CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 July 1992
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Offer
*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Huget
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1536 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I'll call the meeting to order in the absence of the Chair, who is unavoidably detained for a few moments. We might as well get started.
A subcommittee meeting took place over the lunch-hour today, and I believe there is a report of that committee in front of everyone. Has everyone had a chance to go over the subcommittee report? Can I get a motion of concurrence? Do you want it read into the record or just a motion of concurrence or adopt it?
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would move that we adopt these recommendations.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, moved by Ms Witmer. Discussion on the motion?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I had the honour of attending the subcommittee meeting both yesterday and I believe Monday. There are a couple of things I would like to record, at least before we discuss the actual motion.
From our perspective, it has been the view of the Liberal Party from the very beginning that five weeks of hearings would probably not be adequate and that we are agreeing to the five weeks of hearings because that's the agreement the House leaders came to. But the whole game seems to have been changed in that the closure motion of yesterday is in essence dictating what this committee will do. It's dictating that we will start on August 4, where it was our hope that this committee would start on the 10th, but by a very unusual procedure the government unilaterally, by the closure motion of yesterday, has dictated to this committee what would happen.
I would like to make note of the fact that we oppose the closure motion and we oppose the start of this committee on August 4. We don't believe that's ample time for the presenters to get their presentations together and we do not believe it's ample time for the people of Ontario to consider this bill.
Having said that, I would move on to the second point. The second point is that our party believes that two weeks of hearings throughout the province is not sufficient, that there should be three weeks of public consultation across the province, not two. I would bring members' attention to the report, which mentions that we will go to these cities outside of Toronto: Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, Sudbury, Kingston and London. Those are six cities on a very major bill.
I've had the experience myself of sitting on two previous bills that related to labour relations in one way or another, that being Bill 162, which was a workers' compensation bill, and I spent a little bit of time on Bill 208. Bill 162 went throughout the province far more extensively than this committee intends to. We were in quite a number more centres than the government is proposing we take this sweeping legislation to.
We have a problem with that. We think we should be out in cities like Sarnia, Kitchener, Hamilton, Barrie, Peterborough, perhaps Belleville, Timmins, North Bay, Sault Ste Marie and perhaps even Kenora, and those are cities that committees on bills like this usually go to. That's not something I've just dreamt up. The practice on major bills dealing with labour legislation is to go to these places to give the people of Ontario an opportunity to comment on them.
Our party is not happy with the fact that we are being restricted to two weeks, which obviously means we have a very short list of cities we will be able to go to. I am disturbed by that and I think all members of the committee should be disturbed by the fact that we are denying access to people from Timmins, for example. I don't think there are a lot of Timmins people who are going to come to Sudbury. I might be wrong, but I would guess that if we were in Timmins, there would be a lot more interest in presenting to this committee than there will be if they all have to come to Sudbury.
I look across at my friend the member for Cochrane North. His constituents from Hearst will have an amazingly interesting time coming to Sudbury for those hearings. "Yes," he says, "they'll come to Toronto." That's maybe a little easier for them, but still, from Hearst there's a tremendous expense. I know we'll cover the expense of the people coming, but in terms of time involved, people who want to present, small business people particularly, will find that is just not an option that will be as viable as if it were in a part of the province that was much nearer to them. So we have a real problem with that kind of thing.
Back on Bill 162, because I sat through virtually all of that committee, when we finished up there were 400 presenters who could not be heard. The New Democrats on that committee time and time again reiterated the position that everybody should be heard, and every speech on Bill 162 that was made by New Democrats after that committee rose hit on the fact that there were 400 groups and individuals who did not have the opportunity for this committee to hear them.
I want to remind members that by restricting ourselves to only going outside Toronto for two weeks we are opening ourselves to the criticism that the six members over there made -- with a vengeance, I'll tell you. I find it passing strange that a government would not want to allow those people to come before this committee, and that's what's happening. I would be interested to hear the speeches in the fall when we get to doing this, and how they talk about the logistical impossibility of doing this and how members don't have the time to hear from the 400 people across this province; I'm sure we're going to hear that, because likely some of the people over on my side are going to say, "You could have worked a little harder to accommodate us."
I just want to bring that to the attention of the committee, because this is another classic example of "That was then and this is now." The former committee accommodated far more people and far more places, and the people had a lot more opportunity to put their views before our committee on what I believe to be a very contentious issue.
I'm not going to belabour the point, but I want to put on record that we are opposed to just two weeks across this province, because it does not give us the opportunity to hear from the folks who are going to be affected, whichever side of the issue they happen to be on. In my experience, all labour legislation in this province tends to be contentious, and that's fair enough, but particularly on contentious legislation I think we have a duty as legislators to accommodate as many people as we can. Certainly we're just not doing it by following this subcommittee report.
Having said that, I participated in the discussion of this subcommittee report, but I participated on the basis of a closure motion that dictated what we did, and I participated on the basis that on Monday last this committee made a decision that we would only be in the province for two weeks, spending the other three in Toronto. Having been part of the discussion this morning, I can't stall this -- any more than I already have, I guess -- but I just want to record for the record where we're coming from on this, because I don't think we're doing our job.
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion on the subcommittee's report?
Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to register the concern of the Ontario PC Party regarding the start date of August 4. Unfortunately, we had hoped to give people in this province sufficient time to prepare their presentations, and we were looking at a startup date one week later. Certainly we're very concerned about the very short time that groups and individuals are going to have for making presentations.
