Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 1606 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay, folks, we’ll get started. Good afternoon and welcome to the Standing Committee on General Government.

We’ve got a subcommittee report before us. I understand the subcommittee met on Monday. I would ask Ms. Cansfield to read the report, please, into the record.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you, Chair. I’m delighted to be able to read this report. It’s the Standing Committee on General Government subcommittee on committee business report of the subcommittee from Monday, March 19, 2012.

Your subcommittee on committee business met on Monday, March 19, 2012, to consider the method of proceeding on Bill 8, An Act respecting Ontario One Call Ltd., and Bill 11, An Act respecting the continuation and establishment of development funds in order to promote regional economic development in eastern and southwestern Ontario, and recommends the following:

(1) That the committee hold public hearings on Bill 11 in Toronto, at Queen’s Park, on Monday, April 2, 2012, during its regular meeting time, and on Wednesday, April 4, 2012, in Windsor, Ontario, subject to approval of the House.

(2) That the committee hold public hearings on Bill 8 in Toronto, at Queen’s Park, on Wednesday, April 18, and Monday, April 23, 2012, during its regular meeting times.

(3) That the clerk of the committee, with the authorization of the Chair, post information regarding the committee’s business with respect to both Bill 8 and Bill 11 once in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Windsor Star, L’Express and Le Droit newspapers as soon as possible.

(4) That the clerk of the committee, with the authorization of the Chair, post information regarding the committee’s business with respect to both Bill 8 and Bill 11 in English and French on the Ontario parliamentary channel, on the Legislative Assembly website and on the CNW newswire service.

(5) That interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 8 or Bill 11 should contact the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on Thursday, March 29, 2012.

(6) That the clerk of the committee, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to schedule witness presentations on Bill 8 and Bill 11 as the requests are received, on a first-come, first-served basis.

(7) That groups and individuals be offered 10 minutes for their presentations, followed by up to five minutes for questions by committee members.

(8) That the deadline for receipt of written submissions on Bill 11 be 5 p.m. on Friday, April 6, 2012.

(9) That the deadline for receipt of written submissions on Bill 8 be 5 p.m. on Monday, April 23, 2012.

(10) That the research officer provide the committee with a summary of witness presentations on Bill 11 by 12 noon on Wednesday, April 11, 2012.

(11) That the research officer provide the committee with a summary of witness presentations on Bill 8 by 12 noon on Thursday, April 26, 2012.

(12) That amendments to Bill 11 be filed with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on Thursday, April 12, 2012.

(13) That amendments to Bill 8 be filed with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on Thursday, April 26, 2012.

(14) That the committee meet on Monday, April 16, 2012, during its regular meeting time, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 11.

(15) That the committee meet on Monday, April 30, 2012, during its regular meeting time, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 8.

(16) That the clerk of the committee, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to commence making any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the committee’s proceedings prior to the adoption of this report.

I move that the report of the subcommittee be adopted.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Thank you, Ms. Cansfield.

Comments? Mr. Marchese.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have a little amendment, and that is on number (1). I was very happy to travel to Windsor myself, but the member from Essex has requested that he would like to do the hearings, and to do that, he was available on April 5. So I would ask your indulgence, and hopefully other members would be available to go on April 5.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): I appreciate the suggestion. The committee is free to decide that. The only concern, I guess, would be that the committee is authorized to meet on Mondays and Wednesdays, so we would need the House to approve discussion—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I understand that. We are already seeking approval to go out, because that’s not something we normally do. So we already need their approval for the change. Our House leader has already spoken to the other House leaders, and I understand there’s agreement on that, so I wanted to put it forth here.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay. Further comment? Mr. Clark.

Mr. Steve Clark: I don’t see any problem with that as well. I recognize that we have to get approval from the House, but certainly, if that works with the other party, that would be fine with us.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Mrs. Cansfield?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I don’t see any challenge either, Chair. I think that to accommodate the member is fine. April 5 is just the Thursday, as opposed to the Wednesday, and that’s fine. We’ve asked for permission.

My question to you is, do we have to send a new letter with a request for the change of date to seek this approval? And if we do, do you need an amendment to the subcommittee report or just a request that you resend the request to the House for the change of date? But I’m quite in agreement.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay. It still needs the approval of the House, doesn’t it?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Right.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: So if we change it from the fourth to the fifth, it still requires their approval, right?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: But I’m just saying it may need a new letter, because the old letter said the fourth.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): I’m going to ask Sylwia to add a comment with respect to the advertising—just some concern around making sure there’s ample notification. If you want to just highlight that, that would be helpful.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): In order to adhere to the committee schedule, as was discussed at the subcommittee meeting, the committee would really need to post its advertising tomorrow in order for it to appear in next week’s newspapers, to provide the required notice for people to call in.

