Association of former
parliamentarians
Mr John Parker
Rev Derwyn Shea
Mr Gilles Morin
Mr Terence Young
Subcommittee
report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff /Personnel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1536 in committee room
1.
ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order in this
history-making session. I welcome not only the sitting members
but our august and esteemed colleagues from the last Parliament
who have joined us here today.
The first order of business
will be to formally receive a motion. Mr Barrett, you were
planning on making that motion?
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yes, I could do that, Mr
Chairman. By way of explanation, this motion was put forward
previously by MPP Ted Arnott, who was subbing in at that meeting,
so I will be pleased to make the motion.
I move that pursuant to
standing order 124 and the order of the House dated April 6,
2000, the committee consider the establishment of an Association
of Former Parliamentarians.
The Chair:
We'll have debate on that motion now. To that end, I'm in the
committee's hands. I guess we could do one of two things: We
could either invite comments by the members of the committee, or
we have had an offer made to us by the working group representing
all three parties that has been working on this issue behind the
scenes. I would invite a response.
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): I would suggest that we hear from those who
have been working on it for a while and get a sense of what
they're thinking and how they feel before we go to the trouble of
expanding our own thoughts on it, not having had the experience
they have.
The Chair:
The clerk has just advised me of something. At this stage, we
have to speak to and vote on the actual motion to consider. So
we're not creating anything at this stage, but apparently,
pursuant to standing order 124, we're here in order to invite the
debate. My apologies for that.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): I have just a question of clarification
regarding the name, the Association of Former Parliamentarians.
Would it be provincial parliamentarians, or does that necessarily
have to be done? It's just a question of clarification to anyone
who has that information.
The Chair:
At this stage, if we accept this motion, then everything
including the title would be up.
Mr Levac:
Has to be discussed.
The Chair:
Yes. The next order of business should be the adoption, once
we've looked at that. Is there any further discussion on the
motion itself? All those in favour? Contrary, if any? The motion
carries.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair:
Immediately after the most recent meeting of the committee, we
convened a subcommittee. I believe, Mr Chudleigh, you have a copy
of that report.
Mr
Chudleigh: Yes.
The Chair:
Would you like to read it into the record?
Mr
Chudleigh: Report of the subcommittee:
Your subcommittee met on
Monday, April 10, 2000, to consider the future business of the
committee, and has agreed to recommend:
1. That, at its meeting of
Wednesday, April 12, 2000, the committee consider the order of
the House dated April 6, 2000, which states "that, for the
purposes of standing order 124, the standing committee on general
government be authorized to consider the matter of the creation
of an `Association of Former Parliamentarians.'"
2. That, should the committee
adopt the proposal to study the above-noted matter, the committee
be tentatively scheduled to meet on Monday, April 17, and
Wednesday April 19, 2000, for this purpose.
3. That, upon completion of
the above-noted matter, the committee commence its consideration
of Bill 28, An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day, at its next
regularly scheduled meeting.
4. That the deadline for the
receipt by the clerk of the committee of any proposed amendments
to Bill 28 be 5 pm, Wednesday, April 19, 2000.
That completes the report,
and I'd be pleased to move it.
The Chair:
Any discussion on the subcommittee report?
All those in favour of its
adoption? Contrary? The report is adopted.
Now, with that business out
of the way, I invite comments from either of the two parties if
you are at odds with Mr Chudleigh's earlier comments about
inviting the group first.
Mr Levac:
No, invite them.
The Chair: Well, Mr Parker or
whoever is the designated-
Mr John
Parker: We'll go with Derwyn.
The Chair:
We'll go with the august Reverend Shea. Welcome. Reverend Derwyn
Shea, Mr Gilles Morin, Mr Terence Young and Mr John Parker, for
the record, are joining us for the purpose of discussing this
proposal. The floor is yours, Reverend.
Rev Derwyn
Shea: I welcome the opportunity to address the committee
today, and I note the appropriateness of the committee
implementing one of the rule changes that allows it to assume
legislative initiative on behalf of the House. How appropriate
that this should be the bill that is addressed through the rule
change, for we hope it will result in all-party support for the
establishment of the Ontario Association of Former
Parliamentarians.
