change the definition of "wetlands" in the Conservation Authorities Act. That was a concern that we heard quite a bit about at the committee hearings, particularly from farmers who were concerned with the definition of "wetlands." They thought that if there was a spout that was putting water out on to their property and it stayed for a period of time, that could be determined as a wetland when in fact it was just a temporary pond, you might want to say, created through the waterfall. We looked at those amendments and made sure that definition would be more clearly consistent with provincial policy statements under the Planning Act.
Changes to the act under Bill 25 would clarify and focus the jurisdiction of conservation authorities and, by defining a number of terms such as "wetlands," would ensure that strong measures are maintained to protect the environment.
Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act under this bill would also ensure that conservation authorities have the power to intervene quickly in the case of environmental emergencies.
An amendment has been made that would also set out specific conditions under which conservation authority officers can enter on to private lands for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of regulations. That was a concern expressed to us at the committee by many people who made presentations before us, so we made sure we put that amendment in there. This amendment does respond particularly to rural landowners who were concerned about notifications and permission on their private property. They wanted to make sure that when someone came on their property, they would provide them with appropriate notification and receive permission to go on their property. I'm sure, Mr Speaker, you can understand that.
Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Red Tape Reduction Act, as I know you're aware, is to eliminate many pieces of regulations and statutes that have been on the books for a long time that are no longer required, that are obsolete, and to make access to government services much easier, to recognize the changing needs of the consumer out there, to recognize the changing technological advances and to eliminate a lot of that red tape as a result of those things.
Frank Sheehan, the chair of the Red Tape Commission, has said that red tape is not a problem that's unique to this province. It's common in all of the provinces and in fact is common across countries around the world where regulation is used to fulfill promises, to respond to crises and to protect their citizens. Mr Sheehan also points out that there are good reasons why government has regulations, but we must be on guard against regulations that discourage growth and economic development.
I think the Red Tape Commission has done a magnificent job in looking at the various pieces of legislation that have been in existence around this province for many decades and looking at how we can refine and revise them and make them much more up to date and respond to consumers' needs.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Struck a balance.
Mrs Ross: Exactly. As the member says, we struck a balance by looking at what type of regulations we should ensure are still there and what type of rules and regulations we can eliminate as a result of outdated pieces of legislation.
When we find that regulations are burdensome, they discourage entrepreneurs. The Speaker knows that we want to encourage entrepreneurs in Ontario. Sometimes they simply create inconvenience, and we don't want to do that. This bill is designed to eliminate those pieces of legislation, and I'm very pleased to support this bill and urge all members to support it.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join in the debate tonight on third reading of Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts.
Being a member of the Red Tape Commission, it's a tremendous opportunity to be able to eliminate the barriers that are put in the way of business and, in effect, the efficient operation of government. That's what red tape is about. It's about eliminating barriers to make it easier, faster and less expensive for both business and the public in their dealings with whatever ministry they deal with; smoothing the way for business to start up, create jobs and carry on business in Ontario; streamlining ministry administration that will improve customer service, thus making it easier and less time-consuming to deal with the ministry; and simplifying the processes in order to reduce overlaps with other legislation and improve overall efficiency.
One of the fundamental thrusts of this legislation, especially dealing with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is really basically catching up to the changes that have been made in information technology that we've experienced for many years but the ministry hasn't changed their procedures to catch up with the information technology that is out there in the business world. That's what's very important about some of these changes.
I would just refer to one very simple change with respect to the Corporations Act. We are amending the act to permit directors' meetings by telephone or other communications technology, saving businesses time and money. Currently, directors must be physically present to hold a meeting. Even if you're talking about the smallest of corporations, where you're dealing with, if you just want to call it that, a ma-and-pa operation, you'll still have both the husband and the wife and the children, if they're involved in the business. To conduct the business of the corporation, they all have to be present in the directors' meetings to pass the resolutions, pass the bylaws, that allow the corporation to run.
This makes a lot of sense. If you're not in the same location at the same time, if you're in a large metropolitan community like Toronto, it may not be that easy if you're in one part of the city, over in Etobicoke, and another one is over in North York, to be able to get together in one central location. Obviously that's a little bit different. In my riding of Simcoe Centre we're much smaller and there's not as much difficulty to get into one spot at the same time. But the bottom line is that this a fundamental change that I think will make even small corporations as well as large corporations much more efficient in the way they conduct business, because that's the only way you can conduct business in a corporation, through the directors and whoever you designate to operate the business.
Other changes help prepare the way for electronic registration and other processes in the land registry offices. That is a must in today's business environment, especially in my riding of Simcoe Centre, which is a very high-growth area, tremendous amount of housing starts and construction in the area. This is just reflective of the economic growth that is experienced in this province. Quite frankly, the registry office is outdated in terms of the up-to-date technology. This is going to make things much more efficient and hopefully less pricey for the consumer.
1850
These changes include an amendment to the Land Titles Act which can reduce information required for registering power-of-sale documents and an amendment to the Registry Act which will support electronic funds payment and other payment methods. Currently, fees must be paid and documents delivered personally or by mail to a land registry office to be deemed registered. As well, the Registry Act is being changed to allow the ministry to accept notarized copies of certain documents that may be deposited instead of original documents. Currently, the client is required to provide the ministry with an original document, which is microfilmed and then destroyed. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Still other changes simplify the language used and make a number of acts more consistent across government. As well, several amendments deal with replacing the requirement for the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments with ministers' or deputy ministers' appointments. This will speed up many processes and be more cost-effective.
These changes, in my opinion, definitely will create jobs. It's the businesses that create the jobs, so if we make it simpler for businesses in terms of how they can operate, less expensive, they're certainly going to be looking to ways to increase their revenues and increase profits in terms of creating jobs. We believe these amendments will send a clear message that Ontario is open for business. Businesses will be spending less time jumping through administration hoops, allowing them to spend more time concentrating on what they do best, which is fuelling the economy and creating jobs.
Certainly there will be dollar savings from this type of approach that is being taken. It's difficult to place a total value on it, but in terms of the time saving businesses will experience from being able to do their business this way there is no doubt that if you save time, that gives you greater opportunity to do your own business, and that is going to create not only savings but revenue for the company. You have to look at it from the point of view of the savings from an administrative point of view in terms of dealing with legal counsel, dealing with different business-type machines, but also the opportunity that you gain from the saved time to operate your business. That's really one of the greatest drawbacks that businesses face, especially small businesses, in being able to operate their businesses, the administration requirements in doing business with the government, making sure have satisfied the government requirements. What we're trying to do is make it much simpler for businesses to operate.
Consultation has taken place in a number of areas. For example, in considering changes to the legislation covering both real and personal property and the legislation dealing with business registrations, we consulted with the Canadian Bar Association for Ontario and they provided significant input. In other cases, industry groups have been consulted and they have been generally supportive. It is worth repeating that many of the amendments going forward are the kind that smooth the way for better service to all stakeholders and the public. In fact, some amendments are in response to past criticisms by the public and business of excessive red tape and administrative hoops. That's one of the fundamental approaches and the raison d'être for why the Red Tape Commission was set up.
The fundamental question, and one of my favourite areas, and I think fundamental for why we are representatives in this House and why we are sent here is, we are not only here to obviously be the watchdog or the bureaucracy ensuring that our constituents are served, but we're also here to protect consumers. Two of the acts being amended will provide additional protection for consumers in specific areas of the marketplace.
