Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1539 in room 151.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): I call the meeting to order. Members of the
committee, before we get into the agenda, I would just like to
take this opportunity to extend a welcome and greetings to a
delegation from the Midwestern legislative exchange. In
attendance are Senator Bob Cupp, Senate President Pro Tem from
Ohio, who is the Co-Chair of the Midwestern Legislative
Conference Midwest-Canada Relations Committee; Senator Leigh
Herington, assistant minority leader from Ohio; Senator John
Hottinger, majority whip from Minnesota, Chair of the Midwestern
Legislative Conference; Senator JoAnn Johnson, Iowa, Chair of the
Senate Ways and Means (Tax) Committee; and Ilene Grossman,
assistant director, Council of State Governments. They are here
on an official program visit to the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario, and we wish, collectively I'm sure, on all of our parts,
to welcome you to this afternoon's meeting.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair:
This is a standing committee on justice and social policy
committee meeting to consider the report of the subcommittee on
Bill 74. What is the wish of committee?
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Can we have questions and
comments on the subcommittee report, Madam Chair?
The Chair:
We first need a motion to move the report.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona
(Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I move the report for approval
by the committee.
The Chair:
It needs to be read. Would you please read it, Mr Tascona?
Mr Tascona:
"Your subcommittee on committee business met on Thursday June 1,
2000, to consider the method of proceeding on Bill 74, An Act to
amend the Education Act to increase education quality, to improve
the accountability of school boards to students, parents and
taxpayers and to enhance students' school experience, and
recommends the following:
"(1) That, pursuant to the
time allocation motion passed on May 31, 2000, the committee meet
for the purpose of conducting public hearings in Barrie on June
7, 2000, from 10 am to 12 noon and in Ottawa on June 9, 2000,
from 9 am to 5 pm, subject to confirmation of travel
bookings.
"(2) That each caucus provide
to the clerk of the committee by 5 pm on Friday, June 2, 2000, a
list of 10 names of individual/groups to be invited to appear
before the committee at the morning sessions of Wednesday, June
7, 2000 in Barrie and Friday, June 9, 2000, in Ottawa.
"(3) That witnesses for the
afternoon session in Ottawa be chosen by the Chair and the clerk
of the committee by lottery.
"(4) That individuals be
allotted 10 minutes and groups 15 minutes.
"(5) That the clerk be
authorized, in consultation with the Chair and the subcommittee
as necessary, to schedule witnesses and to make all arrangements
necessary for public hearings.
"(6) That amendments be
tabled with the office of the clerk of the committee by 5 pm on
Friday, June 9, 2000, and that the amendments be distributed to
the committee members by 10 am on Monday, June 12, 2000.
"(7) That, pursuant to the
time allocation motion passed on May 31, 2000, the committee meet
on Monday, June 12, 2000, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm for
clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
"(8) That the legislative
research officer prepare a summary of witness's recommendations
by Thursday, June 8, 2000, for the Barrie presentations and by
Monday, June 12, 2000, for the Ottawa presentations."
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Tascona. Ms McLeod, you had questions.
Mrs McLeod:
It's interesting that we should have a delegation observing the
way the democratic process is supposed to be working in the
province of Ontario today.
I will not be supporting the
report of the subcommittee. I will voice my opposition even
through I recognize the fact that the subcommittee was
constrained by the time allocation motion which set the terms of
reference that could be considered for these hearings. But I
nevertheless want to put on record our very strong opposition to
the time allocation motion and the fact that it makes the work of
this committee virtually meaningless in terms of serious
consideration of the bill. Simply look at the timelines set out
in the report of the subcommittee: that the time allocation
motion on this bill was passed on May 31, that two days later
anybody who wanted to make representation to the committee
hearings had to have filed
their intent to make a representation, which gave exactly two
days to circulate to the only two communities that are going to
have an opportunity to have public hearings on this bill-two days
to circulate that information to individuals and to give them the
opportunity to respond before the cut-off time of Friday, June
2.
We are obviously-and we have
expressed this before, but this is our only opportunity to put it
on the record-extremely concerned that there are only going to be
two communities in which hearings will be held, one of them for a
half day, one of them for a full day. There will be no
government-held legislative committee hearings in the city of
Toronto, let alone in other major communities across the
province. The Chair and the members of the committee may know
that because of that, there is currently a Liberal hearing being
held as we speak on the floor above us so there can be at least
some opportunity for people who are concerned about this bill to
have public input to voice that concern.
