CONTENTS
Monday 20 July 1992
Organization
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich 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)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Conway
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Ms Murdock
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1600 in committee room 1.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 4 o'clock, which was the time scheduled for the commencement of this standing committee meeting. A subcommittee meeting was to be held at 3:30. Government members were present for the subcommittee meeting. Opposition party members were not present for the subcommittee meeting. At this point, government members are present along with a representative of the government whip's office, but no other members are present. With my apologies to the staff people who have sat here patiently for the last half-hour, we'll recess until such time as opposition members attend.
The committee recessed at 1601.
1615
The Chair: It's 4:15. Mr Waters is here, Mr Wood is here, Mr Huget is here, Mr Dadamo is here and Mr Ward is here. No other members of the committee are present. None has appeared since we commenced this meeting at 4 pm. Once again, I apologize to the staff who have been waiting here since 3:30, for 45 minutes now. Surely they had other things they could have been doing but were prevented from doing those things because they were here waiting for the subcommittee and then the committee meeting to start at 4. We shall wait and recess until more members appear. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1616.
1622
The Chair: It's 4:22. Mr Waters is here, Mr Wood is here, Mr Klopp is here, Mr Huget is here, Mr Dadamo is here, Mr Ward is here. Staff people, the clerk, research and Hansard people, have been here since 3:30 this afternoon. Other than a brief attendance by Mr Offer at 3:45, when he indicated he would be returning to the legislative chamber and not staying here for the subcommittee meeting, there's been no other attendance, either at the subcommittee meeting scheduled for 3:30 or at the committee meeting scheduled for 4.
The clerk distributed written notices on Friday, July 17, to all members of the subcommittee indicating there would be a subcommittee meeting at 3:30 today, and did indeed fax to those people at noon today a witness request list. As well, all members of the committee received a committee meeting notice delivered to their offices advising them of a meeting at 4 pm today.
Are there any suggestions?
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Have we received assurances from staff that the Liberal and Conservative members of the committee did in fact receive written notice?
The Chair: There's no reason to question that. The Clerk's office delivered to all of the members of the subcommittee and all of the members of the committee the written notices I referred to.
Perhaps we might ask the clerk to inquire of the whips' offices of the two opposition parties whether they intend to send people here today.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I believe that would be an excellent idea at this point in time.
The Chair: We'll recess then to give the clerk an opportunity to do that.
The committee recessed at 1624.
1644
The Chair: It's 4:44. Mr Offer has been here now for almost a quarter of an hour. Mr Turnbull is arriving. We'll proceed with our meeting, which was scheduled for 4 pm. Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: I was just going to say that I had the assurances of Ms Cunningham that indeed a member of the Conservative caucus would be in attendance and, lo and behold, Mr Turnbull is here.
The Chair: Here we are. Let's move on to any business.
Mr Waters: Mr Chair, I'd like to put a motion on the floor that Mr Huget replace me until further notice as Vice-Chair and whip for the government caucus.
The Chair: And member of subcommittee?
Mr Waters: And member of subcommittee, yes.
The Chair: Any discussion of that motion? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Motion carried. Mr Huget?
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): As all members are aware, there was a subcommittee meeting scheduled at 3:30 today. The government members were present; the opposition members were not present.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would put on the record the fact that the reason we weren't present was because there was the danger of some sneaky little trick from the government in terms of changing the hours, so we had to be in the House.
Interjection.
Mr Turnbull: When you're in third-party position you don't have the luxury of having that many members.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On the same erroneous point of order, Mr Chair: I would like to inform you and all those who are in the room that the reason this committee probably would not be able to commence at 3:30 is that we had not finished routine proceedings. There were points of order, there were petitions, there were reports by committees, there were introduction of bills that had not yet been completed. It's my understanding that committees, even though they wish to start at 3:30 in the afternoon, still cannot start until those very important parliamentary procedures have been completed. Today, because of a point of order and, I understand, the reservation of a decision by the Speaker, those matters were not yet completed by 3:30 in the afternoon. Hence, this subcommittee could not start at 3:30 pm because of the fact that those things that have been so important to this Legislature and its history had not yet been completed, unless you care to change the rules.
The Chair: The subcommittee was scheduled for 3:30 and the committee for 4.
Mr Huget: I appreciate the comments from the opposition member; however, at the scheduled meeting we were to decide witness selection and we are prepared to do that, from the government side at least. I'm convinced the subcommittee process will not work under the current conditions in the House, so therefore I have a motion that I will now table in terms of witness selection that will allow for a balanced representation of witnesses appearing before the committee. In order to achieve that balance, I am moving that 50% of the witnesses be selected by the government and 50% of the witnesses be selected by the opposition.
The Chair: Are you restricting that to a certain time frame or is this for the whole of the committee hearings?
Mr Huget: For the entire committee hearings.
The Chair: Motion on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr Offer: I just learned of this motion and I think it's an important motion that has been brought forward which will require some discussion. I would have hoped at the outset that the government member would have provided notice of a motion of the magnitude and import of this type prior to its discussion.
I think the member prefaced the tabling of the motion by indicating that he was convinced the subcommittee procedure of the committee would not work. If the member did not say that, I certainly will stand corrected, but I believe that is the premise under which that motion was made. Just by introductory question, Mr Chair, is it permissible for me in my opening comments to ask the member to expand upon what that opening comment meant, or is it rather more in keeping that I continue on?
The Chair: I'm inclined to let him respond to you, just by way of response to that issue, if that's what you're asking for. Mr Huget.
