Association of former
parliamentarians
Mr Tony Silipo
Mr John Parker
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
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff /Personnel
Mr Donald Revell, legislative counsel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1533 in room 151.
ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS
Consideration of the designated
matter pursuant to standing order 124 relating to the
establishment of an association of former parliamentarians.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I'd like to call the
standing committee on general government to order for the purpose
of considering a matter designated pursuant to standing order 124
related to the establishment of an association of former
parliamentarians.
Most of you were here last
week and we had the opportunity to hear from most of the working
group involved over the past few months in the production of the
proposal we're dealing with here today. One member of the working
committee was not able to attend last week and he has been able
to join us today. That gentleman is Mr Tony Silipo, formerly a
member from the NDP caucus. Mr Silipo, I invite you to come
forward and say a few words if you are so inclined.
Mr Tony
Silipo: Thank you, Mr Chair. My voice is a bit hoarse,
but I think you can hear me.
First of all, thanks for the
opportunity to speak. I was not in the country when you were
dealing with this matter last week, but found out upon my return.
I know that the best thing to do with something that is going
well is to leave it alone, so I just wanted to put on the record
my own support and to ensure that we have on the record all-party
support from the people who have proposed the idea, outside of
those of you who sit in the Legislature. I welcome the fact that
this initiative is being supported by all three parties in the
House. I think it's a good initiative to have a parliamentary
association in the way that we've suggested. I also particularly
wanted to say that I think it's really appropriate that this
initiative be undertaken the way it has through this committee,
and I gather it will be the first if it does proceed, which I
hope it does and urge you to make sure that it does, under this
new rule. This is also something to be kept in mind because it is
a way above and beyond the partisanship that is appropriate in
most matters around this place. It's also appropriate that, when
there are matters such as this one, they be treated in a
non-partisan manner and proceed therefore with the kind of
support that I hope will continue to be there from this
committee.
I'm not going to go into the
importance of the association. I know that my colleagues who have
spoken before have outlined that for you. I simply say that I
certainly believe that having a parliamentary association is
going to be useful, not just for the former members but indeed as
a part of the workings of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in
terms of providing a space for and a place through which former
members can be gathered and through which particularly they not
only can support each other but, more importantly, can provide
support to the Legislature of the day, at the Speaker's office
and any other, in terms of the expertise, from speaking
engagements to any other types of activities that the Legislature
may wish to call upon us to do.
With that, Mr Chair, again I
just say thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak.
I certainly encourage you to proceed with this matter. If there
are any questions that you have, I'd be happy to try to answer
them.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Silipo. I would invite any members of the
committee who might have questions for Mr Silipo to ask them now.
Seeing none, I want to thank you very much. You have certainly
now put meat on the bones to the suggestion that this really was
something with all-party support, and perhaps there could be no
better sort of initiative to make the first bill that goes
through a committee standing order 124. I very much appreciate
your work on the committee that has brought the bill to this
stage and for taking the time to come before us here today.
Mr Silipo:
Thank you.
The Chair:
With that, you'll recall last week we discussed the opportunity
to receive any suggestions as to possible amendments or
improvements to this bill. The Clerk advises me that because this
isn't, strictly speaking, a referral from the House and therefore
it does not need to follow the formality of clause-by-clause
consideration, we can be a little more flexible in how the
discussions proceed throughout the course of these deliberations.
However, I'd like to make a suggestion, if it meets with the
approval of the committee, that we at least direct ourselves to
each section as we go through and invite questions section by
section, if not strictly speaking clause by clause. If there are
no objections to that, I wonder if anyone has any comments about
section 1.
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It's not
really section 1 but it starts the whole process. We made a
recommendation that we look at the name and we got some feedback
from Mr Parker that indicated that, as I look at the material,
the original mover, Mr Barrett, established an "Association of
Former Parliamentarians," and in the written explanation it's the
"Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians." Can I get a
clarification as to which one it is?
The Chair: I
think the draft bill is the one we would take as the final
answer, so it's the Ontario association.
Mr Levac:
That satisfies my concern originally about "provincial" or
whatever. So if you say "Ontario," I agree with the comment. When
I first made my comment, it was based on the mover, so my concern
was taken care of just by the name. I appreciate that.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Somewhat along the same lines, I like
the name, Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians, but I
was concerned. Because I know, and I've been given to understand,
there's a federal organization of former parliamentarians, I
wondered if there might be some mild confusion perhaps that this
is the Ontario association of that body or if the descriptive
word "Ontario" be more appropriate to the word
"Parliamentarians." So it would be Association of Former Ontario
Parliamentarians. I don't know if that would make any difference
or if the committee has thought about it.