We would've liked to have more time as far as hearings are concerned, but obviously that's not possible. I guess we're going to have to ensure that all the written submissions get as much attention as those that are presented verbally. Obviously, on an issue as contentious as this one, it's going to be impossible, whether you have five weeks of hearings or eight weeks, to ever accommodate all the interested parties. It's unfortunate that the government in drafting the legislation didn't use the tripartite consultation method, because as a result of not doing that, we now have a document that has certainly created a very adversarial atmosphere within the province and has generated a lot of interest.
As I say, I guess we will do our best to listen to all voices, and I hope that when we write our report not only will we have listened to people, but we will incorporate the views of all those who have made presentations. I hope we will be able to introduce some amendments, and I hope there will be deletions.
I hope people in this province will see that this committee was truly interested in listening and consulting, and I hope we're not engaging in a public relations exercise. That's been my concern from the start. If that's what we're doing, it's a tremendous waste of our time and of taxpayers' money, so I hope the final document we prepare will contain the views of all those making representation to the committee.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Mr Ward.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Just a couple of questions, Mr Chair. With the August 4 startup of this committee to discuss the issue of labour reform, perhaps the clerk could, for the record, advise me of what the deadlines will be for people or organizations who wish to participate in the committee hearings, both to be in attendance at the hearings and any deadline for written submissions, which I'm assuming will come after the committee's on the road.
The Vice-Chair: I can do it or the clerk can do it. It was agreed on Monday that the deadline for requests to appear would be July 30, and that written submissions would have to be in by August 28.
Mr Ward: To request the possibility of becoming a presenter to the committee is July 30, and that has to be a formal fax or letter?
The Vice-Chair: A phone call or communication with the clerk of the committee. There will be ads, and the clerk can --
Mr Ward: The preparation of the list of presenters will be made by whom? I'm not quite clear on what the subcommittee's recommendation --
The Vice-Chair: It will be made by subcommittee. I believe we already have some we might be able to work on for the first week in Toronto, that have already asked for standing, but the subcommittee will sit down and iron out who is going to be selected and report back.
Mr Ward: So the subcommittee will be making a selection, is that correct?
The Vice-Chair: In the subcommittee report from today, item 3: "That the committee should not accommodate walk-in presentations; that late requests be accommodated if there are slots available; that if there are more requests than time available, then refer their request to the subcommittee, and that their request will be booked according to the chronological receipt of the request."
Mr Ward: That's after we've made our selection, correct? Or is that referring to the actual selection of presenters?
Mrs Witmer: Actual selection.
1550
Mr Ward: I have a bit of a problem with that. Just so I understand this, the presenters will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis, if we are listing on chronological receipt of the request. Perhaps you could clarify that for me.
The Vice-Chair: I apologize. I wasn't at the subcommittee meeting this morning, but when I read it, I do believe this is dealing with late requests.
Mr Ward: Just strictly late requests?
The Vice-Chair: Is it all requests?
Interjection.
Mr Ward: To move things along, that's the hint I inferred from item 3 as well as item 6, which seems to put a lot of decision-making in the Chair and takes it away from the committee.
I think this committee must prevail and make every effort to ensure that we have a balanced presentation. I know there's going to be some excellent presentations from all sides that have an interest in labour reform. I would hate to see a selection process be incorporated that would perhaps skew the presentations towards one side or the other.
I think it would be most appropriate, and I will be moving this amendment, that the subcommittee formulate the selection process and that the opposition have an opportunity to recommend one group or organization or individual and the government side have an opportunity to select an organization, group or individual. That would be the method to fill up our time allotments in each city, whether it's in Toronto or whether it's when we're on the road.
That, I think, would ensure a balanced approach to the presentations. It would take some of the stress from the clerk and possibly the Chair and deflect any criticism that could come from an unbalanced approach if the number of presenters is weighted on one side or the other.
I think that would be an appropriate amendment. It would ensure that the clerk could not be unduly criticized; the subcommittee would meet and simply go through the selection process based on the number of presentations that we receive.
The Vice-Chair: You are making an amendment, as I understand it, that the subcommittee sit down and negotiate, with separate lists or whatever.
Mr Ward: Based on the number of presenters we have, the subcommittee would make the selections based on the opposition selecting one, the government selecting one, the government selecting one, the opposition selecting one.
The Vice-Chair: I'm taking somewhat of a licence here and I know this, but having gone through the process, I've no problem with what you're saying in advance, but if we have people drop off, it becomes somewhat cumbersome to do that.
Mr Ward: I have no problem with item 3, which I thought would refer to the late requests or if people drop off. Then let's see who we can fill in.
Mr Brown: On that, first I guess I would appreciate a written amendment so that I really know what we're talking about. We discussed this issue at the subcommittee meeting this morning. It was my understanding that people would be slotted in on a first-come, first-served basis unless all the slots for a given location were full, and then the subcommittee would assist the clerk in apportioning the remaining names. Isn't that what we decided? Maybe not.
The Vice-Chair: It's unfortunate that neither Sharon nor Peter is here.
Mr Brown: I understand what Mr Ward is saying in that we do want a balance. The difficulty you have with achieving a balance in the presentations is knowing in advance on which side people are going to be. Sometimes it's relatively easy to predict. Other times, when you have an individual's name, there is absolutely no possible way that you could predict what the person might say when he's before the committee, nor should we be in the business of trying to predict that, I would suggest.