1650
Mr Huget: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't want to let it be misunderstood that I don't think the subcommittee process works, period. We arrived here today to discuss an issue in subcommittee. We cannot discuss that issue with ourselves, and given that there was nobody to discuss it with and that the pending start date of committee hearings is August 4, we quite frankly do not have a long period of time to let this drag on. So I think it's an issue that has to be dealt with and should be dealt with. If it can't be dealt with in subcommittee, sir, then it must be dealt with in full committee. We have very little alternative, given the August 4 start date, which is fast approaching.
Mr Offer: I'm well aware of point 2 of a decision made by the subcommittee last week. There were six decisions made by the subcommittee last week, and point 2 stated that the hearings be scheduled to commence at 1:30 pm Tuesday, August 4. So I think we're all well aware of that and we're all well aware of this report of the subcommittee of last week.
My question, though, was fairly straightforward. You premised your motion on the fact that it was your opinion as the new Vice-Chair of this committee -- which I have some concern about -- that a subcommittee on this committee for this matter would not work. I am wondering if you might be able to expand on why you as the Vice-Chair of this committee do not believe that a subcommittee of this committee would work.
The Chair: Please, Mr Offer. I appreciate that you were given an opportunity to have Mr Huget explain his position once. You're obviously speaking to the motion. He said what he said. Mr Huget may or may not want to join in the debate around the motion, but carry on with what your comments or arguments are about the motion itself.
Mr Offer: You don't wish to respond, then?
The Chair: No, I'm indicating that we can get into a long series of exchanges. Everybody will have the floor if and when they want to take it. Mr Huget may or may not want to take the floor. He may have said all he wishes to say about the matter or he may have a whole lot more to say about it. You're free to comment on it as you wish.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I certainly do have some things that I want to speak to on that motion. I was wondering if it is in order that a motion be made when we do not even have before us the written text of it. Is there some procedure that's required for a motion to be in writing, to be tabled with yourself, respectfully, as the Chair of the committee and then to be distributed before members of this committee so that we might be able to see the wording of this particular motion?
The Chair: That is certainly the desirable and preferable way to do business in the committee. However, I'm of the view that it isn't essential.
Mr Offer: Certainly I will abide by your ruling, Mr Chair, and I've certainly listened closely to what you have said, that it too seems to have come out of the blue as far as even the Chair of the committee is concerned. But that might be putting words in the Chair's mouth, which I do not wish to do.
I think that a subcommittee is essential. I think a subcommittee has to be able to work together to deal with the myriad of issues that come before any committee. I speak not only of the issue that we are going to be dealing with, Bill 40, but in general there is, I believe, on good principle and on sound fundamental principle, no question that there are a number of issues that come before a committee, issues such as scheduling, such as travel, issues such as witness selection in some cases, issues such as oath taking -- issues that we, in this room, as of today's date, cannot even yet anticipate. Certainly we might have an idea as to some issues, but I think it would be presumptuous on our part to think that on today's date we are able to, in any real way, anticipate every issue that comes before the committee. A subcommittee is there to decide and to deal with those issues.
I understand that a subcommittee reports to the committee, but notwithstanding that, there is no question as to the need for a subcommittee. How I read your motion, if I had it before me, the dismantling of the subcommittee procedure for this committee is just totally unacceptable. It's unacceptable not only for this committee but I dare say for all committees.
We've dealt with some difficult pieces of legislation in the past; I think we'll deal with difficult pieces of legislation in the future. We've dealt with difficult issues before a committee, and there's no question of the worth, the need, the necessity of a subcommittee, members who have been specifically appointed to serve on this committee. It is, I think, a slap in the face, I respectfully say, to those who have served on subcommittees and those who will yet serve on subcommittees, that you, by motion, asked for the dismantling of this one in this committee.
Those are my opening comments on this matter. If there are any other people who wish to speak, I certainly will give up the floor at this point in time.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm a little interested that we're revisiting this very same issue I thought had been disposed of last week. I have a lot of concern with this and I expressed it last week, but I guess I'll express it again this week.
The first issue about the government and the opposition selecting witnesses: This to my mind is totally brand-spanking-new to the process around here. The process has always involved the subcommittee, which, as it sits, makes choices on the basis, I think, and quite fairly over the years, of making sure that the people of Ontario who wish to speak to a committee have the opportunity.
I find it offensive that a New Democrat will be out there putting on people who would support the New Democrats' point of view. I find it equally offensive that a Liberal will go out there to find a Liberal who is going to support the Liberals' point of view and a Conservative one who is going to support the Conservatives' point of view. That is not the way public hearings have worked in this province; it's never happened that way. We give out a message that this is what we're doing, even if it is not.
As soon as you start to choose, as the government party, the people you want to come before this committee and the Liberals start to choose and the Conservatives start to choose, what message does that give to the folks out there who don't particularly think they're New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives but are just people who want to express a particular point of view on a particular bill? I ask you that. I think it gives the message to the public that the politicians of this province aren't interested in open public hearings. What they're interested in is having their own particular point of view, whether that be a New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative point of view, put before this committee.
We just become kind of stage managers, orchestrators, in a kind of circus that would go on here, rather than the true purpose of this committee or any legislative committee, which is to go out there and hear what the folks have to tell us. That's why we do it.
1700
Why would we advertise? Why would we spend the literally thousands and thousands of dollars we're about to spend to solicit people to put forth their views before us if those people are going to have to rely on the Liberal caucus choosing them or the New Democratic caucus choosing them or the Conservative caucus choosing them? My constituents -- I don't know about yours, Mr Chair -- would find that totally offensive. I think, Mr Huget, that perhaps you should revisit that.