For those who might be under
the impression that what we are requesting today is without
precedent or is being proposed only for the advantage of former
parliamentarians, let me set the record straight. Such
associations exist and have operated for some years in other
Canadian provinces, and approximately six years ago, by an act of
the federal Parliament, the Canadian Association of Former
Parliamentarians was established. Nor is what we are requesting
uniquely Canadian. An Association of Former Members of Congress
exists in the United States, and there are a number of state
associations. A number of parliamentary democracies have
established or support associations of one sort or another that
are dedicated to the non-partisan and continued association of
former members, to the benefit of both Parliament and their
broader constituency.
There is ample precedent for
the establishment of the association and for enabling legislation
to be approved by this Parliament. There's no question but that
the association could be established through the usual course of
commercial incorporation. But we believe the association should
be the creature of our provincial Parliament and that its purpose
and protocols should be approved, not only by those currently
qualified for membership, but should receive public consideration
from the men and women who one day will themselves be qualified
to join.
With regard to our goals and
objectives, may I offer the following. First, the association
must be non-partisan. Membership will consist of men and women
who served in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, who carried
party colours, loyalties and ideology throughout their active
political life but upon ending their legislative service are now
able to bring their individual and collective experience and
wisdom to the service and benefit of this Parliament and the
office of the Speaker rather than party caucus. The association
must have no place in the day-to-day legislative process, nor
should it ever be aligned with any caucus to the exclusion of any
other.
We contemplate a role for the
association that involves education initiatives to foster and
advance the knowledge of Ontarians about our Parliament, its
history, traditions and procedures, subject to and in concert
with the office of the Speaker;
To host visiting delegations
of former parliamentarians from other provinces and states;
develop a non-partisan speakers' bureau; fundraise for
scholarships in political science, public administration or
programs that might be developed for former pages of the House;
fundraise for legislative precinct projects where requested and
approved by the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy;
To institute and provide for
an annual memorial service to acknowledge the death of former
members and to remember their contribution to Ontario and
parliamentary democracy;
To offer advice and support
to members who exit the Legislature and to provide a coordinating
service on behalf of all caucuses in monitoring the whereabouts
and well-being of all former members; to communicate on a regular
basis with the association membership and serving members and to
establish effective liaison with each caucus office and the
office of the Speaker.
Mr Chairman, I began this
enterprise four years ago or more, as my colleague Mr Morin
reminds me, after viewing a program that was broadcast on CBC-TV
Man Alive, titled The Invisible Tattoo. The spectre of Hans
Daigeler was daunting, as were the experiences of so many former
federal and provincial members of Parliament who were attempting
to reinsert themselves into their careers, often with great
difficulty. At the very least, some modest program of assistance
seemed in order.
As I discussed this with
serving and former members, a proactive, positive and enhanced
model began to emerge. Everyone who serves in this place,
regardless of political persuasion, has the best interests of
Ontario and its people at heart. Every member has stepped forward
voluntarily to serve, in most cases believing truly that they
appreciate what is expected of them and the price they are
expected to pay in terms of their personal and professional life.
But I also discovered that what too often is overlooked,
discounted out of hand, ignored or remains unspoken is the cost
that is never paid until one leaves office and, in many cases, it
is a cost that is borne by family as well as members. It is a
cost that is often unknown, ignored or deliberately minimized by
candidates when they first seek election, or by their
enthusiastic supporters. Perhaps that's inevitable or perhaps
that's the only way our parliamentary system can continue to
attract aspiring members.
What has become clear to me
is that when men and women leave this place, they carry
extraordinary experience and insight with them. When they leave
this place, they leave the immediate circle of decision-making,
and under no circumstance should they attempt or even contemplate
circumventing it or intervening in it. But at the same time,
their experience and talent ought not to be lost. Freed from
traditional constraints, they have much to offer the institution
of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. Freed from partisan
restraint, there are any number of initiatives former members might be
engaged in, in co-operative fashion to the benefit of
Parliament.
I'm joined today by several
former colleagues who, along with me, have served in this House.
We represent all three parties.
