SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

CONTENTS

Wednesday 22 December 1999

Subcommittee reports

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)

Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Research and Information Services

The committee met at 1008 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

The Chair (Mr James J. Bradley): I call the meeting to order, as I see what I call a quorum here this morning. Certainly all political parties are represented. As you know, the Chair is very, very neutral and non-partisan, but I think they do have an "L" behind my name; that's fine.

Our agenda consists of three subcommittee reports. You may wish to put the subcommittee reports dated December 9 and December 16 into one motion. I'll ask for someone to move that the subcommittee reports of December 9 and December 16 be approved.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I move just December 9. I'd like to keep them separate.

The Chair: OK, that's fine. Any discussion of the subcommittee report dated December 9, 1999?

All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.

I'm going to go to the subcommittee report dated December 14, 1999. I'll ask that someone move that subcommittee report.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Wood. Discussion?

Mr Wood: I also want to move an amendment to it. I'd like to move that paragraph 2 be deleted.

The Chair: OK. Do you understand the motion?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I sure do. As I said in the subcommittee, I don't understand. We're elected here to do a job. I sat here for four years or so and listened to you folks across the way challenge us, castigate us and criticize us for not wanting to do a job, and here we are offering you an opportunity to actually get out there and take a look at what's happening in some of these agencies, boards and commissions so that we might see for ourselves first-hand and then make some recommendations as to how they might be improved or otherwise.

We have in front of us now the period of January, February, March, not coming back till April 3, according to the motion the government tabled, and you don't want to sit during that long period? You don't want to come back here and do the business of the Legislature, of this place? It is just incomprehensible that you would not want to do that.

I could understand it if maybe you looked at the list and said, "We can't possibly do all four, but we could do a couple and then maybe leave a couple for later." But to simply say, by way of this amendment, that we won't meet during the intersession blows me away, frankly. I hope there are some folks on the other side who actually want to work during the intersession, who actually want to get out there and roll up their sleeves and earn their pay during the intersession and will vote with me to defeat this amendment to the subcommittee report.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): With due respect, I think a lot of us earn our pay. It's not just sitting on a committee, just as it's not just being in the Legislature, that constitutes us being paid for as members. There are a whole lot of other things, as we all know as members, that constitute our responsibility as elected representatives of our constituents. To say we're not earning our pay by not meeting is not a fair comment, and therefore I would agree with the motion put forward.

The Chair: You were speaking in favour of Mr Wood's amendment then.

Mr Wood: I'd like to simply say that the government members feel this is most efficiently done when the House is actually in session. We want to make sure it's done, and done right, and that would be the best time to do it.

Mr Martin: I get increasingly more frustrated around this place as each day goes on, as things we've done for years and years by way of the role we play here get just pushed aside and considered almost irrelevant because the government doesn't want to be exposed to perhaps some encounter with the public about some of the things they're doing or proposing to do.

I have to say that I, like you, work very hard back in my riding, but the work I do in my riding, if it's not connected to the work I do here-there are other offices and organizations out there who do similar types of things and perhaps could do that, but if I can't connect what I'm hearing and feeling and sensing from the people I represent, not only in my own constituency but across this province, and bring it back here so we can have government respond in a way that is helpful and evolutionary in terms of how we serve each other and work with each other to provide opportunity for folks and for different parts of this province, then what's the point?

To suggest that we're going to come back and do this in the intersession when in fact, come the intersession, we don't know if even then you won't deep-six this stuff anyway is just another example of the government, with their mantle, saying to the opposition: "Don't worry. Everything's fine. We really don't need to do this. What we decide is obviously in the best interests of the people of this province. The debate is over. We got elected. We're the government. We'll do it. Just sit back and relax and everything will be OK." I have to tell you, I'm not that comfortable with all of that.

I was elected some 10 years ago to represent my constituents, to come down here and do some work on their behalf, to look at the operation of government and take advantage of the committees I get appointed to to actually do something worthwhile for the people of this province, to make sure that the organizations, agencies and boards that we are responsible for are operating in an efficient and effective fashion. Day after day, as we come to this place, now as we sit on committees we're told we can't do our work.