We have some difficulty in prejudging the presenters and prejudging who's going to say what. Sometimes we may be surprised if we go through a process like that. For example, it may not be every union that is enthralled with this legislation; it might be, but it may not be. It may not be every business group that is totally opposed to this legislation; it may be, it might not be. We're making some judgements that I think are very, very difficult in terms of dealing with the presentations. If we start to do it by -- Liz picks one she presumes, I guess, is a Tory; I pick one I presume is a Liberal and the government picks one it thinks is probably a New Democrat. I don't think that's a really useful way of approaching this.
Mrs Witmer: It's regrettable that neither Ms Murdock nor Mr Kormos is here to speak to the point Mr Ward has raised because actually, I guess Mr Ward -- I started off on the same foot as you did this morning. I thought we should try to achieve some balance in presentations. However, in further discussion it was pointed out to us the dangers inherent in doing that. Also, it puts you in a position where you have to start asking people, "Are you for or against?" It puts the clerk in that position and it really is not fair to ask people that particular question. So we've left it up to first come, first served.
I think, if we try to orchestrate, we are going to run into some problems. If someone has already applied now and suddenly they're not able to make a presentation and then somebody two weeks down the line does, it's hardly fair to that individual. How can you really balance a presentation without asking people what side of the bill they're going to come in on when they approach the clerk? I guess we just hope there will be a balance there, but we're not sure we can orchestrate that balance. We're concerned with fairness and I think whenever people make presentations, those people who initiate action first and ask for an opportunity, hopefully will be given that opportunity and not be denied the opportunity in favour of someone who applies at a later date. I think we have to be very, very careful how we handle this. As I say, I wish Ms Murdock and Mr Kormos were here because I was persuaded away from the very argument you're suggesting.
The Vice-Chair: If you were to look at the monitor, you would see Ms Murdock is elsewhere at the moment. Any further discussion?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The proposal is being written out there. I think it should be fairly easy to take a look at the groups and the names of the people and come up with a balanced presentation because we're paying fairly good dollars. I'm sure the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same for research people out there who have a fairly good idea of which way a group, a company or a union is going to make a presentation. I think, with the phone system, the fax systems and the systems we have right now, we should be able to work out a balanced approach and not necessarily that the first week everybody who comes in is opposed to it and the second week everybody who comes in is in favour of it.
With the amendment being brought forward -- and Brad is writing it out there now -- I think it's fairly easy to do that. We have three parties in the House and all three parties have been in government at one time or another, so I think people have a pretty good knowledge of what is happening in the field.
Mrs Witmer: Do you want the clerk to ask each person that applies whether he is for or against?
1600
Mr Ward: If I may clarify. Rather than have the clerk ask, "Are you for or against?" -- because some people or organizations may be in favour but have some reservations with some of the labour reform. Others are in direct opposition to any reform, but may be convoluted in how they feel. Simply have the clerk take down the names of the groups, organizations or individuals. After the cutoff date the subcommittee meets, takes a look at the list and goes through a selection process, one for opposition and one for government, until all the time slots are filled in, at which time the clerk would then give notification to those groups and organizations that have been selected, "Here's your date, here's your time and we'll see you there."
The ones who could not be selected would simply, I assume, prepare a written submission, which would then be forwarded to the clerk no later than August 28. I don't think the clerk would be in any position to say who's for or against. It would be up to the subcommittee to decide which groups should be brought forth.
I would anticipate the vast majority we'd simply be able to tell and that's fine. But I think this is the only process that would ensure that we do have a balanced representation during our committee hearings. I would hate to think that simply because groups or organizations have the ability -- because you said you'd take phone calls or fax machines, which the vast majority of people don't have access to -- to make the phone call through the day or utilize a fax machine through the day, the presentations could be skewed one way or the other.
I think this is the only fair approach to really ensure that we have balanced representation during the committee hearings and it relieves the pressure from the clerk or from the committee Chair, because after all, it's the subcommittee that is selecting the presenters rather than the clerk or the Chair.
The Vice-Chair: If I could, I would like the clerk to respond. There is some concern, I believe, for at least week one in what you're putting forward, Mr Ward, and I would ask the clerk to respond to that.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Harold Brown): If the advertisement for the bill goes in the paper on Wednesday, the cutoff date then is approximately nine days later and is one weekend prior to the commencement of the hearings. There is no doubt going to be some concern about the time periods that are involved, so that has to be considered, I guess.
The other thing that might be worthwhile mentioning for the benefit of the committee at this point is that any organizations or people who have called our office or faxed their requests to us, we have recorded them in a chronological manner for the benefit of the committee and it would be available and can be available on a pull-up basis basically at any time. If that were pulled up prior to the end of next week, for example, and the subcommittee was able to reflect on that list, then that could be done.
Certainly, at any rate, it's the objective to remove the decision about the presenters' position away from our office and the selection of the witnesses away from our office except on a mechanical basis. That's what I think the subcommittee was driving at this morning, that it's done on a chronological basis and there's no decision-making on our part.
Mr Ward: Do you want my written amendment? Would that help?
Mr Brown: It would be useful, so we know exactly what we're trying to decide on.
Mr Ward: If I may -- Mr Real Chairman.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Thank you, Mr Waters, for being such an excellent, as you inevitably are, Vice-Chair.
Mr Brown: He's superb.
The Chair: Excellent. Outstanding.
Mr Ward: Just to bring you up to speed, we pretty well have concurrence with the vast majority of the recommendations from the subcommittee. There's one concern I have and I'm moving an amendment that's now in writing, and I hope it's clear for all the members here, to address the concern I have and that is that "the subcommittee be directed to prepare a list of groups, organizations or individuals who will give presentations to the resource committee during the hearings on labour reform and that this selection process incorporate a system of one government selection, one opposition selection, one government selection etc."