Tony Silipo, former member of
the NDP caucus, is presently out of the country and sends his
regret at missing today's meeting but supports this initiative
completely. Gilles Morin, former member of the Liberal caucus and
distinguished Deputy Speaker of the House, joins us today to
offer his supporting intervention, and I am joined by two former
members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, Mr John Parker
and Mr Terence Young. Our collaboration and presence attest to
the commitment we share and the non-partisan nature of the
proposed association.
1550
Finally, Mr Chairman, I wish
to advise the committee that we have surveyed every former member
of this provincial Parliament whom we were able to identify and
locate. Not all caucuses have kept accurate lists, but most
former members were contacted. We received replies from more than
60%, and all but one strongly and enthusiastically supported this
initiative. Several declined any leadership role in the
association because of ill health or advanced years, but even in
those instances support for the founding of the Ontario
Association of Former Parliamentarians was unqualified and
without reservation.
I wish to make very clear, as
I conclude my remarks, that the association membership will be
subject to annual dues, and it is from that source that most of
the association's costs will be drawn. All we will request is
modest space and furnishings within the precinct so that we may
be available to the Speaker and caucus offices, and accessible to
former members. In this regard, we hope to adopt many of the
operating procedures that have been developed by the Canadian
Association of Former Parliamentarians. With these introductory
comments on the record, I now ask you to recognize Mr Gilles
Morin, who will add further to our submission.
The Chair:
Welcome back, Mr Morin.
Mr Gilles
Morin: I want to tell you how happy I am to be here
today. I spent 14 years here, so I became very attached. It would
be difficult to say that I did not keep good memories. They were
all excellent memories. But I have one particular sad memory that
I want to recount to you, and hence the reason we're here before
you.
It was in November 1995, a
Friday afternoon, and I was at home. I received a call from
Dalton McGuinty telling me that my seatmate, my colleague Hans
Daigeler, had died. Hans was only about 52 years of age, I
believe. My first reaction was, "Was it a heart attack?" Of
course when it was explained to me what a tragic death Hans went
through, it was a real blow. I felt guilty. He was my seatmate.
How come I didn't see that? You know yourself that when you sit
beside a companion for a long time, you become friends. It's like
a neighbour at home. You know their concerns, you understand
their worries, you understand their happiness, you talk about
your families.
Hans was really a great
loss-a doctor of theology. Why would he go through that? How come
I didn't see that? Of course, he had been away from politics for
two or three months. The first thing we think is: "What about his
wife? What about his children? What have they got? Have they got
protection of some sort?" We found out that the insurance
coverage was gone. She was left with nothing-nothing at all.
Nobody to talk to. That can happen to any of us.
So we made some inquiries.
How could we form an association so that at least someone who is
affected by that type of tragedy has someone to talk to? I spoke
to Derwyn. Of course, Derwyn's background lent itself to this so
well. I made some inquiries, and I must say that it's thanks to
the tenacity of Derwyn that we're before you today. Derwyn, thank
you very much from all of us. It was great.
When I left politics, I
wasn't defeated. I left it because I'd had enough-14 years. But I
have met some who have lost, and they took it personally. You
should never take a defeat personally. You've been asked to serve
your province, like a soldier, to serve well, to give your time.
Not many people understand politicians as well as politicians.
There aren't that many people who understand the sacrifice you
have to make, the time you have to spend, the discussions you
have to participate in and the frustration you constantly have to
face on things. I know that fundamentally we're all the same. We
work for one goal: to help our constituents, whoever they are.
Helping transcends politics, and that is what we should all be
about.
That is what this association
is all about. It's to help each other, because some day you will
face a problem. Where do you go? Who can you share your grief
with? Who can you share your happiness with? How can you help
that individual find a job, perhaps? Once you've been in
politics, you are stigmatized. You're stigmatized for the rest of
your life, want it or not. You serve your community well, but
people forget that. You're in today, and people know you. Three
or four days afterwards, you're forgotten. I know it too well.
But at least you have the satisfaction of having been chosen, in
a democracy which is the envy of the world, to serve your
country, to serve your community. Then an election comes, and you
may be nicest person in the world but you're kicked out. But
never take it personally. In my 14 years, I haven't met any
members from any party who intentionally wanted to do harm to
this province; I never did meet anyone. I met many people making
mistakes. We all make mistakes, terrible mistakes-but as long as
we admit that we make mistakes, and I think we all do.