As to the subcommittee not working, I don't agree. Last week the subcommittee met three times. All members from all caucuses were at each one. There was no undue delay. We discussed the matters that were before the committee at each and every opportunity. Eventually we thrashed out a document on how this committee was to operate.
Mr Waters, who convened the one on Thursday, I believe, said: "We've got a problem here. We'll meet on Monday. We'll talk about the lists. There haven't been enough people who've put their names in yet." All that kind of thing was understandable.
But to show up on Monday and say that because the House was tied up with routine proceedings longer than is normal -- and that was the case today -- to all of a sudden say the subcommittee isn't working is a giant step in logic. It just is. I don't know what time the routine proceedings of the House finished today, but they were very, very late and committees, as you know, cannot start before the routine proceedings are over. You would be violating the rules of this place.
Those are my preliminary comments. I would urge the member to consider the subcommittee process, because the subcommittee has generally met and has chosen the witnesses on the basis of making sure there is a balance in the views presented and that no one's view is going to be left out. This kind of authority where, "We'll pick one our ours, you guys pick one of yours," is just probably not on from our point of view.
Mr Ward: First of all, I'd like to correct Mr Offer's opinion that this motion dismantles the subcommittee. It does not dismantle the subcommittee. What the motion does is alleviate my original concern of last week that I felt that through the subcommittee process of consensus there would be problems developing, and it appears that that has happened. The subcommittee met on Thursday and there was no resolution of who the presenters would be for our committee hearings beginning August 4.
There was a scheduled subcommittee meeting for this afternoon at 3:30. The government side was in attendance; however, the opposition and the third party were not. As a result, no presenters were decided, because obviously the Conservative and the Liberal members were not in attendance.
My original concern, as a mover of the amendment from last week, originally was to allow a balanced approach to who the presenters would be; and that would be, to expedite the process, one selected by the government, one selected by the opposition and third party, and then one by the government etc until all the time slots were filled.
My concern is that if we do not pass this amendment more delays will occur. As a result, the presenters who will be selected will not have adequate time to prepare a presentation and the whole process will suffer.
I think this amendment expedites the process. It does not in any way infringe on the ability of a group or an organization or an individual to give a presentation because, in the end, they still have to be selected by the subcommittee, whether it was by consensus or by this amendment. Some groups, because of the time constraints, are not going to be present but will still be able to give a written presentation, provided it is in place by August 28, I believe.
We're not, I think, infringing or slowing down the process. What we're doing is expediting it to ensure that the groups or organizations or individuals who are selected will have adequate time to prepare their presentations. That's why I can support this amendment.
Perhaps if all members of the subcommittee had been in attendance at 3:30, this amendment would not have been necessary, but since that happened obviously we have to move along to the best of our ability.
Mr Turnbull: I sat on the subcommittee of the standing committee on general government, which reviewed both Bill 4 and Bill 121. While they were extremely contentious bills, nevertheless the subcommittee worked and at times was able to help the process along. The suggestion now that this subcommittee is not working is fairly offensive.
The reason that has already been stated as to why members of the opposition were not here at the time for the subcommittee was because routine proceedings weren't finished. Recognizing that all the members on the government side here weren't in opposition, they should still have some regard for the fact that the opposition does have a responsibility to the people who elect them. Essentially, their first responsibility and the whole genesis of the House rules and the idea of committees starting after routine proceedings is based upon the idea that their members should be available during question period and the rest of routine proceedings.
There was a fairly complicated and protracted discussion in the House as to the appropriateness of a guillotine motion the government introduced last week and it was appropriate that we maintain enough members in the House until that time. In fact, the very minute I could get out of the House, I came down here. So there was no suggestion of us deliberately holding up this committee.
The notion that in some way the subcommittee is not working is simply incorrect. It's unfortunate if we get off on this kind of footing on what I suspect might be fairly difficult hearings. We have to have trust that the subcommittee can arrange things suitably. We know the subcommittee does refer back to the whole committee.
I would respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate if this motion were to be withdrawn. However, if it's still left on the table after this discussion, I suggest it would have been a lot more appropriate had we been informed of this very substantive motion prior to this meeting.
Mr Huget: First of all, let me make it perfectly clear, having served as Chair of this committee, having served on this committee for quite some time and having participated in the subcommittee for quite some time, that I am somewhat aware of the importance and value of an effective subcommittee. As I stated to Mr Offer early in the conversation that's developed since the motion, I did not want to be misunderstood to say that the subcommittee could never work or would never work. That was perhaps an inappropriate choice of words on my part, but it certainly didn't work today in terms of trying to resolve an important issue.
As everyone knows, we have a tight time frame to work with. Therefore, the purpose of my motion is to do a couple of things: (1) to expedite the process and move towards meeting some very tight time frames, and (2) to make sure there is a balanced approach to the witnesses appearing before the hearings, and nothing other than a balanced approach. I believe it's a fair motion. It's one that ensures there is a very balanced, effective list of presenters.
I would have dearly loved to have been able to do that today during the subcommittee. However, as I also stated earlier, I could not do that among our own members. We needed the active participation of other people. While you refer to an important, pressing issue in the House, I also sit in the House, I also have a parliamentary responsibility, as do you, and I was here for the subcommittee meeting. I'm not trying to make an issue out of that, because to me it's really an aside.
But the motion is fair: The motion asks for 50% of the witnesses to be selected by the government and 50% to be selected by the opposition. In that way, I expect we will get a very balanced list of presenters throughout the committee hearing process. That's all my motion says.