The Chair: That's been moved as an amendment, and just to make that perfectly clear, what you're saying is that the subcommittee be responsible for doing scheduling. Is that correct? Is that the intent of that amendment?
Mr Ward: Yes.
The Chair: When you speak of one government choice, one opposition choice, one government choice, one opposition choice, do you want to clarify that, because I'll bet you -- I'm not sure, but in view of the fact that casinos, who knows, could just be around the corner, I'll bet you the opposition parties are going to suggest that it should be government, opposition, opposition, government. What was your intent in the amendment?
Mr Ward: That it be government, opposition, government, opposition until the times are filled up.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that? Mr Brown? Was my guessing good?
Mr Brown: Reasonably good, thank you, Mr Chair. I guess I would indicate a strong concern with this amendment. I think, first of all, we have to recognize this legislation came before the people of Ontario on June 4. Less than two months later, we're asking that people indicate to our clerk that they are interested in these public hearings. That looks a lot like a steamroller to us already. It looks like stage management of the nth degree.
To give the indication to the public that we are going to stage-manage the presenters who come before us is just totally inappropriate. I would tell you that I really suspect that people in opposition to this bill who arrive under the system that is outlined here, not under the amendment, will be in the minority, because quite frankly my experience with labour bills is that they bring out union locals, which are generally well organized and have the ability to do that far better than people who might be opposed. I'm not saying that in anything but a factual sort of way, because in my experience with labour bills that's what happens. I think maybe Ms Witmer and myself would be wise to agree with Mr Ward's amendment. It would probably work out in the opposition's favour.
But I am totally opposed to the stage management of a committee hearing system, and that's what you're talking about. If we put forth the idea to the people of Ontario that we're going to only hear on political terms what they have to say -- because many of them aren't New Democrats, many of them aren't Liberals, many of them aren't Conservatives. They're people that exist out there who have strong concerns, one way or the other, with this legislation.
I just find this totally unacceptable. The choo-choo just keeps rolling down the tracks here. I can't live with that.
Mrs Witmer: I'm totally opposed to this committee in any way attempting to orchestrate and determine who's going to appear. This is not a political issue. There are interested people in this province who want an opportunity to respond to this bill, and I do not feel I want to be involved in any way, shape or form in influencing any individual or any group concerning its ability to make or not make a presentation.
This is a province where we pride ourselves on freedom of expression and freedom of the opportunity to express yourself. If we're going to stage-manage these hearings, I don't even want to participate. I can't believe we're even suggesting we would do this. Personally, let people come forward if they have an interest. I'm not going to be involved in making the choices as to who appears and who doesn't appear.
If we're really concerned about fairness -- and I hear that from the government all the time -- I say we accept people in chronological order. To me that's the only fair position to take. I'm interested in hearing from everybody, whether they agree with the position I have or the opposition party has or the government has. I don't want to predetermine what they're going to say and who I want to listen to. I'm appalled that we would even consider this.
The Chair: Before we go to Mr Klopp, then Mr Ward and then Mr Brown, let me please just mention that the approach in itself of caucuses in rotation sort of nominating participants isn't an unusual process in itself. It's well precedented. Mr Klopp.
1610
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Listening to this, earlier the honourable member for Waterloo stated that she wanted this process because of all the names or whatever that may come in Toronto. The chronological order seems to be a little bit too rigid. The honourable member pointed out his argument that by rights we should be supporting this, and that's where I'm coming down the line on.
In my last bill that I was with, we had so many people who wanted to come and talk about the issue. It was the subcommittee that reviewed that issue, all the people who wanted to come in, and they had a chance to say, "Well, I definitely want this group or I definitely want that, or I don't care about this," and whatever.
Now maybe this part on here saying 50-50 -- I think I can see it leads to feelings of "for" and "against," which I find a little bit frustrating. I know when it was the helmet issue, which is maybe more important to some people, the subcommittee was responsible to go through the list, because there were so many, and say that some of them would be turned down just from the time allocation, which we've all run into on this point. Some say there are going to be hundreds left over who aren't going to be picked.
It was quite interesting. I just looked at the list, not being on the committee, and said, "Oh, this group probably might be pro-helmet." I happen to be a pro-helmet person and, God, they got to the mike and they hammered the ever-loving thing out of my pro-helmet. Then with another group I said, "Oh, boy, they're not going to be pro-helmet," or "They're going to be whatever," and they were the other way.
I think they need to have a subcommittee do this. I agree with that intent, because of whatever reasons people may have, so I'm going to support this. I'm a little bit leery that it's unfortunately 50-50, because it sounds bad, but I think, hearing all arguments, I'm going to be supporting this motion, the subcommittee review or whatever to look at this list of people who come in.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Ward.
Mr Ward: Just again to clarify, our whole intent here is not to stage-manage the process, but to ensure we have a balanced view during the committee hearings, and I think this is the only fair way to do it.
Now there may be an opportunity for the subcommittee, through consensus, to agree on who all the groups, organizations and individuals would be. In that case it doesn't have to go to your selection, our selection, your selection. If there can be consensus about who everyone is, that's great, but I just don't want, because someone doesn't have access to a fax machine, that he is denied an opportunity to give a presentation, when he may make an excellent presenter and give excellent views. I think this is the only fair way to do it. It takes the stress and strain off the clerk and off the Chair, and allows the subcommittee to work together to decide who the presenters will be.