The association transcends
politics. It's to help each other, to be able to communicate and
to have someone you can go to and say: "Derwyn, I need your help.
Gilles, I need your help. Can you advise me?" I was in the army
for 14 years. I have army friends from the 1950s. They'll be my
buddies for the rest of my life. In politics it's the same,
because we're a team together. Even though we don't share the same philosophy in politics,
we share the same responsibility. That is the purpose of the
association. It transcends politics. It has nothing to do with
politics. It's a question of helping each other because we
understand each other.
Derwyn, thank you. Really,
I'm surprised, because we were discouraged two or three months
ago: Where would it go? We had some negative reaction but there
was no enthusiasm. So I hope that you have enthusiasm to
introduce that bill as soon as possible in the House, because
you're working for you, you're working for us and you're working
also to make a better society. Also, it's going to be more and
more difficult to go and get candidates to go into politics. Why
is that? Because of the problems you have to go through, the
criticism you go through. Not everyone is willing to accept those
criticisms. You make a good decision, you displease others.
So we must preach-and the
word is right, to preach-that it is the responsibility of every
Canadian to give part of their life, part of their time to their
community, to go and serve as a member of Parliament. There is,
in my opinion, no greater honour than to represent your
constituents.
On that, I leave you, and
please make sure that it passes quickly because it's for the
benefit of us all.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Morin. Do either of our other colleagues wish to
add anything?
Mr Terence
Young: I will try not to repeat what was said by my
colleagues. If you see fit to present this bill to the House, I
think it would be a very marvellous and fitting way to show
respect and to honour former members who, in most cases, have
made a lot of sacrifice, their families have made a lot of
sacrifice, and offer them a status which is not a political
status but an honorary status and say to them: "You're still
needed. You can still play a role. It may be a ceremonial role,
it may be an educational role, but you're still valued in this
place." It would mean a lot to the former members, and I think it
would do a lot for this institution as well.
Mr Parker:
Batting cleanup, as it were, maybe it falls to me to summarize
somewhat and maybe presume to recommend a few steps forward from
here.
Before I do that, however,
let me take this occasion to thank you, the members of this
committee, for first agreeing to proceed with the matter and, in
particular, for moving so promptly to advance discussion of this
issue. We are very pleased with the co-operation we've already
received from all of the sitting members of the House in moving
this concept forward. I should in that context also express the
appreciation of the working group for the co-operation we have
received from the House leaders of all three parties.
We met with all three House
leaders and I can tell you that we were very impressed, very
pleased with the sincere expressions of support that we received
from the House leaders and the words of encouragement that we
received. That is all borne out by the fact that the matter was
brought before the Legislature in the first week of reconvening
this month after the interval from last fall. It was brought
immediately to this committee. As I say, we're very pleased with
the speed with which this committee has chosen to act on the
matter.
1600
I should also, and I will,
thank the members of the working group for the work they have
done: Derwyn Shea, Terence Young, Gilles Morin and Tony Silipo,
representing all three parties. I'm proud to have been part of
that working group myself. I should express particular gratitude
to Derwyn. We tended to meet over lunch or breakfast most of the
time and it was Derwyn who always picked up the tab. For most of
our meetings, it was Derwyn who was the only one among us who was
employed. We probably would've stiffed him for the bill anyway.
Derwyn has helped this cause in more ways than might appear on
the surface.
Let me also express the
gratitude of the working group to Barry Turner and Elizabeth
Matte of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
based in Ottawa. As Derwyn mentioned in his leading remarks, the
proposal that is before you today is not without precedent. There
is precedent federally in this country and in at least one other
province. British Columbia has such a group as the one we are
contemplating, as well as other jurisdictions elsewhere in the
world.
Our research didn't take us
to all of those jurisdictions, but it did take us to Ottawa. We
were hosted most graciously by Barry Turner, who is currently the
chairman of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians,
and Elizabeth Matte, who serves most effectively in a staff
position with that body. We learned a lot during our visit with
them.
The fruits of that visit are
reflected in the documents before you this afternoon. I
distributed two items to each of you: a draft bill that I'm about
to urge to your consideration, and also a one-page brochure. The
one-page brochure is a straight Xerox copy of the brochure that
the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians has produced
as a bit of a synopsis, a bit of a description of who they are
and what they are about. That provides the look and feel, if you
will, of the type of association that the working group
contemplates and brings before you for consideration this
afternoon.