One of these is the change to the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. This change would allow the administrative authority set up by the real estate industry - and I just want to make clear that what we did a few years ago was allow the real estate industry to be self-governed, as we have with other businesses - for example, the travel industry and the builders' association - with respect to the home warranty program. They self-regulate themselves. What this change is going to do is that the administrative authority set up by the real estate industry is to establish consumer protection programs, such as a compensation fund, in which registrants would be obliged to participate. Such compensation funds have proven to provide important protection for consumers in such areas as travel and motor vehicle dealers.
Another amendment designed to improve consumer protection is being made to the Loan Brokers Act. This change will allow the ministry to issue cease-and-desist orders against loan brokers who, for example, continue to violate the law even when charges have been laid and the broker has been convicted under the act. This will strengthen protection for consumers by preventing unscrupulous loan brokers from continuing to take money from a consumer before the consumer has actually received the loan.
Another part of this package is that the amendments to the Corporations Act significantly cut red tape for non-profit corporations and encourage people to volunteer. It includes a provision to provide an audit exemption, subject to the unanimous member approval for all non-profit corporations, excepting charities, if the annual income of the corporation is less than $10,000. This will save these organizations money which they can then direct to their primary purpose.
Another amendment will permit non-profit corporations that are not charities to indemnify officers for liability arising from the performance of their duties on behalf of the corporations. That is a fundamental area because, for the first time, such non-profit corporations will be able to purchase liability insurance for directors and officers. Obviously, that's a significant area for people who want to get out and volunteer but, quite frankly, they don't want to put their own personal financial situation at risk for doing good. That's a fundamental change. Obviously, that is a clear signal that we want to encourage volunteerism in non-profit corporations. We're basically taking the action to ensure that those individuals' personal livelihoods and financial well-being are protected when they're doing good for the community.
Dropping the audit requirement could save non-profit corporations at least $2,000 per year in annual audit fees, a considerable sum for organizations that often have budgets of less than $10,000. As well, the inability to purchase liability insurance may have deterred, as I said, many people from serving on these volunteer boards. We have to make sure that the strength of the community is based on these non-profit corporations that bring in volunteers who are willing to give their own time and energy for free. If you can get the best people out who are willing to devote their time to a worthy cause and they know they're not putting themselves at risk, then they're going to come out. That can only benefit the community because, after all, the primary purpose of non-profit corporations is to do good.
Will charitable organizations be able to purchase liability insurance? Charitable organizations may purchase insurance only if they comply with charities law, including the Charities Accounting Act, which is being administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General. While a great number of charities are non-profit corporations, there are many non-profit corporations which are not charities. Everything from your local bowling league to community groups such as ratepayers' associations and tenant groups, all the way up to large industry associations could be non-profit corporations but they may not be registered charities. That's a very fundamental point, but the bottom line is, that is already covered by the Charities Accounting Act and administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General.
There are also changes to the Bailiffs Act which are designed to streamline the appointment of bailiffs and improve the complaint-handling process. This will be achieved by consolidating all functions under the Bailiffs Act at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Responsibility is currently shared by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of the Attorney General. We believe that by improving and speeding up the complaints-handling process we will be able to assist consumers faster and more effectively.
Under the Bailiffs Act, there is reference to fees of $2.25. The Bailiffs Act amendments are: "(1) A bailiff shall not charge, for the sale of goods exempted from distress or seizure, a sum greater than $2 plus the actual and necessary payments for possession money."
"A person requiring an assessment shall pay the" local "registrar," the Ontario Court (General Division), "a fee of 25 cents for the examination" concerning the costs of distress.
These fees are currently provisions from the Costs of Distress Act which are simply being incorporated into the Bailiffs Act. Whether these amounts should be changed will be looked at as the ministry's larger review of the regulation of bailiffs, which is a very important area.
1900
There are also changes to the Theatres Act. Members of the Ontario Film Review Board are appointed to represent the community and reflect community values. That hasn't changed. The purpose of the amendments to the Theatres Act is to allow the board to continue to perform these duties effectively and with greater speed and efficiency. The changes will give the board the flexibility to determine whether a panel of two or more persons is necessary to approve and classify a film. As well, it will provide the option of approving and classifying films by methods other than viewing, as may be prescribed by regulation. Regulations will be developed. Other methods could include, for example, accepting classification of a film by another province or prior classification of a film in a different format, such as a 35-millimetre film to video, and considerations such as the source of the film and the nature of the film.
These changes would reduce the cost for the Ontario Film Review Board. Also, by speeding up the classification process, films and videos can be approved and in circulation sooner. This is good for business and good for consumers, as it will get the product out across the province faster. As well, these changes will maintain community standards.
Obviously, the entertainment industry, through the films and videos, is a very significant part of our economy, and it's something we should have done a long time ago to ensure that the distribution process, while maintaining community values and the standards that have been set by the film board, does not hinder the marketplace. If the process is delayed through administration and essentially not keeping up with the technology, then obviously we're not doing our job in terms of supporting the people who do a lot of hard work and have devoted their business lives to the entertainment industry through video and film.
There are some other issues I want to address, and one of them is under the Liquor Licence Act. We've dropped the requirement for holders of liquor sales licences to be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. What that means is that foreign investors in the province are going to be allowed to be holders of liquor sales licences. The fact is that foreign investors have been allowed to own licensed premises for some time but had to set up a Canadian shell company to comply with the requirement, which is the liquor sales licence. So what you have is someone who is not a Canadian or a landed immigrant owning a restaurant, but they cannot have a licence to operate that restaurant. That doesn't make a lot of sense if you're going to allow them to own the restaurant, put up their investment, employ people, serve the public, and then they have to set up a Canadian shell company to comply with the Liquor Licence Act requirements. This amendment removes that impediment to foreign investors.
Our government believes strongly in removing barriers to investment and encouraging trade in Ontario. This amendment to the Liquor Licence Act helps remove barriers to economic growth and new investment. We are rolling out the red carpet rather than the red tape for the province's job creators. Obviously, in the restaurant or entertainment industry, the fact is that if you don't have a liquor licence, you're not going to be able to operate and be successful. So it's very fundamental that we establish a level playing field. If we're going to allow foreign interests to own and operate a restaurant or an entertainment establishment, then we shouldn't have different standards with respect to their being able to obtain a liquor licence. I think that's not only fair but it balances the interests that we're not only trying to protect but also trying to encourage in terms of getting foreign investment into this province.
We're also looking at allowing manufacturers of alcohol to have a financial interest in the business of licensees. The question is whether this will restrict competition and how does this fit into the concept of cutting red tape and encouraging business. The answer is that in the past there have been a number of regulatory exemptions to allow limited manufacturing involvement in certain holders of liquor licences; for example, SkyDome and Maple Leap Gardens in Toronto. By amending the Liquor Licence Act to formally allow the board the discretion to permit this practice, a regulation is no longer needed and the board will be able to respond more quickly to such requests, which cuts red tape. As well, this change will encourage limited investment in a licensed establishment, which is good for business and the economy.
There will continue to be a prohibition against manufacturers receiving liquor sales licences except for licensed premises on a liquor manufacturing site and against licensees selling only the product of one manufacturer exclusively. By allowing manufacturers of alcohol that have a financial interest in the business of a licensee - I used the example of the SkyDome with the restaurants they have there, and also Maple Leaf Gardens - we're not getting in the way of their being able to operate their business and we're not setting any precedent in terms of what I talked about before, which is the prohibition against manufacturers receiving liquor sales licences. This is much more indirect, and against licensees selling only the product of one manufacturer exclusively.