While we’re waiting for approval from the House to travel on the fourth, if the committee doesn’t receive that approval by tomorrow during motions, there’s still the possibility of posting the ad, but either removing a reference to locations in the ad or changing Windsor to a Toronto date. That’s because the committee is authorized to sit on the fourth. The committee is not authorized to meet on the fifth. So, prior to receiving approval from the House, we cannot put that date in the ad.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: If I may, Chair, what you’re saying is we could have proceeded without, because the fourth is a normal meeting date, so we wouldn’t have had any challenges, but changing it to the fifth, we still seek permission, but it’s not a regular meeting date.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Because we’re travelling outside the Legislature—because that’s not something we do, it does require—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —the House. That is very different than—I’m not sure if we’ve already got approval. We need to get approval, and that happens tomorrow, I’m assuming.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that what I understand the clerk to say is that we can use the fourth because it’s a regularly scheduled date; it’s when we meet. So you’re saying we can go ahead with the advertising, because the fourth is a regularly scheduled date for this committee.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): That’s correct. What the committee is asking permission for is to sit outside—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I can’t hear you, Sylwia. You’ll have to speak up.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): I’m sorry. I don’t have—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No problem.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): What the committee is asking permission to do is to sit outside of its regularly scheduled meeting time, which is—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And to travel outside of Queen’s Park.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): Committees are authorized to adjourn from location to location in Ontario. What the House needs to approve is for the committee to meet outside of its meeting time. We would need permission to sit on the fifth, to publish that in an ad. Now, if that permission isn’t received by tomorrow during motions, the next opportunity to receive that—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right. But it will be done by tomorrow. The motion will be introduced tomorrow, as far as I know.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): So what would the fallback be? If the motion is not moved, then what would the committee’s instructions to the clerk be in that case?

Interjection.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): Okay. So let the ad go as is and simply remove references to the dates, or run the ad as is and change the Windsor location to Toronto?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Sorry, let me just understand. The ad is prepared, but it doesn’t go until we get approval, and that happens tomorrow.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): The ad is prepared; the ad must be submitted tomorrow in order to appear on Monday. If tomorrow, during routine proceedings, the House does not give approval for the committee to travel to Windsor, we can still publish the ad as is, simply indicating that the committee intends to meet on April 2 and April 4; we can remove all reference to locations pending further decisions from the House; or, if the committee wishes it, we can indicate that both meeting days will be in Toronto. But the ad can still run.

If the committee opts to change its meeting to the fifth, then, without authority from the House, we can’t advertise that date.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: But we’re going to get the authority tomorrow on the fifth.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yeah.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Thanks. Yeah, I don’t see a challenge with this. As long as we get approval in the House tomorrow, we should be fine for the advertising.

The only issue that is obviously raised here is that the ad can go in tomorrow right away to be published on Monday without waiting for authorization from the House to change the date for meetings. We can remove the location and just provide the dates. So if we wait until we have the approval, then we can change the date, and the ad, I would assume, should still run for Monday—if we send the ad in tomorrow, following approval from the House to meet outside regular business days?

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): Yes.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): So we should still be able to stay on track for the Monday advertising.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): If I may just ask for direction from the committee: In the event that the House does not grant approval, what does the committee wish me to put in the ad?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Just the day before, because it’s a regular meeting date, with no location.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): Okay.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): She just wants backup, just in case there’s not approval from the House tomorrow. What would the committee like in the ad or what would be the scheduled meeting day?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: But I just said you’d go with April 4, and take out location.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Based on my discussion with the House leaders, I thought we’d get approval, that we have it. If we don’t, then—

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: We stay with the fourth and take out the location.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Right. Yes.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay.

Mr. Steve Clark: So we’ve requested Windsor on the fifth—

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Correct.

Mr. Steve Clark: And if it doesn’t get approved, we’ll go there on the fourth.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay. Very good.

Mr. Steve Clark: So do we need to vote on that amendment? Because I have another amendment to the committee report as well that I’d like to discuss.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Is there agreement on the committee? All in favour? Opposed? Okay, it’s amended.

Mr. Clark, go ahead. You’ve got another—

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Chair. I was unaware until after the subcommittee met that the report was not going to include the minister attending in regard to Bill 11. I’ve copied and circulated to the members of the committee some order paper questions that were discussed with the minister at a quite historic meeting that took place here in the Legislature on February 23, where we had both sitting Liberal and Progressive Conservative MPPs from eastern Ontario to discuss the fund. These were important questions that I think would be fair and reasonable for the committee to have as part of the deliberations. They would certainly give members an overview of the four-year eastern Ontario program.

The first order paper question is pretty simple; I think it just outlines from a chronological basis each year of the four-year program—who got the grants, how many jobs they created, in what municipality. So I guess my question that I’d like some approval on is—I don’t necessarily think that we need the minister. If the committee feels the minister could come and provide these answers, that would be great. Failing that, these order paper questions under our standing orders are supposed to get their response—I believe it’s by April 16; the clerk gave me that date.