The draft bill you are
looking at is modelled after the federal bill forming the
Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. We've adapted it
to pertain to the Ontario context, but the general structure and
format of the bill and the nature of the organization reflected
in that bill are taken quite directly from the existing federal
legislation.
You have already heard as to
the motives behind the proposed association and some of the
elements we hope will characterize the association. Maybe I might
summarize some of those comments.
First, let me be clear as to
what is not proposed before you this afternoon. Nothing in the
recommendations before you this afternoon calls upon the
Legislature to authorize the spending of public money. That is
not what this proposal is about.
Similarly, nothing in our proposal this afternoon
calls on the Legislature to provide an avenue by which former
members would presume to influence the work of the Legislature or
of the government, nor would membership in the proposed
association be automatic or mandatory. What is proposed is a
voluntary association comprised primarily of former members of
the Ontario Legislature, the operation of which would be funded
by the members of the association themselves, mostly through the
mechanism of annual membership dues.
The association is to be
strictly non-partisan. The association is to train its activities
on matters of fellowship and on matters relating to the
institution of the Ontario Legislature and the parliamentary
system, rather than matters relating to current partisan
debate.
Just to flesh out that
comment somewhat, certainly a large component of the motive
behind the presentation this afternoon is to promote fellowship
and concern for the well-being of former members, to give them a
vehicle to maintain contact with one another and to provide a
body which will be there for former members to turn to for
guidance, for advice, perhaps, if necessary, for comfort when
they cease to be members in this place. That certainly is part of
the motive behind the recommendation this afternoon. It's by no
means the only motive and it's by no means the only purpose that
we see for the association.
As has already been noted, we
believe that each member in this Legislature brings to the
Legislature the wisdom and commitment to serve their community
and their province. That commitment does not cease when the
member ceases to serve as a member in this Legislature. But the
experience the member receives while serving as a member in this
Legislature can serve the interests of the Legislature in many
ways. It is our hope that the association we contemplate can
provide an avenue by which that experience and that commitment
can be put to a useful, productive result. That too is an
important component of the motive behind the association and it
is our hope that will be an important part of the work of the
association and of the members of the association.
To be honest, and although it
is not part of the proposal before you that we are asking you to
vote on, I would be less than candid with you if I failed to note
that it is our hope that as a body, presumably to be created by
the Legislature, the association would be permitted to have a
home in the Legislative precinct. That is a question that would
be brought before another body at another time under the
appropriate circumstances. But I want to be candid with you this
afternoon and tell you that that certainly is our hope for the
association. Apart from that, however, we are not calling upon
the resources of the public to be put at the disposal of this
association in any way.
It is an object of the
proposed association that it would put the knowledge and
experience of its members at the service of parliamentary
democracy in Ontario and elsewhere, and I want to emphasize that
part.
To take all this discussion
from the abstract and bring it to more concrete form, I draw your
attention to the documents that have been provided this
afternoon. I think each of you has a copy of a proposed draft
bill for your consideration. As I've mentioned, it is drawn
largely from the precedent currently established in Ottawa, and I
put it before you as an indication of the result that we would
certainly welcome from the processes of this committee.
Those are my remarks this
afternoon. Thank you for considering this matter and thank you
for hearing us this afternoon.
The Chair:
Thank you very much to all you gentlemen. We'll have discussion
and I'm sure there'll be a few questions.
Mr Levac: I
want to start by congratulating you and expressing to the working
group my heartfelt thank you for bringing this to our attention,
and your words will not go unheard. I want to compliment you on a
couple of issues. Of the objectives you've established, the two
that struck a very strong chord with me were to protect and to
promote the interests of former parliamentarians. The protection
end of it really struck me as an important aspect of your
findings. I'm sure M. Morin made reference to a situation
that was dealt with a while ago. To speak to that issue is what
really prompted me to say that-to foster a spirit of community
among former parliamentarians. I think far too often it's:
"You're used up. Thank you very much. Now you're gone." I
compliment you on that.
