Dear Editor,

It is now fashionable to use the term “creature of Parliament” in describing the watchdog function of the OCG, particularly in reference to the impasse between that office and the Government, which is now before the courts.

This term suggests that the court should not be involved in the resolution of the impasse. Sure, the fathers and mothers in 1986 did their thing and created the Contractor General Act which spawned the OCG. Those parents knew exactly what they wanted their creature and offspring, the OCG, to do!

Unfortunately, the OCG is now barking and growling — left, right and centre — at almost everybody, and seemingly creating havoc for development, according to Minister Davies, et al.

Now, it must be reminded that once created, with all or any warts, it is a law like any other! Until a ‘rebirth’ is proven to be necessary, it is an orphan, under the guidance of the court. While on active duty, it is the courts which look into the DNA of the Act and pronounce which fence and who the “dog” is authorised to bark, bite or growl at.

In other words, how long is the chain? Under the present circumstances, the “attacked” has asked the guardian for a review and to make a determination.

It is only after the courts reviews, which may or may not provide the proof required for a rebirth, can the DNA be properly altered in Parliament and produce a new Contractor General Act, incorporating the court’s final rulings on the chain length of the OCG.

Norman Lee

Brampton, Ontario