The board's ability to refuse requests for public meetings when there is a complaint about a potential licensee has been reviewed. Speaking from experience, that is certainly a very significant detriment. If you have put time and money in setting up a business, for example, a restaurant, and the final piece of the puzzle is to get that liquor licence, which all your competitors have, and you're ready to go because you've already done all your leaseholds - you've done everything; it's all ready to go - and someone puts an objection in and it's a bogus objection, it's basically designed to prevent you from getting into operation, that could be similar to, for example under the Ontario Municipal Board proceedings, where you're wanting to get your land rezoned so you can get into a commercial operation, and your competitor puts in an objection and the only reason why they're objecting is to keep you out of business.
That's why we should work very hard to make sure we do not allow a procedure to be put in place that not only will keep people from competing but also puts them out of business because of the fact that a complaint has been put in. At least under the Ontario Municipal Board, someone who puts in a frivolous and vexatious objection will face severe cost consequences and action from the board for having done that. But if you've got deep enough pockets to be able to do that type of action, it may be worth it to keep someone out of the business.
Under the Liquor Licence Act, there aren't those types of consequences. If someone objects and it's a frivolous and vexatious objection, there are no cost consequences, because there's a hearing set up through the Liquor Licence Board and they come up and hear it. I've been involved in them and they can be lengthy proceedings. They're always very emotional. But if the sole purpose is to delay your opening - because you don't get hearings overnight; these hearings take months and months to get - then what do we accomplish? We've set up a procedure which doesn't protect the public, which it was designed to do. It is used as a weapon to keep someone out of their competitive area and to get them out of business, and that's not what the liquor licence proceedings were set up for. They were set up to protect the public interest where someone who wants to get a liquor licence shouldn't get one because, on balance, the public interest will be impacted.
1910
The purpose of the amendments to the Liquor Licence Act is to stop frivolous or vexatious objections from creating unnecessary delays in the processing of a liquor sales licence. Some examples are objections from people who oppose liquor in general, those who are not area residents and other businesses that simply want to reduce competition or stall the approval of a bona fide application. I would say to you that's not what we want to encourage. I recall speaking about this in the past, that we want to ensure that we're not putting in place a procedure whereby we're essentially putting up a barrier for people who want to get into business.
Everybody knows that the restaurant industry is a volatile industry at best, driven by market forces, because it's very competitive. The timing of when your business is in place may be the sole reason why you survive. If you've gone through the painstaking exercise of making sure you've got the proper location, you've got the right lease, you've got the right product, you've got your staff all hired and everything is ready to go, and you put your application in for the liquor licence and all of a sudden someone at the last moment decides to object - obviously there are going to be people who oppose liquor in general, but if you're in an area where there are a number of liquor establishments, that's not a legitimate complaint; that's not a legitimate objection. Or if they're not even area residents, what would be their nexus to the community? What would be their point in objecting to a licensed establishment where they don't even reside? There is no basis for that. I can't even explain why someone would want to do that, but obviously it happens, Mr Speaker. I know that would be bothersome even to you.
We look at the area where other businesses simply want to reduce competition or stall the approval of a bona fide application. That is really the raison d'être of why we would not want this procedure to be used as a weapon, to make sure that your business is protected. After all, you've got a liquor licence and there's no reason why your competitor shouldn't be able to get one too.
We've consulted with community groups and stakeholders about the amendments to the Liquor Licence Act. These amendments are meant to streamline government operations, simplify requirements for the public and business and even the playing field. These amendments don't reduce any existing controls or eliminate the need for public input. That's the bottom line: We need public input. There will continue to be considerable ongoing consultation with the community groups and stakeholders.
In the area of liquor licences, and I don't want to belabour the point, obviously there is a procedure in place to protect the public. We just don't want it to be used on a frivolous or vexatious basis. We want to encourage people who want to get into the entertainment and restaurant business. There are thousands and thousands of restaurants in this province; they create thousands and thousands of jobs. That also applies to the entertainment industry. We want to be fair.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am very pleased to speak to Bill 25 along with my two colleagues, particularly because of the fact that I have the pleasure of being one of the 11 members of the Red Tape Commission. Certainly this legislation advances the work of the Red Tape Commission, which was created in 1995 to fulfill a Common Sense Revolution commitment to eliminate red tape barriers to jobs and investment. To date, the commission has helped repeal 45 outdated pieces of legislation and helped eliminate approximately 975 regulations towards the government's initial goal of eliminating 1,000 regulations. The commission is also leading the way within the government to prevent new red tape and regulations from hindering job creation and affecting Ontario's business climate. That's probably most important. It's great to eliminate regulations and red tape, but more important, we must not create new regulations and new red tape to replace them.
The commission defines red tape as a government measure that negatively affects Ontario's economic competitiveness by adding unnecessary requirements, costs or delays to normal activities of business, and indeed institutions as well. Red tape is not just legislation and regulation but includes licences, permits, approvals, standards, registration, filing and certification requirements, guidelines, procedures, paperwork, and enforcement practices. Some of the more common irritants include unending voice mail or unanswered letters.
The commission is working with all ministries and agencies as part of a government-wide effort to improve customer service. "Customer service" has not been a very well-known term in government for many years. What we have to start to do is to concentrate on that customer service, because all of Ontario is indeed our customer. Whether it be the patient, the senior who may have difficulty finding out regulations and how to get things done that are most important to him, the business person, the student, they are our customers. They must know how to be able to do that. We have to remember how what we put into regulations and legislation will affect that little person who's watching us, that person who's called our customer.
Red tape does not include policy areas such as taxation rights and harmonization of taxes or privatization measures. Measures that directly protect public health and safety and environmental quality are not considered red tape.
As part of some background on this bill, in 1996 we introduced 17 bills to eliminate legislation, reform forms and fees from regulation, remove other administrative details from legislation and regulations and streamline regulatory processes to better serve Ontario. By the end of the last session of the Legislature all these bills were passed.
I often think of times that I've gone out to new businesses and cut a red ribbon. I used to suggest that it be a blue ribbon but I don't any more. I want to cut a red ribbon, because what it says is that we are helping to cut red tape to make sure that Ontario is open for business. For these companies and these businesses that are opening and have the confidence in this province, we are indeed cutting that red ribbon and cutting red tape.
Bill 25 consolidates the seven bills that died on the order paper and includes additional changes to further reduce unnecessary legislation and remove red tape. I'm delighted that the 18 ministers responsible for the contents of Bill 25 shared the views of the commission and took the time and effort to research and identify the needed legislative changes embodied in this bill. I applaud Minister Dave Tsubouchi for sponsoring this important bill. I also acknowledge the efforts of my fellow commissioners for their work with ministers and stakeholders and assistants in developing this bill. This is most important. The people who are affected by regulation and legislation today must be the ones who carefully look at it and are part of the process of creating that legislation.
1920
In tackling red tape problems we have listened to stakeholders and have applied some basic principles, principles that clearly identify and define the problem, including getting stakeholders to suggest possible solutions; assessing alternatives to regulation through upfront consultations with stakeholders; restricting regulatory action to instances where the benefits outweigh the risks or consequences of available alternatives or non-intervention; submitting policies, processes, legislation and regulation to ongoing or sunset reviews, and I believe sunset reviews are one of the most important things that can be included in any legislation, so that we always revisit, so that we always have the opportunity to improve or make better.
