The committee met at 1600 in committee room 2.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE REVIEW

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’d like to call the meeting to order. Ms. Damerla?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Chair, as you may know, and the Clerk knows, we’ve handed in a motion that we’d like to get on the agenda. The first opportunity that I can get, I’d like to move it.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. I believe, Madam Clerk, we have to start by dealing with the motion that’s on the floor. I believe there was a 20-minute recess at the last meeting, so I will be calling for the vote without further discussion. Then we’ll follow the agenda and go to report writing, and I’ll have a question about that. We can perhaps discuss your motion at the end. I’ll make note of that motion.

Ms. Laurie Scott: At the end of report writing?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Yes. There was a motion put forward by Mr. Leone at the last meeting. Sorry, it was Mr. Yurek. Since there’s no discussion, I’ll call for the vote. Those in favour, as amended? Those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

I guess we’ll move to report writing at this particular time. I can say that we’ve had—

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Damerla?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Would that be the consensus of the committee? We have a no. From what I understand—

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Is it possible to vote on whether we can have a motion?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t know if it needs unanimous consent. I believe it would need the consensus of the majority of the committee. That’s my understanding.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There would have to be unanimous agreement, from what I’m being told, to deal with it at this particular point. So I’ll make my ruling that we’ll continue with the report writing. Following that, we will deal with your motion.

We’ve had six days of public hearings on the auto insurance industry issue, so I would like to perhaps ask the legislative counsel to walk us through—do we need a motion? Sorry. Is it the will of the committee to do this in closed session or in open session, the report writing? Is there any opposition to having it closed? There’s none.

We’ll have a two-minute break and then we will go into closed session for report writing.

The committee continued in closed session from 1604 to 1753.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Damerla.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I move that the Clerk, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 105, the Supporting Small Businesses Act, 2013:

(1) One day of public hearings during the committee’s regularly scheduled meeting time on Wednesday, December 4, 2013;

(2) One day of clause-by-clause consideration during the committee’s regularly scheduled meeting time on Monday, December 9, 2013;

(3) Advertisement on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the committee’s website and Canada NewsWire;

(4) Witness presentations be scheduled as the requests are received, on a first-come, first-served basis;

(5) That, in the event that all witnesses cannot be scheduled, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear and that the subcommittee provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of witnesses to be scheduled;

(6) Witness presentations be scheduled in 12-minute time slots, with presenters provided up to three minutes for their presentation, followed by up to nine minutes for questions from committee members, divided equally between caucuses;

(7) A deadline for written submissions be set for 5 p.m. Wednesday, December 4, 2013; and

(8) A deadline for filing amendments with the Clerk of the Committee be set for 12 noon on Friday, December 6, 2013.

Following completion of the committee’s consideration of Bill 105, the Clerk, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 71, the Protecting Child Performers Act, 2013:

(1) One day of public hearings during the committee’s regularly scheduled meeting time on Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(2) Advertisement on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the committee’s website and Canada NewsWire;

(3) Witness presentations be scheduled as the requests are received, on a first-come, first-served basis;

(4) That, in the event that all witnesses cannot be scheduled, the Clerk of the Committee provide members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear and that the subcommittee provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of witnesses to be scheduled;

(5) Witness presentations scheduled in 20-minute time slots, with presenters provided up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by up to 15 minutes for questions from committee members, divided equally between caucuses.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much. Debate? Further discussion?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: What goes on with the Pan Am Games review? Does this bump it?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): What’s the committee’s wish with regard to that? Ms. Damerla.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: If we pass this, then we get on to Pan Am business; if we don’t, then this becomes the first order of business, and then we move to Pan Am once this is taken care of.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Is Pan Am a one-day committee review? That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I know that Pan Am is the next order of business, but does this bump Pan Am from committee? Is this what this motion is doing?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Sorry; can you repeat that, Mr. Yurek?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Does this bump the Pan Am review from what we’re doing?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: What were the Pan Am dates? I’d have to check.

Ms. Laurie Scott: If I can interject here, the review of the Pan Am Games was to start on Monday, and there was nothing else. We were doing that for the rest of the session. This essentially doesn’t include Monday, from the look of it. I guess Pan Am is on Monday, if I can interpret this, but you guys, the technical experts, please feel free to jump in.

Interjections.