1620

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have these answers before we deliberate. I guess I’m just looking for some consensus that we’ll either have the minister here to address and give us an overview or, failing the minister’s attendance, we can just get these questions answered as a background document on the four-year history of the eastern plan and move forward.

I just think it’s important that everyone get an overview of what’s happened with this program from its beginnings.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Thanks, Mr. Clark. Ms. Cansfield?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: At the subcommittee meeting, we had some discussion about whether or not to invite the minister, and we felt that that wasn’t necessary. Because you’re going to get these by April 16, I think that should satisfy all the—and it’ll be long before—

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s the day we do clause-by-clause, so I think we should have it before that.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Maybe what we can do is ask if it will be earlier than that, because my question is just one of process. I have no difficulty. But because it’s an inquiry of the ministry and not of us, then it falls under that procedure, and the ministry has till the 16th to respond. I don’t know that we can supersede that requirement other than just by asking—

Mr. Steve Clark: But then failing that, I guess, then, my request would be that he does come and do an overview at the start of our deliberations that first day of hearings.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Well, as I said, maybe if you could leave it with us and I can ask, because if we can get your questions earlier—I mean, I don’t know why you’d want him here anyways, but I can understand—

Mr. Steve Clark: No, and that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying if we can get that overview via those five answers, great. That’s fine. I just want to have a consensus—

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): I think we can probably do both. We can ask the clerk to make a request of the minister—

Mr. Steve Clark: Sure. If everyone’s okay with that, that’s great.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): —that the committee has requested that the minister appear, and failing that, that the information be provided by the date you provided here.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d be very happy. Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: By a certain date, right? What’s the date?

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, we should have it before we go too far in the hearings. Come on.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Before the amendments actually have to be produced?

Mr. Steve Clark: Absolutely.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yeah.

Mr. Steve Clark: Not the day we do clause-by-clause. I don’t think that’s reasonable.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, I agree. It should be earlier. Mr. Chair, I agree with that. Mr. Chair?

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Understood.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My sense is the minister may not come. That’s what I think will happen, which is fine, but I think it’s a reasonable request to get answers to these questions. The questions are to the minister, not to the civil servants, because he’s actually answerable to these particular issues. So it’s a reasonable request, and I need to—

Ms. Laurie Scott: Let’s look at April 10, maybe.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: April—“that the deadline for receipt of written submissions” is the sixth, so I think around the sixth is fine.

Mr. Steve Clark: Yeah.

Ms. Laurie Scott: On the sixth, yeah?

Mr. Steve Clark: Sure.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I think it’s a reasonable request.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: So can I ask, then, with your permission, if they say that’s not possible, then it leaves the caveat to call the minister? Is that okay? I’ll get back to the Chair, and then we can maybe just let everybody know that it’s either questions are answered by the sixth or the minister will appear. Which date would you like the minister to appear, though?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: On that day, I imagine—

Mr. Steve Clark: Day one, yes.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Okay.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Day one. It would probably be easier for the minister on day one.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): So Monday the 2nd, the first day—

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: So it’s either/or?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: That’s great.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Committee report: All those in favour? Opposed? Okay, it’s carried. The subcommittee report will be amended.

Any further comments? Ms. Cansfield?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: It’s just a procedural question. We talked about the opportunity for individuals to have 10 minutes and then a follow-up question of five minutes, and we did ask that it be by rotation. It doesn’t state that on here, and I don’t know if it needs to or if it’s just a given procedure within the committee.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I think it’s normal procedure.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Normal procedure? Then that’s fine, just as long as it’s fairly done.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): I believe that’s the will of the committee. A 10-minute presentation, and any time they leave will be left for questions from committee members. We’ll go in a rotation. So if we start with the Conservatives first, the next presenter, the first question will go to the NDP and we’ll go in order, okay? And whatever the time is that’s left, we’ll try to divide it equally so that everyone has an opportunity, if possible, to get a question in for the same presenter, not that your party may miss a question to a particular presenter—so that everybody can get a chance to ask a question of the same presenter. Sound fair?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yup.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): I think we’ve been through it before, Mr. Clark.

Anything further on the subcommittee report?

All those in favour of the amended subcommittee report? Opposed? The report is adopted.

Any further business?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. David Orazietti): Okay. No further business? The committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1625.

CONTENTS

Wednesday 21 March 2012

Subcommittee report G-3

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale L)

Ms. Sarah Campbell (Kenora–Rainy River ND)

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East / Don Valley-Est L)

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity–Spadina ND)

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie L)

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)

Mr. Todd Smith (Prince Edward–Hastings PC)

Mr. Jeff Yurek (Elgin–Middlesex–London PC)

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre / Etobicoke-Centre L)

Mr. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Sylwia Prezezdziecki

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Lorraine Luski, research officer,
Legislative Research Service