I'm disappointed and angry about this, I have to tell you. I don't understand why a group of people who pride themselves on their work ethic and getting down and getting the job done will in this instance not do what we as a committee are charged to do, what this committee has done, certainly long before I ever got here, as their role, as their responsibility.

Yes, we have work we do back in our ridings. We all do that. But we have work that we do here, and part of the work here is being appointed to some committees that we're expected to put some effort into and to make happen and meaningful and relevant. I've sat on this committee on and off for probably some 10 years now, and I've never been stymied like this before.

The Chair: Any other debate, comment, discussion? If not, I will place the motion as amended by Mr Wood.

Mr Wood: You're going to place the amendment, presumably, and then the motion.

The Chair: The amendment first, which is that part 2 of the report of the subcommittee of Tuesday, December 14, 1999, be deleted. All in favour of that amendment?

Mr Martin: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.

AYES

Johnson, Kells, Spina, Wood.

NAYS

Martin.

The Chair: The amendment has been passed, which deletes part 2 of the Tuesday, December 14, 1999, subcommittee report.

Now I would call the motion, which is to adopt the report, as amended. All in favour?

Mr Martin: Recorded vote.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.

AYES

Johnson, Kells, Levac, Martin, Wood.

The Chair: Opposed to the report? None? OK, it is carried. The amended motion has been carried.

The last item we have to deal with formally is the subcommittee report dated December 16, 1999. Would someone like to move the subcommittee report?

Mr Wood: So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr Wood. Any discussion of that report? No discussion?

All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.

That is the business contained on the agenda for the committee for today's meeting. Is there any other comment or business? I know it's not on the agenda, but is there any other problem or discussion you'd like to have? This is our last meeting. If the House no longer sits, for instance next Wednesday, this would be our last meeting for a period of time. Mr Wood, did you have a comment?

Mr Wood: I'm going to make a comment at the end, some brief greetings. Then I'm going to move adjournment after our friends have said what they want to say.

The Chair: Before I do, Mr Martin, perhaps I could have us reminded by our clerk of the provision for us to sit in the intersession.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Douglas Arnott): For the purpose of considering intended appointment reviews, the committee may sit on dates to be determined by the subcommittee up to three times per month. If the committee were to consider agency reviews, it would require authorization by the House.

Mr Spina: Just to clarify Doug's comment, by the House or the House leaders?

Clerk of the Committee: By the House.

Mr Martin: So you're saying, Mr Arnott, that as the certificates come forward and we, each party, indicate that we want to have somebody before the committee, in fact it can be called and we can do that work?

Clerk of the Committee: The committee is authorized to meet at a date to be determined by the subcommittee up to three times per month, yes.

The Chair: The purpose of this, of course, is that when the House is not in session, there are still appointments being made by order in council, by the cabinet, by the government, and the time would elapse over a long period, so with the consent of each representative in the subcommittee, as the clerk has mentioned, dates can be determined and the business of reviewing appointments can take place during the intersession. I shouldn't be presumptuous, but I will be. Presumably that will happen, because I can anticipate that the government would continue to make its appointments. This committee would then want to consider whether it wishes to have people appear before the committee.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate my time here on the committee, and I wish everyone season's greetings and a happy new year.

The Chair: Thank you kindly.

Mr Wood: I'm going to make a substantive comment before I get on to a comment similar to the one just made. I would hope that no backlog would accrue. I hope if we do have designations, we'll deal with them reasonably expeditiously, by which I mean we should meet once a month if there are designations to be dealt with. I'd like to make that suggestion.

The Chair: I asked the clerk, previous to the meeting, about the time we could sit. I gathered from his response to me that with the consent of the committee, if it took a longer period of time in the day than normally would happen when the House was sitting, with the consent of the three parties or of a majority of the committee, we could do that. If we were in that situation where there happened to be a lot of appointments coming and we felt it would take three hours instead of two hours, certainly we are able to do that should we see fit, which gives us some flexibility. Mr Wood again?

Mr Wood: I was simply going to wish everybody a merry Christmas. If no one else has any submissions to make, I was going to move that the committee adjourn.

The Chair: All in favour of the motion for adjournment? Carried unanimously. Thank you, and have a happy holiday, if we don't sit next week.

The committee adjourned at 1023.