If they can do it by consensus, that's great, and I think that's something they should be working towards, but we have to make sure we have balanced views expressed during the committee hearings and that as many people as possible have an opportunity. Simply because they didn't have access to a fax machine or couldn't get to a phone to call the clerk, they're denied an opportunity. I don't think that's a good process to follow, either.
The Chair: Mr Brown, did you still want the floor?
Mr Brown: Yes. I just want to reiterate the problems I have with this. I think at the meeting we had this morning there was an agreement that the Chair would come back and speak to us on any matter of substance that he thought was not just a trivial matter he could decide on himself. We're quite willing to trust the judgement of the Chair in deciding what is a matter of substance and what is just a minor matter of administration. If the Chair or the clerk has some problems in deciding who should appear, for example, I'm sure the Chair would want to convene a meeting of the subcommittee in any event.
I am deeply disturbed by the suggestion we do it this way. I've sat on committees where we've had too many presenters for the slots, and the subcommittee has come to some decision in a consensual way about who should be heard, rather than one party picking one and another party picking another. I find that to be just not acceptable in the spirit of the free democratic process. I don't think the public would accept that.
The Chair: Okay. Ms Witmer, you moved acceptance of the subcommittee report?
Mrs Witmer: I did.
The Chair: All six paragraphs. Would you consider moving that, but with the deletion of paragraph 3, so that all of the subcommittee's report is approved but for this issue that requests will be booked according to chronological receipt?
Mrs Witmer: I guess the problem I would have with that is, I think it is important that we resolve that issue. I'm not sure what there is to be gained by delaying if someone can convince me as to why we should not deal with that issue.
The Chair: Just a request, and it was denied. All right, there's still an amendment on the floor then, Mr Ward's amendment.
Mr Ward: Mr Chair, to attempt to appease some of the concerns that the opposition have, the amendment could be modified to direct the subcommittee to select a presenter based on consensus and/or --
Interjection.
Mr Ward: I just don't think --
Mr Brown: If there is no consensus, then we revert to the system you suggest.
Mr Ward: Yes. I'm just trying to appease your concerns here.
Mr Brown: Typically, if a subcommittee cannot come to a resolution of a matter, then it comes to the full committee for resolution. That's generally the way it's done.
Mr Ward: If you don't think that's enough to appease, well then fine. I'll stand by the original amendment.
The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on the amendment?
Mrs Witmer: I'm not quite sure now what the amendment actually says and the intention.
The Chair: The amendment replaces the final portion of paragraph 3 --
Mrs Witmer: Starting where?
The Chair: -- and that is that requests will be booked according to the chronological receipt of the request.
Mrs Witmer: Okay.
The Chair: The amendment is that the subcommittee will be directed to prepare a list of groups, organizations or individuals who will give presentations to the standing committee on resources development during the hearings on labour reform, and that this selection process incorporate a system of one government selection, one opposition selection, one government selection, one opposition selection.
Mr Ward: I stand by that.
The Chair: That's the amendment that replaces the subcommittee's recommendation of straight chronological order in terms of who applies. Yes, ma'am?
Mrs Witmer: I guess I would be voting against that amendment because I feel very uncomfortable assuming everyone in this province is either a Liberal or a Conservative or an NDP member. I believe this amendment eliminates the freedom of expression of individuals to make a presentation.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Brown?
Mr Brown: I would ask that Mr Ward reconsider this and do some thinking. I think we're moving pretty quickly on what could be a precedent in committee in this place that I think all of us will regret. I can count, so I know that Ms Witmer and I are going to lose if we get this to a vote, but I'm saying to Mr Ward, I think you should reflect upon what you're saying here in light of some of your colleagues' comments that this may not be the way to go, and to give it some thought before we get to that.
I really have some difficulty. I believe this will look like stage management to the people of Ontario; it will look like straight orchestration. It will look like hearings of this Legislature are totally political events, rather than an opportunity of the people to come and tell legislators what they think. I would just ask Mr Ward -- I can count, so we're going to lose if you go forward with this -- let's just think about this for a minute before we go on.
1620
Mr Klopp: Just on a comment that one member made about Liberal, NDP or Conservative, I think the issue got blown into that. Maybe it was just the English language that we used in this motion, because it was felt that was a right way to go, to have a subcommittee making sure that whatever is brought forward -- the issue we're dealing with is supposedly for or against the amendments to OLRA. Believe it or not, I have some Liberal friends who like the idea, I have some Conservative friends who like the idea and I have some New Democrats who were telling me, "No way."
That's why we made some amendments, because of that open forum. I think it kind of got blown into political realms that maybe it shouldn't be in. I guess that was my concern a few minutes ago. I believe that it should go to a subcommittee to go through the list. I believe this can be cleaned up a little bit. If not, then fine, I will support this, but I just want it on the record that I think it got shoved into a political arena when it shouldn't have.
Mr Wood: Just briefly, in the discussion it seems like there were two possible ways of resolving this, to eliminate some portion of the last sentence in paragraph 3 or to bring forth an amendment which would serve the same purpose. It's quite obvious that there's an unwillingness of the person who made the motion to allow for that sentence to be removed, so I think we should proceed with the amendment that has been presented by my colleague.
Mr Brown: I was hoping I could hear from Mr Ward. I urge Mrs Witmer maybe to reconsider the Chair's offer to consider this without that third point in the subcommittee report at this point. We can deal with the selection of witnesses at a later date in the subcommittee. It has always happened by way of consensus, so I really have a problem.