We have been assisted in our analysis by an external advisory board that represents various sectors of the economy, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, chambers of commerce from all parts of Ontario and the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. Our work has is recognized and applauded. According to Judith Andrew, executive director of provincial policy for CFIB: "The commission is a focal point for small business regulatory concerns in Ontario. We are encouraging the commission to continue challenging unnecessary red tape and paper burden."
As an advocate on behalf of the government's diverse clients, the Red Tape Commission has developed an approach based on fair and open consultations. This approach has achieved remarkable results, not only as we reviewed items that are contained in Bill 25 but also when we looked at other red tape issues.
For example, stakeholders from wineries, breweries and the you-brew industry have different opinions on how you-brew establishments should operate and this has caused problems throughout the industry. As a commission, we convinced them to work together, to design responsible regulations that they could live with. We had something like five meetings with them where it was clear that unless they got together on their own, we would end up having to decide on the legislation, and that is ridiculous. We wanted to make sure that this group, whether it was the small you-brew, the small Mr Beer, or Molson's or Labatt's, could all work well and make sure that the proposed changes to the legislation were done.
Let me emphasize that Bill 25 is responsible management. It's like spring cleaning, getting rid of the accumulation in the corridors of government over the decades, things like the Oleomargarine Act, the Abandoned Orchards Act, the Fur Farm Act and the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act, because you don't need legislation to create cabinet committees; it's redundant, hence red tape.
Bill 25 is also about removing requirements to amend regulations and Gazette changes to office hours of registry offices that take the time and resources of government and often get published weeks after the actual event.
Many of the legislative changes proposed in Bill 25 will lead to the revocation of supporting regulations.
Bill 25 will benefit businesses and consumers in this province. We've often been accused of supporting business. What we should be accused of is that we are getting involved with customer service, and we are going to make customer service, consumer service, our priority
One of our external advisers likened government regulations and red tape to the experience of Gulliver in Lilliput. Gulliver was tied down by hundreds of strands of rope, each one of which was insignificant and easily broken by the much larger Gulliver.
Red tape is like this to business. Each strand of the process, each form, each approval is a small strand. If they add up, as they have done over the decades, they soon tie up our businesses, hinder their profitability, their competitiveness and their ability to expand and indeed to hire.
Job creation is what this is all about. With Bill 25, we are cutting many of those strands. Reducing red tape not only makes it easier for business to operate, but it can also help reduce costs for consumers and business, thereby improving the bottom line, and is that not what it's all about? If the bottom line is improved, the businesses improve, it increases spending and it creates job growth.
For example, earlier this year the Red Tape Commission worked with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and arranged for owners of bars and restaurants to have the option of using credit cards to purchase products for LCBO outlets. Previously, they had to pay by cash or cheque.
Why would they have to do it and nobody else? Are they bad corporate citizens? I think not. Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister David Tsubouchi announced that change in February 1998. According to the tourism and hospitality industry, it will benefit over 16,000 liquor-serving establishments in Ontario with purchases of over $300 million annually from the LCBO by providing a major improvement in their cash flow.
As further examples, the commission's work with other ministries has resulted in eliminating more than 1,000 unnecessary annual licences, permits and reports for farm and food-processing businesses, making changes to allow electronic registration of new businesses and filing of corporate income tax returns and changing the Retail Business Holidays Act to remove unnecessary unfairness for retail stores across Ontario.
But more importantly, our perseverance is paying off with steady improvements in both attitude and performance of customer service and a growing understanding in the public service that how we treat customers has a direct impact on Ontario's economic well-being.
The government has recently introduced a number of customer service standards that will help further reduce red tape, including telephone calls being answered by the third ring eight times out of 10 during working hours. Correspondence will be answered within 15 working days. Walk-in customers will be served in order and be told of an expected wait time.
Bill 25 represents one more step in our path to get rid of unnecessary red tape in Ontario. Based on hundreds of submissions and interviews with the business sector in 1997, we have made 132 recommendations for reducing red tape contained in the provincial government. To date, roughly 92 of the 132 recommendations have been or will soon be implemented and the Red Tape Commission is committed to seeing that the remaining recommendations are implemented.
The commission also reviews proposed regulatory measures to ensure, among other things, that affected businesses have been consulted. We examined the implications for job and investment by requiring ministries to compete and submit a regulatory impact and competitive test that helps the commission screen new legislation and regulatory proposals.
The commission's advice is becoming a required component of cabinet's decision-making process.
The commission's work complements the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board objectives and outlook on the future prosperity of this province. The board strongly believes that cutting red tape now is essential for growth in jobs and investment. Thanks to several private sector and public studies, the commission knows what the benefits of this work will be.
Further, a study of 500 Ontario businesses undertaken at the commission's behalf found that regulatory burdens accounted for an average of 7% of companies' operating costs. It has also found that 71% of companies surveyed said they would be most likely to invest in the province if red tape was reduced. That is why it is critical for this government to bring forward important pieces of legislation such as Bill 25 and that the Red Tape Commission continues its efforts to reduce red tape.
1930
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Seeing none, other speakers?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Mr Speaker, I am going to split my time with my colleague from Yorkview and my colleague from Parkdale.
In terms of Bill 25, just a few general comments. First of all, this bill, which is supposed to cut red tape, is one of the most detailed, complex bills we've had before us. It's about 200 pages. You need to hire about 10 Bay Street lawyers for each section of the bill. It's very complex and most difficult. Never mind for a small business person; I can imagine an ordinary consumer trying to explain how these changes affect them. I really wonder why the Red Tape Commission is so apt to pat itself on the back when it has created such a complex bill.
On top of that, as you know, the government has also passed seven property tax bills. They now have given the property taxpayers of Ontario the most complex property tax system in the world.
To give you an example of that, today I had a call from a gentleman in the city of Toronto who bought a property on a major street. On the property he bought, last year he was paying $2,000 in taxes. He decided to be an entrepreneur and he tore down the home and put up a commercial building to try to basically, as I said, make a little money for himself and for some investors.
It so happens that on the commercial building he put up, where he used to pay $2,000 in property taxes, he now has to pay $120,000 in property taxes. But worse than that is that there is another building up the street, a commercial building where they pay $25,000 in property taxes - the same type of building. It's because of this new complex property tax system. The old building is under the cap for property taxes. His new building with its estimate for the first time isn't under the cap.
So this poor guy is estimating that he'll have to pay - he's not going to make as much money on the income as he will on paying the taxes, so he's asking: "Why did I invest in this property? How did this government ever come up with this complex tax system?"
In this Bill 25 there are a lot of complex things. In fact, the most common word in this bill is "fee." Over and over again, in this bill the Red Tape Commission has given ministers and their designated deputy ministers or designated persons the right to impose fees on the people of Ontario. There are literally hundreds of fees that are going to be imposed on the people of Ontario for years to come because of this Bill 25.
One of the things that this bill does more than anything else is impose fee after fee after fee on the people of Ontario. If you are supporting this bill, and I know the government members always do support everything that comes from the Premier's office, I hope the members realize they are supporting all these fees that are going to be thrust on the small business person and the consumers in Ontario.
Just look through the bill and you'll see, "The registrar may by order set and collect fees." Again and again, set and collect fees is the order of the day. "On payment of the required fee," if you want to examine documents; "failure to pay a fee;" "any required fee." Over and over again this bill is invoking all kinds of fees on the people of Ontario.