Contrary to the comments of Mr Brown and Mr Offer and to a lesser extent Mr Turnbull, there is nothing in my motion that dismantles the subcommittee. I think that's a giant leap of faith or at least the product of an overactive imagination, to say that the subcommittee is being done away with. That concludes my remarks on the issue.
1710
Mr Offer: Seeing that no other government member wishes to speak on this matter at this time, there are a couple of points we have to put on the floor. Let me preface everything by indicating in the strongest terms possible that I take very strong issue with the comments made by Mr Huget and Mr Ward. I think they are the seeds of some real problems in the committee.
The first issue I want to talk about is the subcommittee not working. Mr Huget has alluded to it; Mr Ward has alluded to it. The fact of the matter is that when the Legislature is proceeding with statements by members, statements by ministers, replies to ministerial statements, question period, motions, petitions, reports by committee and introduction of bills, then committees and subcommittees cannot meet. Let's talk about some reality here. Today there was a point of order raised which lengthened that process. When that process, referred to as routine proceedings -- routine because they are supposed to happen each and every legislative sitting day -- is completed, then the committee starts to do its business.
It has been the practice that committees say they will meet at 3:30. That practice has arisen because that is an approximation of the time from which routine proceedings commence to their completion, with just a little bit of time left over to get into committee rooms. So 3:30 pm is really just some parliamentary usage based on past experience. I don't know if all members in this committee recall, but there used to be unlimited reading of petitions, if my memory serves me correctly, and that was used by opposition parties. That is not the issue I bring up at this point except to say that that was a situation where petitions were read, as was the right of any member, the result of which was that committees could not start, committees could not commence. They still had on their agenda that they would meet at 3:30 --
Mr Ward: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Offer is alluding to the fact that committees cannot meet till after routine proceedings. I'd like the clerk to clarify. Subcommittee can meet at any time, can it not? They are not bound by --
The Chair: You're on the list to speak.
Mr Ward: I just wanted to clarify that for Mr Offer.
The Chair: I appreciate that, and you'll have a chance to clarify that.
Mr Offer: I'm glad Mr Ward is going to be part of the debate again.
The fact of the matter is that in the time approximation as to the completion of routine proceedings, it is the sense that 3:30 would be a realistic time, but if there is something which takes places within routine proceedings which extends the actual time frame for routine proceedings, then committees cannot start, plain and simple.
That's always been the case and always must be the case, because if it weren't the case, then members would find themselves having to be both in the Legislature and at committee at the same time. It is the goal, I imagine, of all people that if we have duties to be in routine proceedings in the Legislature we will be there, and when those have been completed we go on to our committee duties.
So to say that the subcommittee of this legislative committee does not work because some members remained in the Legislature until the completion of routine proceedings is an interesting thought process. The fact is that members in this Legislature, I think, and I'm sure that all members in this committee as well as all members of the Legislature, feel that they should be there until the completion of routine proceedings, whenever they happen to be completed, and that was the situation today.
I make no comment on the point of order; I make no comment on the fact that the complexity of the point of order required the Speaker to reserve his decision -- that Hansard will attest to -- but it does provide the point and the evidence that this committee, as far as I was concerned, could not commence until our obligations as members in the Legislature in the area of routine proceedings had been completed.
There is another point I want to bring forward, that is, a point made by Mr Huget, who spoke about our reaction or overreaction to his motion, that it did not really entail the dismantling of the committee but rather, for reasons of expeditious necessity, required a new way to select presenters to the committee.
I said at the outset that I have some strong concerns over the comments made by Mr Huget and Mr Ward, and now I will speak to that point by Mr Huget. You have no right to say that, and I'll tell you why you have no right to say it. If this motion was so darn important to you, if this motion was so important to Mr Ward, if this committee was dissolving or unravelling before your very eyes, then in the interest of just plain, old-fashioned respect to members of this committee, maybe some who sit on your side, I think you would have had the courtesy -- just plain, old-fashioned manners -- of sharing with members that motion, the wording. I still do not have it. Let it be known: I do not have this very important motion that you have placed before this committee today.
1720
We got a ruling from the Chair that it was not necessary, that when you look at the dotted i's and the crossed t's in our rules of procedure, it was not necessary to share that with members of the committee, but if it was so important to you, if it was so important to Mr Ward, then I would have thought, just out of some sense of courtesy as we start to debate what I think will be a contentious bill -- but we have a role and a job as legislators -- that the least you could have done is say: "I'm going to be making this motion. Here it is."
I know you're not obliged to do so by the laws of this committee, but there are certain other rules of good, old-fashioned courtesy of one member to another member. If it is that way that you wish to proceed, that courtesy is now out the window, that the type of notice you are going to give to members of this committee is only that which you're obligated to give under the rules, you will not build any cooperation here and you will be the author. It will not be members on this side; it will be you who will be the author and Mr Ward who will be the author of that type of difficulty, because it's always been the practice no matter where people stand on the issues. The issues in some cases -- in this instance -- are secondary to how members deal with one another.
Yes, this is going to be a contentious bill. I recognize that you've been a member for two years, but let me tell you that in the past it has always been the rule, though not enforceable, that members, no matter how contentious the bill is, deal with courtesy with other members. And let me tell you that this is not the first contentious bill that has been before a committee and, I dare say, will not be the last, but I do think --
Mr Waters: Come on, Steve. From here on in it's sweetheart deals.
Mr Offer: Mr Waters makes some flippant comments over a matter which is very important. It is my opinion that no matter how contentious the bill was -- as I've indicated, I don't know and I don't speak with any evidence before me; it's just my feeling.