1610
I also comment that if there
is a way in which we can do this, if we can incorporate the
request for ongoing records to continue or at least get
established-the implication was that it was a very difficult
matter for the working group to get those records. They may very
well exist, but it doesn't seem that it was very easy for this
group to do that. To assist them and to have this for the future,
if we can incorporate somehow our ability to start taking those
records as a legislative matter, it would be at the fingertips
very quickly. I would say that could be found somewhere in this
legislation.
The subcommittee, in their
meeting immediately after the first part, had the discussion on
the establishment of the framework, and I think all the members
of the three parties agreed to that very well: "Let's get the
bones and allow the working committee to put the flesh and the
blood and the living spirit around them." The idea was that we
say yes to this immediately, that we say yes, we support this.
Your good work will be able to be built right around that, and we
can get things moving so that the association is the creator of
what it is they want, as opposed to our trying to frame it in any
other way than what the association members would like to have
happen.
I support, and I suggest to
you that I don't know if anyone would not, a way in which we can
find a home for the association, and I would encourage very much
that it be in no other place than in this good place. It would
speak volumes to what it is that you're speaking to about keeping the spirit of us and
you together. What better way to do that than have a home
here?
My congratulations on four
years of good, hard work and the spirit in which this was done.
It speaks volumes for what you are speaking to.
My final comment,
respectfully, is whether something can be done to incorporate
comment on the families of the former parliamentarians. It speaks
to the original point I made. It might not necessarily need to be
mentioned, because there are other preambles I've read in the
material that imply that would be part of it, but this speaks to
the importance in which I hold, and I know all members would
hold, the families. With the sacrifice the members gave, we know
that the sacrifice our families have given in order for us to be
here and do the things we've done is equal, or maybe even more.
That would be my only kind of question, that if there's something
we can do about incorporating that and maybe giving that as a
piece of advice for the working group to incorporate it, I would
appreciate that very much.
I don't have any questions,
simply because I'm so impressed with what has happened and
transpired that you have my undying support and commitment to see
that that happens. I know, contrary to what some people say, that
someday I will be a former parliamentarian. I like the idea that
I would have the fellowship of someone to be able to count on. I
appreciate all of the work that's been done. Unfortunately, I
have to indicate that I have to leave for a bill signing. I will
return if the meeting is still on.
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): I won't ask any questions. I'll make two
comments. First, there is a former parliamentarian whom I am well
connected with who didn't tell me he had received a survey from
you with respect to this particular association, so I will have
to talk to him more about it, because I have not been lobbied by
him. He continues to maintain a very strong interest in
provincial politics and in this place, as you can well imagine,
and I think that if there were some ways and means for his
expertise and the expertise of many others, especially
long-standing members, to be shared with other Ontarians, that
would be a very good thing to do.
Second, I very briefly want
to thank all of you, particularly you, Derwyn, for pursuing this
for the last four years. What happened with Hans Daigeler was a
tragedy that could have happened to any of us, there but for the
grace of God go all of us too, at some point. I want to commend
you for continuing to pursue it. If nothing else, that kind of
emotional support is probably sadly lacking when people leave
this place. Other people's memories of them being here last about
two minutes.
I've seen that happen
first-hand, and it can be a very difficult thing for a family to
live with. In our case, the ex-MPP for Sudbury East left of his
own accord. Having said that, even when he did, he felt at a loss
for a long time, and this may be one mechanism to get away from
that particular sense of loss for others, whether they're
defeated or whether they leave on their own. I wish all of you
well. I can't see that there will be any problem of support from
our party, I want to indicate that now, but I thank you for
continuing to pursue it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Martel. We'll have to make sure that wasn't one of
the names missed as a result of-
Rev Shea:
Elie's is a name I know.
The Chair:
Excellent.
Mrs Marie
Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Just very briefly, my
professional background is in psychology. I'm a psychologist and
I worked with suicidal kids and kids of families that had suicide
in them. I just commend you and give both my political and
professional support to this. That's all I have to say, Mr
Chairman. Congratulations.
The Chair:
Any further comments?
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): Yes. First of all I would just offer my
thanks to this group, which has worked obviously very hard in
providing this. I know there had been quite a bit of discussion
about how in principle it was a good idea. I guess all of us are
victims to the old story of, "Oh well, it's a great idea, but
who's actually going to sit down and make it happen?" My
congratulations to you on having made it happen.