The Vice-Chair: I'm breaking the rules again, but if the Chair might take some licence, I'm looking at the monitor. Obviously, Ms Murdock is finished and she's probably waiting for her two minutes. I'm not sure, although this seems to have gone on for longer than two minutes. Maybe Ms Murdock could come down and shed some light on this.
Mr Brown: Perhaps, Mr Chair, we could take a brief recess.
Interjection: No, hold it.
Mr Ward: Mr Chair, my concern has been that I don't agree that it should be chronological order. Elizabeth originally refused, but if we can withdraw that, I have no problem. I suggested that the list go to the subcommittee and that it come up with the presenters. I don't care how the selection is. I said, "If there can be consensus, that's fine," but, Mike, you kind of shook your head there when I suggested that.
Mr Brown: No, no.
Mr Ward: If there can be consensus, that's great. I don't think the clerk's job should be to decide who's going to present. He gathers the list and gives the list to the subcommittee, and the subcommittee looks at the list and by consensus comes up with who the presenters are. That's great. If Elizabeth can withdraw that sentence in item 3, then we refer the list of presenters to the subcommittee for a final recommendation on selection.
Mrs Witmer: Then are you going to withdraw?
Mr Ward: I'll withdraw that one part of the amendment that causes concern, because I really think we can reach consensus on who the presenters are.
Mrs Witmer: That's fine.
Mr Ward: Does the clerk understand what happened there?
The Vice-Chair: I think I do.
Mr Ward: We removed chronological order, and the amendment would be that the final list of presenters be referred to the subcommittee for final selection. Right; is that okay?
Mrs Witmer: And that's all?
Mr Ward: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: Okay, I can live with that.
Mr Ward: And that it be consensus, hopefully.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Brown, do you have any comment on this?
Mr Brown: I think we can live with that also.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Everybody has the same understanding, I hope? I see the clerk writing feverishly here, so I think he's coming up with some wording in particular, if we can just give him a second to get this down.
Mr Ward: Is this an amendment, Mr Clerk, that reference to --
The Vice-Chair: This is an amendment after you've withdrawn your other amendment.
Mr Ward: This is an amendment that the reference to "above order" be removed from the report and that selection of witnesses be referred to the subcommittee for final direction for scheduling. Does that sound fair? So the chronological order is taken out, my amendment's removed and --
Mr Brown: So I understand, perhaps we just end the sentence with regard to number 3 after "subcommittee," if you're reading the original --
Mr Ward: "...and that the list of possible presenters be referred at a subcommittee for final scheduling." Okay?
Mrs Witmer: That's okay.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, read once again what you want to insert.
Mr Ward: That reference to "above order"` be removed from the report and "that selection of witnesses be referred to subcommittee for final direction and scheduling."
Mr Brown: After where?
The Vice-Chair: It would come in after "and" on the second-last line in number 3.
Mr Ward: That's moved.
The Vice-Chair: That's moved. Any further discussion on it? Do we have concurrence or do we wish to go to a vote? Concurrence? Agreed? Everybody's agreed.
We have one more item. There was some discussion at subcommittee on item 5, and the research officer actually brought in a sample of what Ms Murdock was talking about on that. I will turn it over to you two.
Mr Avrum Fenson: Ms Murdock remembered a very brief, chartlike summary, which I have found in the interim. It was prepared by one of my colleagues when this committee last year reviewed Workers' Compensation Board delivery. What she remembered was a sort of two-page summary based on 15 submissions. This committee is probably going to hear 200 or 300 submissions. Something on that scale is impossible, but I just wanted further instruction from the committee as to how complete a summary is wanted of the submissions it is going to hear.
I want to remind the committee that on hearings of this size, the summary of submissions is probably going to read something in the order of 100 to 150 pages, which may be too large to be of use to the committee in actually reviewing the proposals made on specific legislative changes. Does the committee perhaps want to instruct me to do something more compact, more usable?
1630
Mrs Witmer: You mean similar to this?
Mr Fenson: For example, if I could just pass these down, this is a typical large summary, and this is what Ms Murdock was asking about.
Mrs Witmer: This morning the subcommittee met and Ms Murdock suggested that we try to summarize concisely all the concerns that are presented, and you've brought along this summary. I would agree with her. I think it is an excellent idea. It seems to summarize the concerns and also the different groups that had those concerns. It should be quite easy to read for the committee and certainly I would support Ms Murdock's suggestion.
Mr Brown: The simpler the better, of course. I also recognize your concern that when we're dealing with the volume of presentations we may have, and who knows but we could be talking about 600 or 700 briefs, not necessarily presenters. There could be as many as 600 written briefs before this committee. It may be that this chart form, while excellent for a certain number of presenters, just isn't going to work for 600. I guess that's what you were telling us to begin with.
Mr Fenson: The standard large format attempts to identify virtually every specific proposal made. It also sets out, separately, proposals even when there are just minor distinctions between them. In other words, what it has turned out to be in practice is a record of who said what, rather than a clear access to what the different proposals are.
If the committee doesn't feel it needs a historical record, but rather wants a more compact working document, we can propose a change in the format. Our experience has been that the document has become too large by the time the hearings are halfway through for the committee to use it in a rapid and effective way.
Mr Brown: Are you saying you think it's possible to do one in a chart form that would be --
Mr Fenson: If the committee is willing to do without the function of the reports being a record which sets down exactly what every deponent said about every particular section in the bill, if they don't feel they need that historical record but rather want a clear and brief account of the changes, but don't really have to track each minor variation down to each brief, then we can do something more compact.