In my time here since 1985, I certainly can't ever recall this type of action taken by a member in a committee such as this two or three days into its hearings. It's not that motions like this haven't been made; it's not that motions of similar controversy haven't been made. It is a sense of courtesy by members between themselves. With all due respect, Mr Huget -- I know we've worked on other bills together and we've had sometimes a difference of opinion, sometimes not a great difference of opinion; we've always had opinions -- I think you should maybe rethink not so much what you've done today but how it's been done and the impact it's going to have on this committee and on our members.
The last point I wish to make, again through my secondary comments, tertiary to follow --
The Chair: What comes after tertiary?
Mr Offer: I'm going back to preliminaries because I don't know.
I have some question about this balanced approach to the hearings. It's not so much an opinion but a question. Mr Brown brought this up earlier on. I had always been under the impression that you put an ad in a newspaper, there's an ad that floats out there in a newspaper, in community newspapers, daily newspapers -- it's usually a decision made by the subcommittee -- and the general public responds. They respond for a variety of reasons, but whatever the reasons are, they respond.
I don't think they want to feel they're stage-managed, and this just gives me a taste of the stage-managed. It raises for me the question of why are we putting the ads in the paper? If these things are to be selected, about which I have some very strong concerns -- the government is going to pick one, the opposition is going to pick one; one, one, one, one -- from whom are we picking? Why are we making these choices?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Let's just pass it through third reading.
Mr Offer: Mr Wood says, "Let's just pass it," let's just get out of these committee hearings and then pass it into law.
Mr Wood: That's what you're suggesting.
Mr Offer: No, as a matter of fact, I'm suggesting the very opposite, Mr Wood. I hope Hansard picked your comments up because they might be very helpful when we get to clause-by-clause.
I think committees, no matter what our political partisanship may be, whatever stripe we wear, must be responsive to requests by the general public. We are not here to conduct political partisanship meetings. I would hope public hearings are to listen to the public and hear the reflections of the general public on an issue which is of concern to them. I do not believe it is proper -- I will be as strong as that -- for committees to say, "This person is in favour of the bill, this person is against the bill, and we're going to divide it up 50-50." That might not be reflective of the general sense of the public.
No matter what our position has been on second reading, no matter what our political party affiliation -- well, if you are going to run a sabre through the heart of the committee hearing process, there is no finer way to do it than the way in which you have just proposed. So I just have a bad sense and taste over this: that we're not going to hear somebody in favour of the bill unless we hear somebody opposed; we're not going to hear somebody opposed to the bill unless we hear somebody in favour of the bill. That isn't what this committee is all about. That isn't what this should be about.
I see some members on the government side are shaking their heads, saying: "No, no, no, that's not what this motion means. It's not what we really want to do."
Mr Wood: You don't understand.
Mr Offer: Mr Wood, I would love for Hansard to pick that up. That brings me back to the point I already made. If you had had the courtesy to give us a copy of the motion, explaining what it was you wanted to do and why, then maybe some of our concerns might have been allayed, but I don't know that, because it is now 5:30 and I still don't have a written copy of the motion. I don't know if my colleagues in the third party or my colleague Mr Brown has one, I don't even know if members of the government have one. We still don't have a copy of the motion. If a subcommittee isn't going to work, that is the best evidence of that argument: You are not sharing an important motion with the members of the committee. Then your retort to my comments was that I'm reading the motion wrong. That's quite difficult because I don't have anything here to read.
1730
I know we have dealt on other bills, and I think on one other bill that we dealt with and grappled with, the end result, I believe, was the government and the Liberal Party voted in favour, and Hansard might show that. we grappled with hard issues but we did it and we did it when we had full, free and open public hearings. We did it when members showed a courtesy to other members.
In the end result, we may not be able to agree on the bill. That, only time will tell. But I must say it causes me some real concern when motions of this import and this impact are made without informing members, dropping them from the sky and then expecting that this should be the framework of cooperation. It just doesn't hold true.
You wouldn't do it; there isn't a member on the government side. If we dropped down a motion and said, "This is a motion designed to enhance cooperation but we're not going to give you any notice of this," I have a feeling members of the government would say, "Where are you coming from?" and you'd be absolutely right. That's what this motion signified to me. It was a red flag, not that the subcommittee doesn't work but that the members on the government side are not prepared to allow it to work.
That is the completion of my remarks.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Interesting comments. First off, I think the record should show that subcommittees are made up of one member -- there are three political parties -- well, they call it three political parties -- in our Legislature. One of each is on a subcommittee. For them not to be able to meet after 3:30, I find a little bizarre. I think people in Huron county would wonder that three people, one from each party, couldn't get together, when I understand that a subcommittee decision was agreed to the week before.
Let's get back to the original meeting I was at a week ago. I do not think Mr Offer was there so I'll excuse him for not being there, but Mr Brown was, and a number of other people. It was decided there that the subcommittee would go through the list and if anybody had any problems, it would come back to the committee to make a decision. That was made quite clear. In fact, this idea of the government picking one group and then allowing the opposition parties to pick one person was discussed that day. I think it was generally accepted that if the subcommittee didn't work, this probably might happen here today.
Let's remember also that point about this picking. These are non-political committees and yet it seems Mr Offer kept bringing up political parties. So be it; that's fine with him. He's making the assumption that the Liberals would pick people, I guess, who are pro this bill and the NDP would pick people who are against this bill, or something. I don't think that was made at all. The situation is there was a list made. It was sent out by Mr Brown; I think that record is there. Then Mr Brown advertised --
Mr Brown: It was that Mr Brown.