1540
The Chair:
Again, because we're not as bound by the normal rigorous
structures applying to witnesses, with your indulgence, rather
than my offering a response to that question, I'd like to invite
Mr Parker to come forward, because he's prepared a synopsis of
the working committee's feedback on some of the suggestions that
were heard last week. Mr Parker, if you'd like an
opportunity-
Mr John
Parker: If you take me, you get Derwyn Shea too.
The Chair:
Fair enough.
Mr Parker:
Thanks for the invitation. To tell you the truth, we are, for all
intents and purposes, indifferent to the name. We just want to
keep it simple. We don't want it cluttered up with a whole lot of
descriptive terms. We've been working with the name "Ontario
Association of Former Parliamentarians." If the committee is
happier with "Association of Former Ontario Parliamentarians," I
don't think you'll get any quibble from our side.
Mrs Julia Munro (York
North): If you look at the section entitled
"Non-partisan nature" at the bottom of the page, section 3(2),
and then go to section 4, "All former members of the Legislative
Assembly of the province of Ontario are eligible ..." I wonder if
that clarifies this issue that those are the only people who
would be eligible for membership and that might clarify the
discussion here.
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): I was wondering if people have
addressed the matter of the acronym. Does one acronym have a
better ring to it than the other? Some of you have been
sensitized to that in a way that I could never be.
Mr Parker:
Is there a better one you would like to suggest?
Mr Spina: Is
that OAFP?
The Chair:
That would be AFOP.
Mr Kormos:
Exactly. You've got choices to make here.
Mr Parker:
If the committee is indifferent, frankly the preference of the
working group would be to leave it with the name that's been
recommended. But obviously we're in your hands.
The Chair: I
don't see a great groundswell of opposition to that, so thank you
for those comments.
Are there any specific
suggestions under section 1? Let's just work our way through,
then. There aren't that many sections. Perhaps I can even
pre-empt the time to do that by asking whether-this will make
interesting reading in Hansard. The clerk has prepared a check
sheet to go through as we normally would, without the
clause-by-clause but by section. If it's the consensus of the
committee that section 1 should stand as is, we'll move on to
section 2. Does everyone agree with that? Agreed. Section 3, the
objects of the association, any comments?
Mr Levac:
There was a comment from Mr Parker with regard to former members
and the families of the former members. I was satisfied with that
explanation, as long as it's understood. In my own particular
case it was the major concern I had, that family become part of
that. The actions that were described were inclusive of that.
That's almost like an overriding philosophy, but it doesn't have
to be in writing, and I'm assuming that.
The Chair:
That was section 3. Section 4 takes us back to membership. All
agreed? Agreed. Section 5, the powers of the association?
Mrs Munro:
Just a minor detail in section 4(2)-"he or she shall be deemed to
have resigned his or her membership"-
Mr Donald
Revell: I can speak to that, Mr Chair. We have in
Ontario for some time now been using this technique, which is a
non-sexist drafting technique that has been developed and used in
some jurisdictions. This is a case where we could have used "his
or her." The reason we developed using "their" to replace "his or
her" is that when you get into that string of "himself,"
"itself," and so on, you just get this long string of words that
really is redundant. This is approved in a lot of the non-sexist
drafting literature, so this is the solution we use in
Ontario.
The Chair:
Over and above that, did you have a concern about the "deemed to
have resigned"?
Mrs Munro:
Only that in the next line you've got, "on the day that they are
sworn in."
Mr Revell:
That should be "he or she." Sorry, yes.
The Chair:
My compliments to the attentiveness of the committee members.
Given that the last step of
this process this afternoon hopefully will be to refer this to
the House, I guess we should formally ask for that change to be made.
Ms Munro, do you want to propose wording?
Mrs Munro: I
would take the advice of legal counsel, that "he or she is"
sworn.
The Chair: I
just need you to put the words into Hansard. So, replacing the
word "they": All in favour? Contrary, if any? Thank you.
Moving on, again section 5,
that question was put. All agreed with that? Agreed.