Mr Brown: I'm reluctant at this point to say we would be willing to do without the larger record, but I'm not the critic. I'm not the one who is going to be involved and I suspect you don't need to know today.
Mr Fenson: Oh no, not at all.
Mr Brown: Can we consider that for a while, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: Definitely. I don't see that makes it impossible for us to agree on the subcommittee report. I just see it as a concern that was brought by the researcher. Indeed, if there is some way you could look at a way of giving us all of it, maybe in point form or something, to make it as small a package and as readable as possible, I think we would all be interested, but we don't want to miss anything at the same time.
Mr Brown: Yes
The Vice-Chair: Okay. We can leave that in the researcher's hands.
Mr Fenson: These instructions are consistent with either format. It's just that the committee wants to consider what scale of summary it wants and instruct me later. I would appreciate it.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion on the subcommittee report?
Mr Ward: Just a point of order about the sticking point with me on this selection of presenters. It's my understanding that the intent is that we will have achieved a balanced viewpoint as far as the presenters will be concerned. I need assurances that it is possible with the amendment I moved.
The Vice-Chair: When I look at this, what I read is that you have indeed referred that back to the subcommittee to do the final direction for scheduling.
Mr Ward: Yes, and out of that we will have a balanced viewpoint. Is that correct?
The Vice-Chair: Indeed, I believe the subcommittee can always come back to the committee as a whole if it has a problem in ironing out the list.
Mr Ward: Is that possible with the amendment we moved, that if there's a concern from one subcommittee member, whether it's a Conservative representative, a Liberal representative or a government representative, that concern can be addressed by the main committee?
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Is it coming back?
Mr Ward: Yes.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, if I might be helpful, maybe I'm not, but in an attempt to be helpful, the way the subcommittee works is totally by consensus, which means all three parties have to agree. If any one of the three parties doesn't agree, then there is no report of the subcommittee and the full committee has to make the decision. It would seem to me that Mr Ward's objective therefore comes about by way of consensus at the subcommittee. Certainly the government, having more members than the opposition, has the hammer.
Mr Ward: I just wouldn't want the Conservative member to think the Liberals and the NDP were ganging up on the Conservatives in the list of presenters.
Mr Brown: It's been the other way around lately.
Mr Fletcher: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: On the subcommittee there are three members, one from each party.
The Vice-Chair: And the Chair.
Mr Fletcher: And the Chair, but the Chair has no voting rights.
Mr Brown: There is no voting in the subcommittee.
The Vice-Chair: There's no voting; it's by consensus. So indeed if we don't have consensus, then you go back to the whole committee, at which point the governing party has the majority of members.
Mr Fletcher: If there was not consensus, would that not happen on the first day of committee hearings? Or would there be a call of the Chair?
Mrs Witmer: That's a little too late.
Mr Fletcher: That's right, it is.
The Vice-Chair: The list will be decided long before committee hearings. In fact, the subcommittee will meet, maybe this week, to look at some of the people who have already applied to come before the committee.
Mr Ward: Another question: Prior to August 4 the main committee will know if there are any problems occurring with the selection.
Mr Fletcher: It has to. You can't go past that.
Mr Brown: My experience is, it's never as cut and dried as all that, and as we go through the process there are decisions subcommittees need to make in terms of presentations. In my experience, and I've chaired some committees with rather contentious bills before them, I have never had the experience that a subcommittee hasn't been able to do that. Given the fact you need consensus, all three parties have to agree, it is generally done and done in a way that everybody might not be pleased with but will find acceptable.
Mr Fletcher: My concern isn't so much that; my concern is, what if the subcommittee does not reach consensus and we find ourselves a week before the meetings are ready to start or something without consensus and we have to go through and come back to a special meeting of the committee? We're cutting right into a short time line and that isn't fair to the presenters in itself. I have no problem with the subcommittee making decisions; I just don't want to see us getting cut short and notifying presenters a week before that: "Sorry, you're not presenting now," or "We couldn't reach a consensus. You have a week to get your submission in," or what have you. That's my only concern.
The Vice-Chair: From the Chair's point of view, and in a quick decision here with the clerk, it's the first two weeks in Toronto where there might be some problem, where the time lines are going to be tight. Indeed, the very first week is going to be the most difficult one. After that, you have more time before we go on the road, and indeed the last week in Toronto, so it's a bit easier.
1640
Mr Fletcher: The reason for my concern is because of what I've heard from both opposition members, that this is a contentious issue. It's an issue that raises the ire of some members. I'm not sure how the subcommittee works. I really don't know if it works well or not.
Mrs Witmer: It does.
Mr Fletcher: Okay. As I say, that's something I don't know. If the bickering and the posturing begins in the subcommittee.
Mrs Witmer: No, it doesn't. It's very friendly.
Mr Fletcher: I agree. It probably is usually very friendly, but on this issue, knowing that the opposition believes this to be the big issue of the year, it could start, not just because of trying to be mean to one another or anything else, but because it is a contentious issue, because it does raise the blood pressure of some members. That's a possibility. I don't want to see a subcommittee that does work well all of a sudden not work well and have to come back and we get caught in a time frame.
Mr Brown: I can only speak from experience, but the experience is that subcommittees do work relatively well. They're not perfect. There are times when something breaks down and it is not what people might desire in terms of a nice clean process. Occasionally it does get back to committee, but often committees choose to deal with those matters outside of the public hearing time so that we don't have an interruption of the committee proceedings and keep presenters waiting for half an hour through what might be the lunch break in order to clarify a procedural issue.