I hope the members opposite are voting in favour of all these increased fees and the powers by unelected people to impose fees that will not come before this Legislature and will not be debated by any committee. These fees will be automatically set arbitrarily by appointed, faceless people behind closed doors who are not accountable to anybody, not even members of this Legislature.
In fact, the bill allows new and enhanced fee-setting powers under 40 statutes so there are going to be fee-setting powers in 40 statutes as a result of this Bill 25.
There are some interesting things in this bill that are anomalies. There's one very interesting section in schedule C. In this schedule C, what they basically do is give an unelected, appointed bureaucrat the unprecedented power to make changes in legislation, basically without the consent of the Legislature. If you look at schedule C in Bill 25 there's a section that says "the chief legislative counsel may make changes that are necessary to clarify what is considered to be, in the case of a statute, the intention of the Legislature."
An appointed person, unelected, will interpret what the intention of the Legislature will be. This is unprecedented, where this unelected person is going to be able to in essence change the tone, the texture, the intent of a piece of legislation, and we will not know who this person is. It'll be the chief legislative counsel. These changes will be made without our knowing it. Certainly, the public will not know it.
Theresa McClenaghan of the Canadian Environmental Law Association thought this was so appalling that she wrote about it in the July-September issue of Intervener. It's volume 23. She comments about it. She says:
"Schedule C" in Bill 25 "would, if enacted, institute a process of amending statutes that would bypass the Legislature altogether by simply allowing the chief legislative counsel (a bureaucrat) to draft amendments for approval by cabinet. Incredible as it may sound, the Statute and Regulation Revision Act would give the power to an unelected official to `clarify the intent of the Legislature' (or amend it, or misinterpret it).
"The act does not provide for these amendments to be passed, or reviewed or even considered by the Legislature. The process proposed in schedule C would apply to any statute in Ontario - education, environment, health, human rights. Anything could be amended by unelected officials and approved by cabinet."
She goes on to say that her quarrel is not with amending or getting rid of red tape; it is with reducing the democratic process, where at least you know who is making these changes to statutes. This is basically the approach, the tenor, the whole modus operandi of this bill: to give unelected people a great deal of power over the people of Ontario.
Schedule C is on page 14 of the bill, where you can look at it.
"1. The chief legislative counsel for the province of Ontario may prepare,
"(a) a revision of any or all of the statutes of Ontario" - any statute - "and
"(b) a revision of any or all of the regulations of Ontario." This person, unelected, will be able to amend any regulation without us knowing it.
"2.(1) In revising statutes or regulations, the chief legislative counsel may,
"(a) change the numbering or arrangement of provisions;
"(b) make changes in language...;
"(c) make changes that are necessary to clarify what is considered to be, in the case of a statute, the intention of the Legislature...."
This person will make those decisions. This unaccountable, faceless person in some backroom is going to interpret what we, the Legislature, meant to pass and what he or she thinks should be in the legislation. These are the sweeping powers that are in this Bill 25, along with the hundreds of fees that are going to be thrust on the people of Ontario by unelected people, unaccountable people, as a result of this so-called red-tape-reducing bill, which is really a Trojan Horse for all kinds of user fees and extraordinary powers to unelected officials. That is what Bill 25 is all about. It's not about reducing red tape; it's primarily about giving regulatory powers, fee-setting powers and the power to change statutes to faceless, unaccountable people in the backroom of the Premier's office or wherever they may be. That's what Bill 25 also does. I wonder if the government is patting itself on the back for doing that. Is the government patting itself on the back for passing all these user fees and giving unelected persons the authority to change statutes without coming to the Legislature?
1940
Another interesting aspect of this bill which was brought forth by one of the deputations made to committee talks about, in essence, the contradictions of this government when it talks about red tape. There were some interesting deputations made about this government's position on the ability of people who are trying to stop smoking to obtain nicotine replacement therapy, which is the little patches and so forth. The deputants said that Ontario is the only province in Canada which doesn't allow these products to be sold over the counter. The cabinet is refusing that simple thing to be done. Subsequently, a person who is trying to quit smoking has to pay more for the therapy than for the cigarettes. Every other province allows this to happen. This bill is supposed to eliminate that. The test of this bill will be to see, when it is passed, whether the cabinet will finally come to its senses and allow these products to be sold over the counter at a much cheaper price.
As the deputants said, tobacco-related diseases - talk about saving money and saving lives - kill 12,000 Ontarians every year; one every 33 minutes. Tobacco-related diseases kill more people in the province than traffic accidents, suicide, homicide and AIDS combined. In a written report in 1996, the chief medical officer of health estimated that tobacco had cost Ontario $18 billion since 1991; $10 million every day.
Here is one small thing that this government can do in terms of getting people who are addicted to nicotine to purchase this product over the counter, as allowed by the Canada Health Act. Every other province does it. In Ontario you still have to get a prescription to get one of these suppressive devices that will help you stop smoking. That is real red tape which I challenge this government to eliminate and allow people to buy those products without the intervention of cabinet, which says, "You can't buy it off the shelf." You still have to pay a ransom to get products like nicotine gum and Nicoderm and the patches. These are red tape things that the people of Ontario want reduced. Let's see if that happens.
This bill over and over again tries to give the impression that this is about improving the business climate and making things simpler. I think in many cases it makes things much more complex because the person who will be the victim or the person who will be the consumer or the entrepreneur caught in the commercial wrangle of the day will find it very difficult to understand what these new regulations are. They are highly complex. To get this bill or parts of this bill interpreted, you will need to hire a lawyer. It is most complex.
The best kinds of laws are laws that are simple, laws that are understandable, laws that are transparent. Bill 25 has page after page that I'm sure most Ontarians would never be able to understand unless they had the help of someone, because it is extremely complex. You have to keep referring to other statutes; you've got to go back and forth. The amount of time you would have to spend as an individual is really too much to ask of an ordinary person.
These red tape bills have been bogged down for two years, and no wonder. It took them two years to come up with this because of all the complexities. Ontarians won't really feel the consequences of many parts of this bill for years to come. That is why our party is not supporting this bill. There are too many fees, too many powers given to unelected people to change statutes, to impose fees on everything and to give more powers to ministers and their appointed, unelected bureaucrats
This is the government that claims to be about small government. Well, this is the government that's about big government. They've created bigger and bigger government that's constantly in the face of Ontarians, constantly disrupting the way they do business: what they've done with the business occupancy tax - they made landlords tax collectors - what they're doing with this bill. Over and over again, this government intrudes in the daily lives of Ontarians and is constantly in the face of Ontarians, constantly making things more complex, constantly causing them to hire more lawyers, more advisers because they pass so many bills trying to correct flaws in the bills they passed earlier. They are a bill-passing machine. They are addicted to passing bills.
Here's another bunch of addictions they're trying to foist on the people of Ontario. I just tell the people of Ontario, beware of Bill 25. It seems innocuous, but it is an omnibus bill that gives an unprecedented amount of power to unelected people that could result in many higher fees being paid. The worst thing of all is not the fee itself but the fact that you can't challenge that fee. You automatically have to pay the fee or you don't get the service or you don't get the information. You won't have anybody to go to. You won't have any recourse, because this is a maze of fee-setting bureaucrats and the bureaucrats are rubbing their hands because nobody can get at them. They won't be accountable, they won't be questioned and they do it behind closed doors on a daily basis. They will be unfettered in their attempt to collect fees and to exercise their powers over the people of Ontario without any checks or balances.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I would like to add a few minutes to the debate as we deal with another piece of legislation that pretends to do all things for everybody.