My question is to the
Chair. I want to know what are the procedural steps for this
committee in terms of where we go from here, if you could clarify
that for us.
The Chair:
It's my understanding, and I'm sure the clerk will contradict me
if I stray from the facts here, that at this stage it would be
quite appropriate for us to receive any proposed amendments or
additions to the draft bill that you see before you now. I don't
mean to editorialize too much but it would appear, just having
had a chance to review this, that they have covered all of the
bases, spoken to in their comments here today, with very specific
wording. We also have attached from the research branch the
copies of British Columbia's, the federal and the Quebec acts,
and again a very quick comparison reveals many similarities,
particularly with the Canadian act.
I just indicated to Ms
Martel, who has left to attend a bill signing, that we would
certainly not cut off this discussion until she and Mr Levac can
return. What I would like to throw out to the members still
present right now is whether or not the draft paper that has gone
through legislative counsel-and I see they have made a number of
their normal improvements to more appropriately reflect
traditional language used in bills-whether this bill as it's
written now passes muster. Mr Levac offered two suggestions. I'm
looking to our colleagues on the working committee. Perhaps, if I
might suggest in the explanatory note (e), you could consider
adding a clause "and act as a resource for former
parliamentarians and their families," or words to that effect;
and similarly, I believe Mr Levac's suggestion was that one of
your objectives could be to maintain a database of addresses and
other particulars related to former parliamentarians.
It may have been implicit,
but making it explicit adds to the comfort level and reflects the
input from Mr Levac.
Rev Shea: Assuming there's
appropriate legislative support to make that happen for the
information flow, but that's clearly what this association has to
do.
1620
The Chair:
The feedback we have received from legislative counsel is that
they could by next Monday have a bill in a format they would be
comfortable with and which would invite formal clause-by-clause
discussion. So I am in the hands of the committee.
I certainly don't wish this
whole process to appear as being unduly accelerated. However,
given that the input has been derived from a working committee
representing all three parties, and given that you have
maintained a liaison with the House leaders, and that legislative
counsel will have put their, say, stamp of approval just in terms
of the language itself, I would turn to the two caucuses
represented here today and ask whether inviting that any proposed
amendments be submitted by next Monday is inappropriate or
whether you could, through your House leaders, invite any
appropriate comments.
Mr
Chudleigh: I think that would be entirely appropriate,
with the concurrence of the former members who are carrying this
bill through. If you believe that any amendments that might be
brought forward could be done by next Monday, we would be in your
hands for this.
While I'm here, I again
would like to add my voice to the congratulations of the former
members in bringing this bill forward. It's a rare case when a
member doesn't become a former member. My grandfather served in
this House for 40 years and never became a former member because
he died in office at the ripe old age of 82. He was determined
not to become a former member, I suppose, and in those days that
was possible.
The only other point I
would make-I don't know if it requires an amendment or not-we
should do what we can to make sure the office they have isn't on
the fifth floor.
Mr Parker:
Chair, I wonder if I might speak to this point. Ironically, the
NDP representative is absent from the room just at this moment,
but you will note that the working group has been strictly
non-partisan with representation by all three parties. It was our
intention to have all three parties represented before you this
afternoon in the form of the working group. Tony Silipo, the NDP
member of the group, is out of the country at present, and his
caucus was unable to find someone to sub for him in time to meet
this afternoon's meeting schedule. I wonder if I could prevail
upon the committee, however, to leave the door open for Tony
Silipo to make a presentation to this committee perhaps next week
before the process advances too far down the line, just in case
Tony does have a further comment he'd like to get on the record
before you as part of the proceeding.
Rev Shea:
Chair, if I can just pick up on that. Not to have a quarrelsome
moment-
Mr Parker:
We're from the same caucus.
Rev Shea:
I'll wait for the Chairman.
Chair, while I appreciate
the comments by my colleague, Mr Silipo was fully aware that we
may be proceeding. He's not in the country. I would think that Mr
Silipo is, as I mentioned in my opening comments, fully
supportive of what's before you now. If this matter is brought
back before you next Monday and if he's in the country, I think
that's a perfect time for him if he wants to make a presentation
at that point.