Unfortunately, this is not always a nice, clean process. Most of the time it works. Occasionally it doesn't, but I don't think at this point we can make all these wonderful decisions when we've got a very -- how should I say it? -- flexible or fluid process that actually happens. To be fair, I don't think we can presume to know what's going to happen down the road totally. We have to be in a position to be somewhat flexible and adapt to the conditions that are there. Generally, committees have been able to do that.
Mr Fletcher: I understand that. Can I get a guarantee? You are on the subcommittee?
Mr Brown: No.
Mr Fletcher: And you're telling me how it works; I'm listening to experiences.
Mr Brown: I'll give you anything you want.
Mr Fletcher: Since we are going to work on consensus and since the issue is such a grand issue that does get people going, I would just like a guarantee that when it comes to picking the presenters the subcommittee will have a balanced 50-50 schedule. I would like that guarantee, not out of fear, not out of mistrust, but just so that I know that when people are presenting we don't have to come to the whole committee if there isn't consensus. If we have a 50-50 guarantee, then I can look at that and say --
Mr Brown: An understanding of a 50-50 --
Mr Fletcher: Yes, an understanding of a 50-50 or a balanced approach. That would help.
Mr Brown: I don't think the opposition is in a position to give any guarantee about balance, because essentially the government controls this committee, not the opposition.
Mr Fletcher: I mean from the subcommittee.
Mr Brown: Yes, but if the government doesn't agree at subcommittee, it comes to committee and there you go.
Mr Fletcher: That's my concern.
Mr Brown: The opposition knows how that works. I'm telling you, it works. But to say "50-50" worries me. I'm not sure you can say it's going to be 50-50, because as the Vice-Chair pointed out, you're never quite sure what's going to come out of their mouths when they come before you. You can be surprised. What's 50-50? That would be a highly unusual and new way of approaching the committee scheduling. I have confidence in the subcommittee functioning effectively.
Mr Fletcher: Me too.
Mr Brown: I'm in no position, and neither, I think, is any member of this committee, including the Chair, to give any guarantees, but the process tends to work.
Mr Ward: For my own comfort level, what I need is assurance that if one subcommittee member -- it could be from all three parties -- has a concern with the weight of the presenters, be it perceived or be it real, that concern can be dealt with by the main committee. Is that normal procedure, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Nothing is normal any more.
Mr Wood: I'm just looking for clarification. I've sat on other committees where the opposition has had the chair of the committee. When there's no consensus in the subcommittee it goes back to the committee to decide. I'm under the impression that this is the way this committee will operate too: If there's no consensus, the government has the right to bring it back to the committee for a final decision on the issues.
Mr Brown: Or the opposition, for that matter.
Mr Wood: That's the only clarification I wanted.
Mr Klopp: Maybe what I want is clarification. On Bill 118, the energy bill, the subcommittee went through and picked the list. My sense was that it was a 50-50 balance. I wasn't in the subcommittee; it didn't come up when we had the meeting before we went on our road show, but there was a consensus reached. My colleague wants some kind of relative assurance, and if that can be here, so be it. On that very contentious issue, which I put at about the same as this, it did seem to come out that way. So how did it work there that we didn't have this big discussion?
The Chair: It worked well there. It went around the table in terms of caucuses, taking a name and putting it there. Somebody else wanted the floor.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): The last time I sat in subcommittee doing something of this nature, I sat with my friends opposite on the energy bill -- in this committee -- and we had no problem working out a process that made a certain balance so that indeed there was more than just one side, indeed there was somewhat a balance. We managed that in subcommittee without any problem at all. I don't see how it's going to change this time. I have no problem dealing with these things in subcommittee, because it seems to go much more simply.
The Chair: So you're speaking in support of this new amendment by Mr Ward, he having withdrawn the earlier one?
Mr Ward: We passed that one. We're just clarifying it.
The Chair: So you're speaking now to the subcommittee report as amended?
Mr Waters: At this point I'm trying to alleviate some of the concern of the members who may not have sat in subcommittee for this particular committee, resources development. We usually do not have problems in subcommittee with witness selection.
The Chair: The amendment obviously had been argued thoroughly before it was voted on under the able direction of the Vice-Chair, and I suspect somebody wants me to put the question now on the subcommittee report as amended.
Mr Brown: Didn't we do that?
Mrs Witmer: It's all done.
The Chair: The committee report's been passed? Then what's going on?
Mr Fletcher: Hold it. There wasn't a vote.
Mr Brown: Yes, there was, wasn't there, Dan?
Mr Waters: It was by consensus.
Mrs Witmer: We agreed by consensus.
Mr Waters: Sorry, Mr Chair. My mistake: We agreed on the amendment but we never really got around to agreeing on the report in its entirety.
The Chair: Your apologies are accepted. I suspect somebody wants me to put the question of the subcommittee report as amended, which is what I said a little while ago.
Mr Waters: I'm in total agreement, as amended.
The Chair: All in favour of the subcommittee report as amended please indicate.
All those opposed please indicate.
The subcommittee report passes, as amended.
Any other business? Mr Ward, briefly.
Mr Ward: Just so I'm clear in my mind about the list of presenters and how the subcommittee's going to decide, it's going to be by consensus; that in the very short time the subcommittee has to meet to decide who's going to present, especially for the Toronto hearings, if there is some difficulty the main committee will be meeting to ratify any concerns the subcommittee members have.
The Chair: The subcommittee will act in accordance with the report of the subcommittee which was just approved by the committee. You're quite right. Thank you. Any other issues? Okay, we're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1650.