I am equally distressed that
the time allocation requires that the final day of hearings,
which of course is on Friday of this week, following the half-day
Wednesday in Barrie-that the final day of hearings will be on
Friday, in Ottawa. Again, I recognize that the subcommittee and
this committee have no choice in this, that it's the time
allocation motion passed by the government. But that time
allocation motion says that on Monday at 10 o'clock-remember, the
last day of public hearings is Friday afternoon-amendments have
to be tabled. That is an absolutely ludicrous time allocation
motion. It says we are not prepared to consider amendments to
this bill and we're not prepared to take seriously anything that
we might have heard in the equally ludicrous day and a half of
public hearings that have been provided on this bill. Obviously,
if you have public hearings that wind up on Friday afternoon in
Ottawa and your amendments have to be tabled, tabled in properly
drafted legislative form, appropriately numbered for
presentation, to be considered in clause-by-clause in committee
that afternoon-it is impossible to put amendments into that form
based on anything that may be heard by the committee in its one
day of hearings in Ottawa on Friday.
I don't know why we're even
bothering to have clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,
because it will be meaningless-unless the government is prepared
to have some amendments brought in and has already prepared the
amendments. If that's the case, if the government has amendments
prepared, then I would respectfully ask that we be allowed to see
the amendments well in advance of that Monday morning. However, I
don't believe there are amendments sitting in the wings, so I'm
not going to hold my breath to see those.
Meeting on Monday, June 12
from 3:30 to 6 pm for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill
is basically asking this committee to go through a
rubber-stamping process. Once upon a time, legislative committees
actually fulfilled a role of taking government legislation,
holding public hearings, listening to the public delegations,
listening to the concerns and determining what amendments it
might consider. In fact, we have another committee, the general
government committee, meeting to consider a bill which properly
should have been in front of the social and justice committee,
given its focus on health care. It's having hearings on the
Mental Health Act. In that situation, the hearings were held
before second reading. There's ample opportunity-at least we
believe there is-for amendments to be presented and considered
before that bill goes into clause-by-clause consideration.
I deeply regret that on a
piece of legislation with the kind of significance that Bill 74
will have, the government has not seen fit to allow any time at
all either for public hearings or for a reasonable process of
amendment or for this committee to give any kind of due
consideration to the bill. So I will vote against the
recommendations of the subcommittee, but it's in recognition of
the fact that it's a time allocation motion passed by the
government that I am raising my concerns.
Before I conclude, Madam
Chair, I do have a question. I would ask whether the clerk could
provide us with information on how many individuals have
requested to make representation before this committee, how many
communities would be represented in those requests, and how many
individuals can in fact be accommodated in the day and a half of
hearings that we now have scheduled?
The Chair:
Do you have the information as to the numbers?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Susan Sourial): We had approximately 450
requests.
Mrs McLeod:
By Friday at 4 o'clock?
Clerk of the
Committee: By Friday at 5 o'clock.
Mrs McLeod:
So 450 requests. Do you know how many communities would be
represented in those requests?
Clerk of the
Committee: About 12 communities that had more than one
or two requests.
1550
Mrs McLeod:
Twelve communities had more than one or two requests. I
understand that there may have been as many as 87 communities
that would have had at least some requests, at least an
individual request. Can you tell me how many we are going to be
able to accommodate of those 450 requests?
Clerk of the
Committee: I can only get an approximate number.
The Chair:
It's kind of difficult because the subcommittee agreed that there
would be 15 minutes allocated for groups and 10 for individuals.
As you can see from the subcommittee report, in Barrie we were to
split between the three parties based upon the lists submitted by
the three parties; in Ottawa, the same process would be followed
for the morning, but in the afternoon it would be done on a
lottery basis. You've got the rough numbers, but you'll have to
bear with us if-
Mrs McLeod:
I was not looking for the actual list of people who have been
selected through the process. I assume that's not finalized. I guess I was asking
if the clerk had done the division into the length of days to
tell us how many time slots we have.
Clerk of the
Committee: We've got approximately nine groups or
individuals on Wednesday, and Friday morning about 18
approximately, and then Friday afternoon, in the low 20s.
Mrs McLeod:
Say 21 or 22? For a total of-a quick calculation would be about
49 or 50 of the 450. So as of Friday at 5 o'clock, 450
individuals or groups had requested to make representation on
this bill. We'll accommodate about 50 and leave 400 out.
Can I assume that your office
is still continuing to get calls, since Friday was a very quick
cut-off? Have you had numbers of calls after Friday at 5
o'clock?
Clerk of the
Committee: I've had six calls.
Mrs McLeod:
OK. Is it possible, finally, to get the list of all those who had
requested to make presentation to the committee?
The Chair: I
actually was requested that by the clerk this morning. My
understanding is that there is a clerk requirement that these not
be released unless there is approval by the committee. I am
waiting for a letter from the clerk, actually, confirming the
standard procedure for the release of that information. I'm still
awaiting that. However, clearly, if there is support of this
committee to release that information, that would be fine. But I
do appreciate that there are some clear reasons why that
information is not released by the clerk, not the least of which
is that, as I understand, the information should be used only for
the purposes of addressing the committee. I don't know if you
would like to shed any further light on that, Ms Sourial, but I
am still awaiting that official confirmation from the clerk.