Mr Klopp: The clerk: sorry; the clerk advertised. There is a list and it would be picked from, not for or against. Heaven knows, I've been on a committee where we had the helmet thing and who knows who's for or against it? If someone would have thought there were different people you could assume were for the helmet bill, you could never guess by the end of the day. So there's been nothing in this motion that says we're going to pick for or against. It very much will be picked from this list of people that was advertised.
I reiterate that it was made very clear by the committee as a whole to the subcommittee that if it could not come to a gentlepeople's agreement with regard to the list, "Bring it back to the committee, and by God, we'll deal with it." This idea was brought up and was given an opportunity to be put back on the shelf.
I understand the subcommittee tried to meet twice, and for whatever reasons, the other opposition members decided not to show up. It's pretty hard to have a meeting of one. Now today they were not there.
Mr Turnbull: It's just stupid.
Mr Klopp: Yes. They weren't here, and it's too bad that our regular member from the other wasn't there.
When we talk about treating each other fairly, this was discussed at committee as a whole. The subcommittee was not able to meet. Talk about unfairness. Surely one of the opposition members could have sent one of their staff down to say: "Listen, it's 3:30. I know we made an agreement to meet but we're going to have to hold up." In fact, this committee sat here till way after 4, waiting for someone to show up.
I think in all fairness Paul Klopp can support this motion.
Mr Ward: Just briefly; I think we've debated the issue here. I don't know about the third party. My understanding is that subcommittee members had an agreement to meet at 3:30. When I came down here at 4, I fully anticipated taking a look at the list of presenters for the first week, which the subcommittee would have discussed and reached a consensus on. That was my anticipation.
I was shocked when I came down here at 4 to find that not only were the government members the only ones in attendance, other than the staff who had been here since 3:30, but that the subcommittee did not meet simply because our member was the only one in attendance for that as well. This leads to great dismay and concern, because I want to be fair to the presenters. It's important they be notified as quickly as possible of when they will be allowed to give presentations, whether it's here in Toronto or on the road. We have to show courtesy to them.
As far as this amendment or resolution not being relayed to the opposition parties is concerned, there wasn't anyone here in attendance until around 4:30 to tell that this was the motion we were moving. We on this side of the table didn't realize that the subcommittee process wasn't working until I got here at 4; I'm assuming my colleagues were here at approximately the same time. That is when this motion was developed.
I'm not sure how long we're going to debate this, but I think we should be calling the question very soon. It's my understanding that with this motion -- perhaps the mover can clarify this -- the subcommittee would then meet and select the presenters based on the process that is outlined in the resolution.
Mr Wood: Today, question period was finished at 3 o'clock, and within a few minutes after 4 o'clock, Bill 75 was being debated in the House, so it was quite obvious that nobody came down from either the third party or the official opposition to explain why they weren't going to attend a subcommittee meeting and why they were going to be 30 or 40 minutes late for a regular meeting of the on resources development committee to deal with what should have been dealt with in the subcommittee. From 3 o'clock until 4 o'clock, sure, there were points of order in the House, which were probably stalling tactics or whatever.
I support the motion that has been brought up, because the only impression we have when we're sitting here by ourselves is that there are further stalling tactics on the part of the official opposition or the third party, when we know for a fact that question period was wrapped up at 3 o'clock and Bill 75 was being debated in the House shortly after 4 o'clock. Hansard will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was about three or four minutes after, at the latest 10 after 4.
With that, I'd just say that I'd like to support this, because I think it's a very good bill. It's a bill, Bill 40, that the people want passed as quickly as possible, after debate and presentations and any amendments that are there. I know there are a lot of people in my riding and throughout northern Ontario who are saying this should've been passed within the first few months of our mandate to govern the province. We're up to about 21 or 22 months now and it's time we get it out on the road and get the presenters picked and get the committee working.
1740
Mr Huget: On a point of clarification: First of all, I think it's clear that the motion states that 50% of the witnesses be selected by the government and 50% by the opposition members. That in no way diminishes the role of the subcommittee, as there are government members on the subcommittee and opposition members on the subcommittee. It is my view that we have debated that issue long enough and I'm calling the question.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you for the opportunity. I'd at least like to explain why we weren't here and how I feel about it.
I think there's a lot of pressure put on subcommittees when they meet just before standing committees. I've certainly found that over the years. I've also found that subcommittees are quite informal and that the time they meet changes frequently. Three of us, on the one subcommittee I sit on, would arrange to meet after routine proceedings. We often wouldn't meet right away, but we're usually pretty patient about it, meeting in one of the lobbies. It's a very informal thing, a subcommittee, and if you have to have any non-partisanship, it would be in that regard.
There has been some difficulty, I think, with the subcommittee meeting on time anyway. I was certainly at the first meeting, and Mrs Witmer and I think Mr Turnbull were at the second meeting. In our party, there would only be three of us who could be at the subcommittee meeting. Obviously, Mrs Witmer is the one who would be responsible for the legislation as critic and we wanted her to have the most input. She had difficulty being here the first day, and in that regard it's been up to myself, as the whip, and Mr Turnbull, to sub in, because we try to keep ourselves organized.
I have to say right now I think this lack of understanding today is indicative of what's happening around this place right now. If anybody thinks things are going to happen according to the norm, they're not, because too many things are taking place and a lot of us just simply shouldn't be here. Many people are very tired. They're not thinking the way we would normally be. I think there's a total lack of enthusiasm for the work of this Legislative Assembly on many people's behalf. The truth of the matter is that we are here, and we're continuing as best we can. I think it's unfortunate that there may or may not be a break before the committees sit.