Section 6, any comments?
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): I wonder if Mr Parker could expand on section
6 as to its purpose and intent.
Mr Parker: I
wonder if you could just guide me as to where you see-
Mr
Chudleigh: Why would there have to be a clause in the
act here to allow the association to carry on its business
activities outside the province of Ontario?
Mr Parker:
It's simply to give the association the latitude to carry out
activities wherever they deem it appropriate to do so without
running the risk of falling afoul of some constraint that was
unanticipated. It is simply to avoid binding the hands of the
association.
Mr
Chudleigh: It's not a given in the association that you
can meet at the call of the board. Further, at subsection 8(4),
the board can meet in any place as the chair considers
necessary.
Mr Parker:
It's not just a matter of meeting, I suppose. It's also a matter
of carrying out activities. Just to remove any ambiguity or any
doubt, this provision is included so that it's clear that the
association can carry out its activities wherever those
activities need to be carried out.
Maybe for the sake of an
example, it's a fraternal organization and certainly it's also
intended to represent or to pursue the interests of parliamentary
democracy in Ontario and elsewhere. I think that provision is in
the bill. Being fraternal, the members may not always be in
Ontario, but there may be a need to have a fraternal association
with an individual who is outside the province. In the activity
of pursuing the interests of parliamentary democracy, that may
involve dealing with other parliamentary democracies elsewhere in
Canada and around the world. This provision simply removes the
argument that any such activity that would take the association
outside the borders of Ontario might be outside the jurisdiction
of the association.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Spina.
Mr Spina: I
was just trying to think of an example, because I agreed with Mr
Chudleigh about the meeting time. Notwithstanding the fraternal
versus maternal-and I'll let Mr Revell iron that out-I was
thinking that if the organization chose to have a fundraising
golf tournament in Orlando in January, that would fully authorize
them to do that sort of thing. That's all I'm thinking of. Is
that a reasonable example of what you might want to do?
Mr Parker: I
think the board will be interested in hearing recommendations
from all sources, and they will be considered as appropriate.
1550
Mr Spina:
And US$150, no doubt.
The Chair:
Are there any other questions on section 6?
Section 7?
Section 8?
Mr
Chudleigh: In subsections 8(4) and 8(5) it suggests that
they have one meeting a year and that the meetings will be called
as the chair considers necessary. Having been involved in
association business, sometimes you end up that on a given issue,
at one point or another, the chair may not agree that a meeting
is actually necessary, whereas the majority of the board may
consider that a meeting might be necessary. Would it be
appropriate that you have a clause in there that would suggest
that a majority of the board could at any time call for a meeting
of the board of directors?
Mr Parker:
I'm going to suggest that that would be an appropriate matter to
be considered in the bylaws. I'm not sure that we need to get
involved in redrafting the bill to address that point, but it's a
point certainly worth considering.
Mr
Chudleigh: You may want to note that, I think it was in
1987 or 1988, it did cause me some problems in association
business. It would have been much easier if we'd had a clause
like that.
Mr Spina:
Along that same line, only on that particular clause, I was just
wondering, in the original presentation to the committee there
was a recommendation that the Legislative Assembly be the home,
as it were, or the office for the organization. I really don't
see that specified in here. Is that something that would be open
as an option after the legislation was introduced, perhaps as
part of the regulatory environment, or would you want it included
in the bill itself?
Mr Parker:
If I can shed some light on that, it was the intention of our
working group to put this proposal forward with the fewest
possible strings attached, to make it as easy as possible for
people to say yes to it. As soon as you start complicating it
with other factors, then you invite debate and perhaps greater
scrutiny in areas that go beyond the principles of the exercise.
Our hope was to get the principle established and then, through
another forum-I think the Board of Internal Economy and the
Speaker's office is the way we should be going-and through that
avenue look at issues such as space for the association. But what
we're looking for from the Legislature is simply the authority to
convene an association and to carry out activities. Then it will
be up to the association to decide whether it wants to pursue
those other possibilities. But we're not asking this committee or
the Legislature for that type of permission just now.
The Chair: I
was talking to legislative counsel, who expressed some question
about whether or not Mr Parker's suggestion about the bylaws
would in fact cover subsections 8(4) and 8(5), that you might
actually need to make that change. If that's the case, Mr
Chudleigh, would you like to offer a proposed amendment to the
wording?