Mrs McLeod:
If I may, the subcommittee has already departed from normal
procedure, because the normal procedure in any committee hearings
that I've participated in would be to have received the list of
presenters and have the subcommittee meet following the cut-off
date. Once you've got the cut-off date, the subcommittee meets,
the subcommittee has access to the numbers and names of
individuals who wish to make representation, and the selection by
each of the parties is done from that list. So the list is given
to each of us so we know how many people and what groups and
individuals wanted to make representation. That's normal
procedure. We had a situation here where the subcommittee met
before the cut-off date for the submission of requests to present
because of the hurried timelines of the time allocation motion. I
would suggest that in normal procedure, we would have had access
to the list of those who had requested after the cut-off was
finalized.
Clerk of the
Committee: Lists were distributed on Friday to all three
parties in the morning, and a list in the afternoon was
distributed as well to all three parties, from which they were to
choose.
Mrs McLeod:
So is there any problem with giving us a final list as of the
cut-off, then?
Clerk of the
Committee: Lists are distributed so that members can
choose who they would like to speak. Now, because that date has
passed, normally we would not be distributing the list to
committee members after the deadline.
Mrs McLeod:
But normally, the subcommittee wouldn't meet to choose the names
until after the deadline.
Clerk of the
Committee: And because the subcommittee had agreed that
5 o'clock on Friday would be the deadline for their lists to come
in, based on lists that were submitted to us, the subcommittee
members made their decision at 5 based on those lists that were
sent out.
Mrs McLeod:
I appreciate the dilemma. The problem is that you had to agree to
meet prior to the final cut-off date, because we would have put
the clerk in an impossible position to notify people who were
going to present if they had left it any longer. It wasn't
something that was desirable. This whole thing is just such a
departure from anything which could be considered serious
committee hearings that I don't know what more to do with it
except to continue with our own separate hearings.
Mr Tascona:
Mrs McLeod did not attend the subcommittee meeting. That was
attended by Mr Smitherman. Mr Smitherman was even aided by a
staff in terms of how to deal with this matter. He agreed to
everything that is in these minutes. Everything was fully
discussed with Mr Marchese, who is not here. I was also in
attendance. The entire procedure set out in this subcommittee
report was fully discussed, fully agreed upon. I take issue with
the member castigating on what was an agreed three-party process
at that subcommittee meeting. We did the best we could in the
circumstances. There was full agreement-I can say it was
unanimous-in terms of how we were going to proceed.
With respect to dealing with
this matter, there has been consensus reached. I understand the
member's position, and I understand that she didn't attend. Mr
Smitherman did attend on behalf of the opposition party and made
the decisions that were in agreement with their other members. I
really fail to understand how she can come here today and say
that the process that was followed through at that committee
meeting, which she did not attend, is not in order, was not
proper, in fact saying that what we did there was not consistent
with what procedure would be. We determined what was going to
happen there in consensus mode.
I would like to proceed with
this matter, but obviously the member wants to speak again, so I
will relinquish the floor at this moment. But she did not
attend.
Mrs McLeod:
I would have interrupted on a point of privilege, but there's not
much point. The member should realize full well that, as most
members are on a Friday, I was in my riding, following up on all
of the predetermined meetings with constituents in my riding. It
is also highly unusual for a subcommittee of the Legislature to
be holding its meetings for organizational purposes on a Friday,
which is normally the day that those of who are out of town are
not able to attend.
Mr Tascona: We held it on a
Thursday at 12 noon.
Mrs McLeod:
I'm sorry, then. I was-
Mr Tascona:
Why don't you read the minutes, and you can see when we met.
The Chair:
That's enough, Mr Tascona. Carry on, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod:
In that case, my concern-I was under the impression the
subcommittee met on a Friday-is that the subcommittee met 24
hours before the deadline for submissions for presenters. So
there is a significant list of people whose names we do not have
who have asked to make representation to the committee.
Secondly, I would say to Mr
Tascona that there is no member of our caucus who would be in
agreement for a single moment with the time allocation motion
which set the terms of reference for these public hearings. I
made it very clear, in expressing my opposition, my reasons why
we'll vote against the subcommittee report, that my objections
were clearly to the time allocation motion and that the
subcommittee had little alternative but to set the terms of
reference within that time allocation motion. Of course there is
an agreement as to how to you're going to deal with an impossible
situation. That doesn't make this any less of a travesty of a
democratic process. For that reason, in principle, I will vote
against the subcommittee report, and I am absolutely confident
that our critic and Mr Smitherman, who acted on our behalf at the
subcommittee, would agree with the principle of this.
The Chair:
OK. So we'll take the motion to accept the subcommittee report of
June 1st. All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
So we will be meeting at 10
o'clock on Wednesday, June 7, from 10 am until 12 at the Holiday
Inn in Barrie.
May I have a motion to
adjourn?
Mr Tascona:
Motion to adjourn until Barrie on Wednesday.