Where I have a concern with
my colleague's comments, if he's not back until a few days after
that, then it continues to drag on and it gets caught up in all
the other legislative process. I think that is not something Mr
Silipo himself would wish. So I would ask, subject to him being
available, when you consider this, that you might ask him to make
other comments. I suspect what you'll hear is an echo of what
you've heard today, but nevertheless I would ask you to proceed
on this as expeditiously as possible. This is extremely
important. We still have a number of things to do to get
organized, but we would like to be up and running certainly by
the summertime so we can begin to do the database and so
forth.
The Chair:
Thank you, Reverend Shea. I think it's possible to accommodate
both those points of view. The clerk advises me that there is no
need to set a formal deadline for amendments. If Mr Silipo were
inclined to attend and speak at the outset of our meeting on
Monday, should he share any other observations that warrant an
amendment to the draft bill, we can procedurally accept
amendments from the floor. So I ask you to extend to Mr Silipo
the invitation to attend next Monday, if he so chooses, and to
speak at the outset.
Mr
Chudleigh: Just a question to the former
parliamentarians: I wonder if you have had any contact with Peter
North, who sat as an independent, and his perception of where he
might fit in this association.
Rev Shea:
I am embarrassed, because I didn't bring my file with all the
responses and can't tell you whether Mr North replied. I believe
he did, but I can't be held to that. I'm not sure.
Mr
Chudleigh: I think he might bring another perspective,
not having been a member of a party. If he were to review the
legislation, he might see-
Rev Shea:
One or two other former members who were independents at one
point or another did reply. None of them was the one who said he
didn't want to have an association.
The Chair:
Thank you both. Just to bring Ms Martel and Mr Levac up to speed,
we were discussing the timing for our next steps. There was a
consensus-but I certainly want to invite your comments as
well-that we are at a stage with the draft bill and with building
on the work done by the committee that it would appear
appropriate that we set a fairly short timeline for any further
input and proposed amendments. To that end, we discussed the
opportunity to reconvene next Monday and invite any amendments, including amendments from
the floor.
We are going to extend an
invitation to Mr Silipo to speak at the outset of the meeting
next week, should he wish to add his comments, just to make it
very clear that this is an all-party initiative. If Mr Silipo
raises issues that require further amendments, the clerk has
advised that it's totally acceptable to receive amendments from
the floor, and the other members of the committee said they would
be quite receptive to that.
If that timing is
acceptable to all three caucuses, then I would like to propose
that that be our next order of business and, that being the case,
to invite any final comments anyone might wish to make this
afternoon.
Mr
Barrett: Just a final comment: I certainly appreciate
the presentations at the witness table by our former members.
They have enabled me to understand a little better where we are
heading with this. I assume you have a bit of a mechanism to
communicate some of these ideas to sitting members who haven't
had the privilege of sitting in on this meeting-your goal of
promoting the betterment of former members. I think that's going
to occur, in a lot of ways, just through fellowship and collegial
interaction. I've been a member of a fraternal organization for a
number of years and it's natural to involve family members, and I
support that being inculcated into the legislation if that is
required.
Certainly no one argues
against the experience and wisdom that lie among former members.
That's going to benefit parliamentary democracy in Ontario, as
described in the explanatory note. So I really appreciate the
presentations today.
The Chair:
Just one last point, if I may, Mr Levac and Ms Martel. I
suggested that the two comments you made might very well be
embodied, the first in the objects, the explanatory note, under
(e), perhaps add a clause "and act as a resource for former
parliamentarians and their families," to raise that issue, and
under objects, under (3) "attempt to maintain a database of
addresses and other particulars related to former
parliamentarians," which hopefully will address your other
concern.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate that very much, Mr Chair. Just further to what you
asked before, I have no problems whatsoever with looking at
Monday. But I do want to note that I hope it doesn't bump Bill 28
to Easter. We have to watch for that-just my own personal
observation.
The Chair:
We will certainly guarantee that the timing of the next order of
business, Bill 28, meets with the approval of all three
caucuses.
With that, if there's no
further business, on behalf of the committee, I thank the four
witnesses. You're certainly welcome back next Monday. The
committee stands adjourned until 3:30 next Monday.