The last member of the government to speak on the issue said this would be the ultimate thing to cut red tape and cut red ribbons. This piece of legislation in its 200 pages - and I believe, if my memory serves me well, we have had another eight pieces of different red tape bills and it's not even there yet - will not do anything to support or improve, to ameliorate, to attract business to Ontario. Whatever they have done in here, other than perhaps a very small handful of deletions, is they have done hundreds of amendments to existing regulations or statutes, including the creation of brand-new sections and subsections with the new statutes.
What the bill really does are two particular and important things. The government has been so sharp in accumulating powers into its own hands, into the hands of the ministers and those appointed by the ministers, and into the hands of the Premier's office. The only section I could find in the act that - and I don't pretend to be a connoisseur of 200 pages of very technical material. The only thing they have really done is remove the total policy and priorities committee; they have removed that section and put it into the hands of the Premier - actually, not the Premier, not the ministers, not the deputies, not the members elected, but it's going to be the backroom boys, those well-paid people, those very expensive consultants, like those Mr Murphy imported from the United States, the far-right Republicans. That doesn't wash here, but it washes in Washington, those $2,650-a-day consultants who will be telling the Premier, who will be ultimately telling this House what their priorities are. That's exactly what this bill will do. It will do absolutely nothing to attract new business in Ontario.
These powers and these fees incorporate some 40 new statutes, and I don't have to tell you how many other sections and subsections are included in those 40 new statutes.
1950
When I see something like this, the first thing I do - because it's not that I'm going to say they didn't have any more trust from us or from the people of Ontario. That's up to the people to decide and for us to know what they really do in this House, but I always jump to, what does the government change for better or worse for the people or for the government itself?
I stopped at page 25, which is sections 198 and 199. It's amazing, the similar connotation with other bills and the powers that the Premier and the minister have accumulated to themselves through other bills. This is what it says: "Subsection 54(1) of the act is amended by striking out," so it ultimately tells you that it is not deleted, it's amended. Does this mean that they have done away with certain amendments, certain laws or bylaws or decrees or statutes? No. They do amendments.
So it "is amended by striking out `the prescribed form' in the second line and substituting `the required form.'" Wow, big deal, they have eliminated something. But they say, "Let's clarify it. Let's put something else," and then they go on and say, "Subsection 54(4) of the act is amended by striking out `the prescribed form' in the third line and substituting `the required form.'" And "Section 70 of the act is amended by striking out `a time prescribed' in the third line and substituting `a required time.'" Do we really need thousands and thousands of dollars to say that this a major deletion? I don't think so.
The important thing is the powers of the minister.
"73.1(1) The minister responsible for the administration of this act may make orders,
"(a) designating branch offices;
"(b) specifying business hours...;...
"(d) requiring the payment of fees, other than fees mentioned in subsection 74(1), and specifying the amounts of those fees."
My colleague from Oakwood addressed himself to the powers and those fees. You might say, "Here we go again."
The other thing is this: It's not only that very subtly in fine print, if you will, they are doing what they are doing; it's also that they are doing it in such a way that they don't have to come to this House for any approval or for any legislation. They can do it strictly by regulation. Not even by the Premier, not even by the ministers, by those well-paid, those expensively paid consultants who will tell them what to change and what not to change, and then they will force it upon the people.
I know the time is really squeezing us, but let me say that these are the two most important points in this particular legislation here, Bill 25. It is the powers that the ministers and the Premier are amassing and the way they are doing it that are the two most important things. In doing so, they will be creating new fees, they will be imposing new fees at their discretion, whenever they want, without coming to the House.
We've been dealing today with the Greater Toronto Services Board. You will see in due course, in due time, the effect of this particular legislation as well. I don't have to tell you, Mr Speaker, because you, as well as other members of this House, on a regular basis, attend various committee meetings. This is the real hypocrisy of Bill 25, because what really is causing a concern and doubling red tape without eliminating anything else is the creation of new bills which continue to amend bills which were introduced yesterday and today amending tomorrow's bills. None of them brings to fruition one final piece of legislation that says, "This is the end of it." They always leave something to be introduced tomorrow that either supersedes what they have introduced before or makes amendments to whatever they introduced yesterday.
The funny thing is that when they introduce that, that stays on the books and will have to be dealt with. It's not that they are making some amendments that will sit there for eternity and not bother anybody unless something very out of the ordinary happens, and then lawyers and bureaucrats will have to get to the bottom of the case down there to find this particular law. No, they are introducing bills that affect Ontario people on a daily basis. We have seen it just recently, for example, on Bill 55, the apprenticeship bill.
My goodness, they introduced a bill with a total of nine pages. You may say maybe seven or eight if you include the cover, but let's call it nine pages. You know what? After all is said, the government side brought forward, I believe, 30 amendments. They introduced a very important bill, containing nine pages in total, but then they brought forth a total of 30 amendments which no one had a chance to debate, to see, to comment on, to have input on. No wonder the trades are not happy.
These are some of the repercussions that we are seeing with the continuation of this type of legislation here, and these are the things I'm afraid will come to have consequences, especially when we are dealing with the other pieces of legislation prior to this one here, such as Bill 56, which is the Greater Toronto Services Board.
I have a lot to say, but time is not on our side, as I can see. I will terminate and I will hope that the government - I can see that quite a few members of the government side are in the House to listen to that and I really hope that they will be listening to those people being affected, that they will listen to the opposition and change this piece of legislation which does absolutely nothing to attract new business to Ontario or help small business in Ontario. Thank you for your time, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Seeing none, other speakers?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Normally, I would begin my comments by indicating that I'm pleased to have the chance to speak to this bill, but I can't honestly say that about this bill tonight, so let me just say that duty dictates that I make a few comments particularly on this bill.
I see that you are leaving the chair, Mr Speaker. I was going to say that when you're the member for Fort York sitting down here, we obviously hear a little bit more from you than you are allowed to say while you're sitting in the chair. I want the government members particularly to appreciate, I say to the now occupant of the chair, the Speaker, how much of a sacrifice it has been for the member for Fort York to sit quietly in the chair in respect of that very important task that whoever sits in that chair has to do. I am sure he will try to make up for it in the remaining time we have this evening.
I want to indicate that I will be dividing my time with the member for Fort York, because we do have to at least allow him a few minutes on this important piece of legislation.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Just a few.
Mr Silipo: Just a few.
I just want to say that as I've been looking at some of the notes that our good research people have put together on this bill and as I've been flipping through and refreshing my memory on some parts of this bill and glancing at some others that I had not looked at, I find this piece of legislation quite a fascinating collection.
It is a bill which I am not sure it is worth making a lot of fuss over, or whether the best that can be said is that it just tidies up a bunch of things that, in various statutes, have fallen simply out of use. It has to be the bill that any great lover of bills would want to see, because it goes through umpteen numbers of bills, wipes out sections, takes out things that either are no longer relevant or are deemed to be cumbersome in the view of some, and puts powers that are now in the regulation-making bodies of Parliament and puts those into the hands of individuals such as ministers, or in other cases individual civil servants. It does those kinds of things.
2000
I know that the government wants to portray this bill as being very much within its initiative of cutting red tape. There are probably a couple of provisions in this bill that actually do that, that simplify the process that small businesses in particular, or businesses in general, have to go through to make various applications or to deal with various government bodies. I don't want to say that there is nothing in this bill that actually simplifies procedures and cuts red tape because I'm sure, in fact I know, that there are a couple of provisions that do that.