Mr Revell: I think Mr Parker said
that the idea of holding meetings at the request of the board
members could be handled by the bylaws. Just reviewing the power
on this issue, it says "may make bylaws respecting the calling
and holding of meetings." But in terms of the way section 8 is
drafted, it would seem that the whole power to call board
meetings is, first of all, "at such times and places as the chair
considers necessary," and "at least once in each year." I have a
feeling that in strict law maybe you would read that down-the
bylaw-making power cannot require the chair to call more meetings
than that.
I think that something like
this might handle the situation, Mr Chudleigh, in terms of
wording. I obviously haven't had a chance to discuss this with Mr
Parker, who has done a lot of work on this, but something like,
"On the request of a majority of the members of the board, the
chair shall call a meeting of the board at its head office," so
there is always a method of inducing the chair to call a meeting,
if there's a potential problem, I mean. I'm just saying that in
terms of what you've raised, Mr Chudleigh, I think there's no
answer to it in the bill as it is presently worded.
Mr Parker:
Frankly, I'm concerned that the chair we're likely to start with
will probably call more meetings than I want, so the possibility
that we wouldn't have enough meetings hadn't crossed my mind. But
I have no quarrel with the suggested amendment.
Mr
Chudleigh: That sounds like it would cover my
concerns.
The Chair:
Someone would have to formally make that-
Mr
Chudleigh: I so move.
Mr Revell:
Mr Chudleigh moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by
adding the following subsection:
"8(5.1) On the request of a
majority of the members of the board, the chair shall call a
meeting of the board at its head office."
The Chair:
Does anyone need that in writing? Any questions?
Mr Spina: Is
"at least once a year" still there?
Mr Revell:
Yes, "at least once a year" remains.
The Chair:
Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question.
All those in favour of the
amendment? Contrary, if any? The amendment carries.
My only question would be, do
you read it as 5.1 or will you renumber it?
Mr Revell:
We will renumber it before the bill is printed for
introduction.
The Chair:
Any further comments on section 8? Seeing none, we will move
on.
Section 9? Section 10, the
bylaws? Section 11? No questions there. Section 12? Section 13?
Section 14? Finally, section 15, which deals with the title?
Seeing no further questions,
the final question I have to put to the committee is, and this is
slightly different from the normal format: Shall the committee
adopt the text of the draft bill? On this I would like a formal
vote, obviously.
All those in favour?
Contrary, if any? It carries.
Mr Spina:
Can I ask for a recorded vote, Chair?
The Chair:
You are too late, Mr Spina, but for the record we will note that
it was unanimous, with the members of all three parties
supporting it.
At the risk of sounding
overly theatrical, this is certainly a historic event, because it
is the first time that someone other than the government or a
private member has produced legislation for the consideration of
the Legislative Assembly.
The last question I have to
ask the members here today is, and I apologize to the two people
subbing today, but only permanent members of the committee can
avail themselves of this opportunity: I am told by the clerk that
my name will automatically appear as a sponsor, but there is an
opportunity for all other members of the committee to be named as
sponsors of the bill should they so desire. By a show of hands,
all those in favour? The clerk will read off the names of the
permanent members.
Clerk of the
Committee (Mr Viktor Kaczkowski): Mr Chudleigh, Mr
Dunlop, Mrs Munro, Mrs Bountrogianni and Mr Levac.
The Chair:
I'm going to ask the clerk if he will take it upon himself to
contact the two people who are not here today and extend the same
opportunity to them. The bill, of course, will be referred to the
Legislative Assembly, and we'll have an opportunity to make the
normal introductory comments. It's certainly going to be my
intention to thank everyone on the committee and the working
group, and to stress that this is something that clearly has had
all-party support. I can't think of a better way to start the new
standing order 124 tradition around here. To all the members,
thank you very much for your participation in this. In particular
to the former members who were part of the working committee,
thank you very much for applying yourselves to the staff.
Congratulations. That takes us through this piece of
business.
Very briefly, you will recall
we asked for any proposed amendments to Mr Wettlaufer's bill to
be tabled by the close of business Wednesday. Given that we can't
consider a bill until the deadline for amendments has passed, and
that Monday next week is a holiday, I'm going to propose that if
the committee sees fit we will deal with Mr Wettlaufer's bill
next Wednesday. If that meets with your approval, the committee
stands adjourned until then.