I think probably if the subcommittee had sat and I had been there, the first order of business for this standing committee would be that the meeting be adjourned, because there's no way the standing committee can make any decisions right now with regard to any of the witnesses until the House decides when and if we're going to have public hearings on Bill 40.
We've decided informally among ourselves, and I speak as one of the whips, that there will be the five and two, and until we all agree when that will happen, as the whips, and we can't agree to that because we don't know when the House will adjourn --
Mr Waters: Five and two?
Mrs Cunningham: Five, I think, of -- what is it, clause-by-clause?
Mr Klopp: Three, two and two.
Mrs Cunningham: I meant five of public hearings on the bill and two of clause-by-clause.
I can just tell you right now that until we get some guidance from the House leaders, we can't sit and put on paper -- although we've got a plan that's tentative, because we wanted to get a lot of the work done -- when these hearings can even take place. That's a fact.
We have a meeting tomorrow, and again we'll have to flexible on it, to take a look at the possibilities, but there's nobody in this room right now who knows when this House will adjourn, unless the government does, and if it does, tell me, because I'd like to make some plans.
Mr Huget: Me too.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, probably you would too, Bob. But the point is, I don't think there was any purposeful reason for missing the subcommittee meeting.
With us, it was very clear. We weren't certain what the government would call as the next order of business. You called Bill 75, and when you did, that certainly changed whether I could be present or not, and it changed whether Mr Turnbull could be present or not. It happened to be the city of London bill, so I had to scurry about getting my work ready, and until the end of routine proceedings, as the deputy whip, he had to be in the House, so that's why we weren't here. We just assumed the normal cordial relationship would exist and that we would come down as soon as we could. One of your members in fact did come up and say, "Are you coming down?" I kept thinking you'd be watching the clock like we were and we'd be there as soon as the routine proceedings were finished.
It was as simple as that. There's no motives; there's nothing. We just have to have so many members in the House, as you did. You got caught once on a Thursday morning, and I got caught, on behalf of our party, on a Tuesday evening, and it's the way it works. That was my job at the moment, and I think there has been a great deal of respect.
If this has come before your committee right now, I think it's not a good precedent to set, Mr Chairman. I would urge that the committee say that you haven't got enough information. I'd certainly like to see the list before we decide. My guess is that the motion isn't unreasonable, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the notice hasn't gone in the paper -- you could correct me on that -- because we couldn't put a notice in the paper until we have the dates. Could I have a verification of that?
The Chair: I'm advised that the notice has been distributed for publication, as was agreed to by the subcommittee and then the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: What did you do with regard to dates then?
The Chair: There were no specific dates. It was indicated, basically, at the upcoming meetings. Very specifically, it was indicated that the hearings will take place during the summer adjournment 1992 and will be held in Toronto and other locations to be determined.
Mrs Cunningham: As long as everyone's still smiling and understands that summer adjournment may not be summer adjournment. But the point is, I think the ads then will just be appearing this week. Is that correct?
The Chair: We expect them to.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. Okay. I think then my point is made: that the ads haven't appeared and people haven't been given a chance to phone in, so we really don't know what the list does look like.
Mr Huget: Yes, we do know. I'm sorry. We do know now.
Mrs Cunningham: Don't flag this to me as the list when there hasn't been an ad in the paper, because that means most citizens don't know about it. These basically are interest groups that have been contacted. I think one out of three would be interest groups that have been contacted, and I have to tell you that the others are major groups, such as chambers of commerce and the home builders' association and municipalities and large groups. I'm looking to hear some of this, but I'd certainly like to hear from workers and individuals who are going to tell us about this labour law. That's who I think all of us are interested in hearing from. Until I get a better idea of who's coming -- you and I could have written this one in our sleep, except you got even more than I expected you would without advertising.
Mr Huget: More sleep?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that's right. Bob asked, "More sleep?" No, more groups.
I'm just saying that I think, as a precedent, I wouldn't like to see you, Mr Chairman, hold a vote on this motion. We're having a meeting tomorrow, and I would certainly like the opportunity to ask my caucus colleagues if they think this is fair. My view is that it probably is, but I don't know how they feel.
Perhaps since it's 10 to 6 we could adjourn the meeting and let the subcommittee reasonably have a meeting and make a recommendation to the standing committee, because I don't think this committee that has worked so well wants to be accused of breaking the rules. Maybe I shouldn't give you a chance to get off the hook like this, but there's no way we can deal with it. There's no reason to deal with it today and there's no reason to break the rules and the good working relationship that we've had. So perhaps I'd save everybody a big concern if I could just move to adjourn the meeting.
1750
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cunningham. Sadly, I can't accept your motion, because you don't have a substitution slip to the committee. A member of the committee can make a similar motion.
Mrs Cunningham: Maybe somebody else would do it, because I think, in good faith, that's what should happen.
The Chair: That might happen, but next on the speaking list was Mr Brown. Mr Waters wanted to respond very quickly to a very specific area of concern raised by Ms Cunningham.
Mr Waters: Yes. In the area of the witness list, what we had talked about last week was doing the first two or three days, because of the lack of time, so that those people would have a chance. If we even did the first two or three days it would give the first groups a chance to get themselves organized to come before the committee. Because of the timing, there will only be about a week for these people to respond before they have to come before the committee, and it's over a long weekend otherwise. So that was why we had looked in subcommittee and in committee last week at having at least the first couple of days of people who wanted to make their presentations come before us and make that draft now.
The Chair: Do you want to reply briefly to that?
Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate what Mr Waters is saying. I was there when we had that discussion, so I have no problems with that. In fact, I probably don't have any difficulty with the motion, but I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues. Some of them may in fact have some difficulty with it, and if they do, I think you should hear about it. That's our job here, as we represent our colleagues and as we try to make some rules.
The other thing I'd like to add, and you'll appreciate this one, so don't look with such disdain, Mr Chairman --
The Chair: That was not a look of disdain; that was a look of amazement.
Mrs Cunningham: You shouldn't be amazed. You know me well.
The Chair: But you never cease to amaze me.
Mrs Cunningham: I know. The unions were very much against Sunday shopping legislation, and the Chairman will remember this, but we did not, as a standing committee, give any order to the subcommittee. We just gave the direction to the clerk's office. So just keep in mind that we're setting somewhat of a precedent here.
I'm not certain that we've ever done this before. You might want to look into that. I just don't know why we're doing this. If you're going to do it, why put it on the record? Isn't that something the subcommittee can decide? I don't know why you'd want to put that on the record.
Normally what we do is take a look at major groups, and they get more time than individuals. But I believe we've already had that discussion and we've decided that everybody's going to have half an hour. In fairness, that's your influence, Mr Chairman. That's the way you feel, and because you said it and you're the Chairman, I think there was some regard for your opinion. On my part there was, because I like one hour for the groups and half an hour for the individuals, so I did give you the benefit of the doubt with your experience and say half an hour. If we're going to have a lot of individuals, I'm not sure whether that's very wise, but anyway I'd certainly like to put that on the record.
I did make my points about why we were late, and it was in no way that we wanted to impede the work of the subcommittee. I'm just finding it very difficult right now to have a subcommittee on time, but I must say I do anyway, even during the regular session. There's a lot of leniency, I think, with regard to it, at least within half an hour or an hour.
Perhaps we should have sent somebody, and I apologize for not doing that. I just didn't think about it, and we had other things on our minds. But you're quite right; it's bad manners not to send someone. It was a hard thing for me to get the message out too, because we are lacking in pages. I don't know how my colleagues feel about this, but I don't like asking a couple of the more senior members of the staff to take notes. Maybe I should be more aggressive about that.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr Waters in my usual concise, long way.
Mr Brown: I come back to the premise behind this issue. The premise is that the subcommittee on this committee is not working.
I was at the subcommittee three times last week. There were representatives of all three parties, and occasionally one of the members of the subcommittee would be a little tardy. As a matter of fact, I think I was once. But there were other members who were a little tardy, and that's not because members aren't punctual people. There are a lot of other things going on, Mr Chair, and you know that and all members know that. There was no machiavellian reason for members to be late.
On Thursday last, we were called to a subcommittee meeting. You were there, Mr Chair, Mr Waters and Ms Witmer, and we were going to decide this issue. The committee came to a consensus which all members of the committee agreed to last Thursday: that it was an impossible task and that we would put that off until today. That's what was decided. The committee had decided that.
So we come down quite prepared to discuss the subcommittee matter and are told: "Well, you're too late. If you're late once, that means you're being uncooperative. That means this is how we'll do it."
Mr Chair, I find that to be a little bit unacceptable. I will tell you, I chair a committee in this place and have had some experience in chairing committees. You will be happy to know that on three separate occasions concerning a recent report of a committee, the subcommittee didn't manage to sit for three weeks because one particular member did not show up at any subcommittee meeting over those three weeks. It happened to be a government member. Now, I know he was a busy man and I don't find fault, but it stopped the committee from sitting for three straight weeks. The last time he was all apologies; he forgot about the meeting and had gone for an ice cream cone down the street. That is not a particularly good reason, in my view -- that he just forgot about the meeting and went down and got an ice cream cone.
The Chair: Unless it was an exceptionally hot day.
Mr Brown: It was fairly warm, Mr Chair. The problem I have with that is, that in itself is no reason to say the subcommittee isn't working and just to throw up your hands and say, "Oh, my goodness, we can't come to a conclusion," because it was inadvertent. I don't impute any motives to the member who couldn't come; he actually did forget, and that was okay. In the scheme of things and the way this place works, sometimes things like that happen.
I'm trying to find out from Mr Huget where the evidence is that the subcommittee isn't working. I can't find that evidence. I don't know why he would come to the conclusion, particularly because he's just brand spanking new at this job. He wasn't here last week. Mr Waters was doing a very admirable job for the government back then. A new day, and you come in. He must have got some marching orders. Did you get some marching orders, Bob? "We're going to steamroller this through regardless of what everybody thinks." That's the conclusion that maybe somebody looking at this from the outside might come to, or maybe that Mr Waters was, in the view of Mr Cooke, not ramming this through and was actually looking for some consensus.
The Chair: It's just shy of 6 o'clock. Subject to announcing a subcommittee meeting tomorrow at 3:30, or upon completion of -- no, at 3:30 --
Mrs Cunningham: No, because I'm up speaking.
The Chair: Wait a minute. Excuse me. A subcommittee meeting at 3:30, subject to what the members of that subcommittee may choose to decide upon the completion of this meeting tonight.
Mr Klopp: Mr Chair, we just had an argument for three hours about a 3:30 meeting that the opposition members use as an excuse not to show up at.
The Chair: One moment, please. I said I'm announcing a subcommittee meeting tomorrow at 3:30, or at such other time --
Mr Klopp: Oh, I didn't hear you, sir.
The Chair: -- as the subcommittee may decide immediately after this committee meeting is adjourned. This committee meeting is adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30, or upon the completion of routine proceedings, whichever shall be the later.
The committee adjourned at 1800.