One of the things this bill does, and some of the other bills the government has trumpeted under the same umbrella, is move, for example, in a number of the fee-setting areas - remember the fees? Those are the ones that Mike Harris used to call "taxes by another name." Now, of course, he thinks that they're not taxes
There has been a long-standing tradition and process in this province that usually various pieces of legislation allow for fees to be set for various services or items that require a cost, and those fees can be updated by regulation, which really means by a decision of a cabinet committee, a committee of ministers and parliamentary assistants, and eventually a rubber stamp by the cabinet of the day. That's the process, for people who are watching who may not be as familiar with the process that these things normally go through.
What the government has done through this and other similar pieces of legislation is simply taken some of those provisions and transferred those powers from the cabinet process into the hands of the individual ministers responsible. You may say: "Well, that simplifies things. Why shouldn't that be the case?" I suppose where you're setting fees for going to a museum or going to various other things or places like that, some of the tourist attractions we have in this province, you can say maybe that's the fairest way.
Sometimes there's a good reason why a history has developed in our province of having this process done through the regulation-making body, that's the cabinet process, and the particular committee that I'm assuming still exists then reports to the full cabinet in setting those fees. That is because it also allows for somebody other than the minister, or people outside the particular ministry, to look at what changes the individual ministry and the minister want to make. You know what? That is a good idea because, by having somebody outside of that particular ministry or minister look at it, you get a different and somewhat more objective view of whether the application for an increase of a fee is simply updating something and therefore makes logical sense, or whether it may be creating a problem that the ministry and the minister sometimes may not have foreseen.
I'm not sure that the government in this case is actually simplifying things. They may be in terms of who's going to be involved in making the decisions and maybe reducing the number of people that will be involved in making those decisions. Will that necessarily result in better decisions? I don't think so. It may result in faster decisions, but making faster decisions, as the history of this government tells us, does not always mean making better decisions. In fact, if the track record of the government were to be looked at as an indicator, you would say that fast decisions have turned out more often than not to be bad decisions.
There I get into the whole issue, for example, of what this government has done with the property tax system, where the speed with which they wanted to make decisions has resulted in not one, not two, not three, not five but seven different bills having to be presented to this House, each one to rectify mistakes that were in the previous legislation. Again because of speed, because of an attitude I think of as arrogance, among other things, that this government has shown in that area and in other areas, a sense that they know best, that is what has brought us to this point where speed sometimes is and often as been shown, indeed bears out, to be the worst way to go in term of making these decisions.
To use the example of the fee-setting process, if it's something that's simple and straightforward, then taking it to a cabinet committee does not take a long time and it's worth that additional step in the process, because it then can go through quite swiftly and smoothly if there isn't a particular problem.
Other things that I notice in this legislation have to do with what I would call much less reducing red tape - in fact, one could suggest that adding a bit of red tape is more the case. Simply updating the reality of various statutes and processes to the fact that we now live in a world in which technology plays a great role - I look particularly to some of the changes made here under the Courts of Justice Act. This act would authorize the making of rules of court dealing with the issuance, filing and storage of documents by electronic means, something which I think is quite sensible, and simply bringing the process up to date; similarly with respect to the Evidence Act, which will allow for printed and electronic consolidation of the statutes and regulations published by the Queen's Printer to be relied on as being just as authoritative as the printed copies. That is more a case of updating the situation to recognize that technology now can play a greater and more important role in facilitating the flow of documents and the flow of legislation and the use of legislation. I think that is a sensible thing.
I say to my colleagues in government that they can continue to make much of this piece of legislation, such as simplifying the structures that citizens in this province, particularly people involved in business, have to deal with. There are one or two things in here that do that. But by and large, I see this more as an act that updates various things.
I continue to be perplexed as to why this bill gets rid of some things that it does; I'm not sure why it does. I find particularly fascinating schedule J, I think it is, that actually gets rid of the whole Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet Act. I find that really interesting because I don't think that the government has abolished the policy and priorities board and I don't think it intends to. Given what that act as I understand it does, to simply set out the number of cabinet ministers who are supposed to be on that - six, I believe - the fact that you need three of them, which is just half, for a quorum, the fact that you have to keep minutes, I'm not sure which of those three parts was particularly troubling to the government that they had to get rid of the whole legislation. Is it the fact that they had to keep minutes of decisions? If that's the case, then what does this do? I guess it will make it easier if they don't have to keep minutes, but it will also mean, even internally, that the level of accountability will be even less than it's been so far.
There's this kind of charade that we see here in this bill, as we've seen in others, a pretence that something greater is being done. What is being done on the one hand is simply updating some of the legislation, which I don't find particularly offensive on that score, but where I think there are powers removed from the regulation-making power, which is already removed enough from the legislative process, and then put them into the hands of individual ministers or, even worse, individual civil servants, then I find that particularly troublesome.
Those are some of the problems that we continue to have with this legislation. Again the overall problem is that the government continues to make far too much of this in terms of how important a piece this is. That doesn't surprise me, because this government continues to spend more energy in terms of PR and the way they spin whatever they do than they spend paying attention to what they actually do and the impact that has on people.
I could go on a little bit more on that, but I know that my colleague from Fort York wants to add a few comments on this, so I'm happy to yield the floor to him.
Mr Marchese: I'm happy to have this opportunity to add a few things. I'll be as brief as I possibly can because I know that you and many others have other things to do, including reading this document that you haven't had an opportunity to catch up with.
There's no doubt that some of the measures contained in this act will facilitate the problem of red tape for some people in our communities, but the people this document is intended to support or reach are, by and large, business. This government makes no bones about that. Each speaker tonight has said that in every which way. The member for Peterborough, the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Hamilton West have made point after point that this is all about cutting red tape so business can get on with the job it does best. It's all about them.
As the general public listens to these members, the regular joes out there, they say: "What about me? Where do I fit into this?" That's the question I would ask. They say it's all about business. No problem with the glorification of business, as this government does, but what about the little guy? "Where do I fit in?" They don't fit into this bill. Other than paying additional fees, they got nothing. They legitimately raise the appropriate questions.
As I read this newsletter these folks have put out, there are a few quotations. I want to quote just one, to give you a flavour of the proclivities of this government: "I think a corporate culture that encourages an attitude of facilitation versus enforcement is something that is very badly needed in almost all ministries I have dealt with." Do you see what I mean? That's what it's about. It's about facilitating the job for the business person so that he can get on with the job of making pecunia. That's what it's about.
The ordinary guy out there is saying: "I want a piece of that too. When is it my turn?" They're right, their turn will never come except through the downward trickle effect, the Conservative trickle effect that you folks love. "When we facilitate for the business sector, then people at the bottom, the regular joe down there, he's going to get the job." That is what this all about. It's about creating wealth; it's about creating more jobs. There's no certainty attached to that. It's just that Tory members say it, so naturally we believe it, because everybody understands how the corporate world creates jobs for the little guy.
Forget about unemployment. It may be high but it's not their fault; they're doing their best. If only governments could just get out of the way and cut the red tape, more jobs would be created. Speaker, you're a lawyer. You know there's no evidence put forth here that proves this; you know that. Some of the 11 members who were part of the commission know that too. There is no evidence that by cutting red tape, facilitation, the regular folk out there are going to get a break, or that in saving money through red tape, that saving accrued by the profit-making corporation will flow down to us consumers, to us regular people. There's no guarantee of that. There's no proof that anything other than generating more wealth for the corporation is what this bill is all about.