Ms. Laurie Scott: So it’s only one day, for four hours on Monday, as this stands. Then, this motion that we’re entertaining right now changes the schedule after Monday. Is that a correct summary of what’s happening?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Damerla?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Chair, I think part of it is that we’ve been trying to move Bill 105 for a long time. We tried to move it as well before Pan Am, but we couldn’t, so our guess is that we’d like to proceed in this fashion and just have a recorded vote on it. Just vote on it.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Chair, I understand what the government is saying, but we have moved in the House to move Bill 105 to another committee that has no work to do, and it has been rebuffed. There is plenty of work to be done, and with the Pan Am Games just over a year away, pushing a review off further is a concern to the opposition party when we’re trying to ensure transparency and accountability with regard to the Pan Am Games.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion? Ms. Damerla.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Chair, I guess we can agree to disagree and just go for a vote.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any further discussion? Mr. Leone.

Mr. Rob Leone: Chair, I’m a little bit mystified, I have to admit. I thought that the whole push on the part of the government was to create a new era of openness and transparency. A new hashtag, #OpenGovernment—with the N—was included in a very flashy press release and media availability by the Premier. At the end of the day, what we’re looking for with respect to Pan Am—this motion seems to be against exactly what the Premier has suggested with respect to openness and transparency.

My criticism of what’s transpiring here is that what we’re trying to do is sidetrack a very important investigation on the Pan Am Games, a games that we have lots of questions on with respect to costs. We’re now in the area of $2.5 billion with respect to the Pan Am Games. This is a very, very important aspect and, like my colleague Mr. Yurek has suggested, we have an opportunity, and we put a motion in the House, to move the hearings on Bill 105 to another standing committee of this Legislature so that we wouldn’t sidetrack that investigation. The government would get Bill 105 on the table and through committee, and I think it would appease what you want, which is to push Bill 105, and what we want, which is to say the Pan Am Games is important. The people have lots of questions with regard to the costs of the games. We have various budgets that have been transpiring.

We have a motion before us that talks about looking at and examining Bill 105 instead of a thorough investigation of the Pan Am Games and to push that further behind. That creates a significant problem for myself as a representative of the opposition, whose job is to be mindful and watchful of what government is doing. In order to do that job effectively, we need the full array of information at our disposal to get to the bottom of what has transpired with the Pan Am Games.

I will say that, while it’s important that we talk about various pieces of legislation, I noticed that there is a push to get the small business act through committee. This motion also talks about Bill 71, which is the Protecting Child Performers Act, which is a piece of legislation that has been presented by a private member of the New Democratic Party.

These are important bills. We’re not going to dispute the fact that they are important, but we had an order of precedence in this committee of how we were going to deal with these issues. I am concerned that we are looking at different things that are beyond the purview of the order of business that we’ve established. I think it’s something that the public want us to focus on; really, what we’re doing here is sidetracking from what we’ve previously established. I know that there are lots of documents that are coming forward on an ongoing basis with respect to the Pan Am Games. It will be pertinent to continue with those discussions.

Bill 105 certainly is an important piece of legislation. I know the government wants to talk about how we can help small businesses. We obviously have some concerns with the piece of legislation brought forth—how it’s also raising taxes for businesses, and the net effect that would have on job creation in the province—and we want to have those discussions, but I don’t think those discussions should happen or take precedence—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Leone, but it is after 6 o’clock, so we can continue this debate on Monday.

I just need a little bit of direction from the committee. We do have two delegations, two witnesses, for next week. Is it the wish of the committee to schedule them for next Monday, or—

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Chair, I do have a point to make, which is that my understanding is that, since we weren’t able to finish with this motion, it’ll become the first order of business on Monday. I do want to say that on Monday we would be doing Pan Am, because this is scheduled for the Wednesday, but the more time we spend on this, the more it eats into the Pan Am time. I just want to confirm that this will be the first order of business, because that’s what happened the last time.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Yes, this motion is on the floor. It will be the first order of business. I just need some direction for the Clerk: Depending on how long the debate could be, do we want to schedule these two particular individuals on Monday?

Mr. Rob Leone: Chair, I’ll be very clear: My interest is in having the Pan Am hearings take place in this committee, in full, on Monday, so I would say that we need those people ready to go.

I do expect that there will be some discussion about this, but I would urge the withdrawal of this motion, so that we can actually focus on the Pan Am Games.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, thank you very much. It’s after 6 o’clock. We have to adjourn. We shall deal with this first item of business on Monday. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a good evening.

The committee adjourned at 1803.

CONTENTS

Wednesday 27 November 2013

Automobile insurance review G-403

Committee business G-403

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell (Kenora–Rainy River ND)

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

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Ms. Dipika Damerla (Mississauga East–Cooksville / Mississauga-Est–Cooksville L)

Mr. John Fraser (Ottawa South L)

Mr. Michael Harris (Kitchener–Conestoga PC)

Ms. Peggy Sattler (London West ND)

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

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

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Steven Del Duca (Vaughan L)

Mr. Rob Leone (Cambridge PC)

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Bramalea–Gore–Malton ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Andrew McNaught, research officer,
Research Services