That's why it is so hard to be the Speaker, as you are, because there's so much to say, right? They box you in. I can see you there. you're boxed in, you can't say a word and I know you're desperately reaching out and saying, "Let me at him." I understand that. That's why I don't want to be the Speaker. It would curtail my ability to be critical of your government. I would never be there for more than an hour.
This is what this bill is all about. It's about facilitating, getting government out of the way, so these glorified private sector individuals can make more money. That's what it's about. It's about the environment as one issue, where you folks have determined that they don't need enforcement, that the government need not be there to enforce, which is what this guy said. He said, "A corporate culture that encourages an attitude of facilitation versus enforcement...." So you guys comply, as the good little instruments of the corporate culture you are, and get out of the way. So you say, "On matters of the environment, we don't need enforcement. You can voluntarily self-comply - voluntary self-compliance - in the environment." Speaker, how could you permit that?
You know these folks have no concerns about the pollution caused by cars or the spewing of garbage into the water we drink, thousands of chemicals in that water we drink, that remain in our bodies, that are altering our physiology. You, Speaker, and your fine friends are saying: "That's OK. They will monitor themselves and surely, as the good corporate citizens they are, they wouldn't do anything to harm human life."
Some of these guys have the bucks to buy spring water, but not everybody can afford to buy spring water. They've got to drink the tap water that contains all those wonderful chemicals, that will alter our physiology, but that's OK, because the rich can afford to get their spring water for a mere dollar for a little bottle. If you drink the Champagne of mineral water - oh, help me, Speaker.
Interjection: Perrier.
Mr Marchese: Perrier, and the other?
Mr Sergio: San Pellegrino.
Mr Marchese: Oh, San Pellegrino is a good spring water. I've got to admit I'm tempted to buy it every now and then, and when I've got a few dollars and I can buy some San Pellegrino, it's good water. But those guys, they buy it on a regular basis. They've got no problem with a few bucks.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Are you jealous?
Mr Marchese: Jealous? I think it would be nice to be able to redistribute that fine wealth that these people make, spread it out a little bit. If it's good for them, surely it's good for rest of us, don't you think, Monsieur Hastings, from Etobicoke -
The Acting Speaker (Mr David Tilson): Member for Fort York, perhaps you could address your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr Marchese: Through you, Speaker; you know I always address my comments through the Chair. I know you want to rush me out, but I've got something to say. There are a few things I want to say.
Forget about this corporate culture. You guys are not really trying to help them out; you really are trying to help the regular joe, OK? The public understands.
By the way, the member for Oakwood says, "How can people afford to pay the bucks?" I tell you, corporations have no problem getting hold of these documents and hiring a few lawyers - no disrespect, Speaker - to go through these and find out what's in it for them, a couple of bucks to find out how much more they can make, by paying a lawyer to just breeze through these in a couple of hours. It's not a big deal. But if it was the regular joe having to find out what their rights were, that would be really a traumatic thing for them. They couldn't get through it. This is why it's business. They've got the bucks to pay the lawyers to go through this, rummage through it and find out what's in it for them.
Just a few more things before I go; I've got to say a few more things.
The member for Oakwood raised a few issues that I raised with the Chair because I know he was chatting with some of the legal folks back there, or other folks.
The member for Welland-Thorold raised this in committee and he touched on this very issue that the member for Oakwood raised; that is, schedule C, the Statute and Regulation Revision Act, which establishes what has been happening on a 10-year basis in the Legislature. In the ninth year of every decade there is a bill before the Legislature which effectively creates what all of us call the Revised Statutes of Ontario. No problem with that. What they argue, and I don't know who argues this, whether it's the government or the civil servants, is that what we are doing through this new measure is to simply codify what already is there. But what would happen is that these Revised Statutes of Ontario will never appear in the Legislature again. That might be useful to some, but some of us believe, democratically, that whatever changes are made by the legislative people, with all due respect, never have to be supervised by us, debated by us or debated by anybody who has a public interest, on the assumption that what they do in terms of their revisions is merely a matter of perhaps correcting a comma here or a sentence there or unassuming language changes or something that might be redundant or possibly some legislation that might be obsolete and appears harmless. Surely they would not be allowed or would not permit themselves to be politicized by any government of the day, do something that they would not do otherwise. I don't doubt that for a moment.
2020
The problem is that this change relinquishes legislative authority to the civil service, and that's what's wrong with that change. It's not because I mistrust them, not because I don't think they're capable. That is not the issue. The point is that whatever changes appear in front of this Legislature in the ninth year to deal with these Revised Statutes of Ontario are before us, and it permits me, and other members, to comment on them, should I wish to comment. That, in my view, is the support I give to keeping the current procedure as we have it and speaking against this particular change and suggesting to you that it's a serious mistake.
I know some of you have not read it. I know most of you haven't read it. Frankly, I hadn't picked up on this until my good buddy from Welland-Thorold raised it with me. Having done so and having read it, I realized that this is a serious problem. There is no recourse, there is no appeal. What they do and what they say is final. It may not be a problem, but even if it were not a problem, I argue, why change the process we have established over the years under all governments? Why change the process? To what extent is this a reduction of red tape? I don't understand that.
I wanted to raise this as an issue and suggest to you that if you look at it you may agree with us that from a democratic point of view of supervision, of observing, of commenting on any matter of this measure, as simple as it might be, it is not something you want to abdicate. You want to keep control.
I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale perhaps is puzzled by what we're raising here, but it's in the act, and he might want to look at it, may urge the cabinet ministers and others to look at it as well, I'm not sure. It's a small matter.
Another matter I wanted to raise is that the government introduced Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act. A couple of weeks ago we debated this. I remember speaking to this bill. I recall the members of this House saying: "Oh, it's an antiquated bill. We haven't seen changes to this bill in 30 or 35 years. It's time we changed it. There are redundancies. There's duplication. There is money to be saved if we update it."
I just found out that in committee some changes have been made, and there's a new title now, An Act respecting Apprenticeship and Certification. What I understand from this or glean from others in terms of what's happening is that what you said needed to be changed because it was old, archaic and was costing the whole province a lot of money is now going to be kept, at least parts of it are going to be maintained, and other changes are going to be made.
But if you argued that it was antiquated and needed changes in order to make savings and efficiencies, why now do we deal with keeping the old bill, the old measures that you didn't like, with new proposed measures that introduce others with the old?
But it is symptomatic of the incompetence of what you folks are doing. You introduce bills, and because you haven't spent the time to reflect adequately, like most of the bills you have introduced, you get into trouble and then you've got to change and then you've got to compromise, and you look not very competent when you do that.
Speaker, there's so much more that one could comment on about this bill, but I, under duress, give in to the others and give up, except to remind the folks that this is a bill for business, not a bill for the ordinary guy. This is a bill where the ordinary guy is going to face fees and business will make some money, and I tell you it won't trickle down. But that's OK because you folks are the fine instruments of big business anyway.
We'll just leave it at that and hope that the general public will learn a few things as we go along. Hopefully, they won't want to re-elect you, but God bless, who knows?
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? Seeing none, Mrs Ecker has moved third reading of Bill 25.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed?
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I believe there's unanimous consent for five members to be deemed to be standing to cause a recorded vote and for the recorded vote to be deferred until Monday, November 30, at deferred votes.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. The motion is deferred until Monday.
Orders of the day.
Hon Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I move adjournment of the House.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The House is adjourned until 1:30 on Monday.
The House adjourned at 2027.