CONTENTS
Monday 16 November 1992
Ontario Hydro president
Ministry of Energy
Hon Brian Charlton, minister
Valerie Fogarty, legislative assistant to minister
Ed Ciemiega, director, legal services branch
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 ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Waters
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Dadamo
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffiére: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1541 in committee room 1.
ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT
Consideration of the designated matter pursuant to standing order 125 relating to the departure of the president of Ontario Hydro.
MINISTRY OF ENERGY
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Okay, we're ready to proceed. Minister Charlton is here. Could the staff people perhaps introduce themselves.
Ms Valerie Fogarty: I'm Valerie Fogarty, the minister's legislative assistant.
Mr Ed Ciemiega: I'm Ed Ciemiega, director of legal services with the Ministry of Energy.
The Chair: We have one hour--20 minutes per caucus--and we're going to proceed with questions from Mr McGuinty.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Just to confirm, any time that I don't use up at the outset I will be entitled to at the end. Is that correct? Thank you.
Mr Minister, I want first of all to deal with your letter of September 16, 1992, to Marc Eliesen. That letter was marked "Personal and Confidential." Was there any particular reason?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): Essentially because it was intended for the chair, and the chair only.
Mr McGuinty: Were you surprised to later learn that it was used to bolster the case supported by some members of the board of directors that Mr Holt's departure be brought about?
Hon Mr Charlton: To be frank, I wasn't aware that it was going to be used, but on the other hand it wasn't discussed either.
Mr McGuinty: In this letter you say in the first line, "I am writing to follow up our discussion about the search for your successor and the transition." You obviously had a discussion with Mr Eliesen. At that time did you ever discuss directly Mr Holt's departure?
Hon Mr Charlton: As I said, both in the House and to the media, I had discussions with Mr Eliesen prior to the writing of the letter, round about the end of August or early September. In those discussions Mr Eliesen made it clear to me that it was his view that there was a distinct division between the board and Mr Holt and that he intended to raise those matters at a board meeting. We had some discussion around that. The letter that followed on September 16 was a response from me after thinking about the process that should flow out of that.
Mr McGuinty: Was this letter sent at the request of Mr Eliesen?
Hon Mr Charlton: No.
Mr McGuinty: You just took it upon yourself to send this letter?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: What was your view with respect to Mr Holt at the time? You said that Mr Eliesen entertained a certain view. What was your view?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't have any particular view of Mr Holt as an individual. My concern as the minister obviously is the effective operation of the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. As it was a matter for the board to deal with, that's the view from which I proceeded, that Mr Eliesen and the board had every opportunity and obligation to deal with the matter and that they would.
Mr McGuinty: Surely you were anxious to--let me put it this way: Surely you're not equivocal about Mr Holt's departure. You're not equivocal, you're not saddened. Isn't it true that Al Holt was from the old Hydro school and that he entertained certain notions which were contrary to yours? He was a firm believer in megaprojects and nuclear power and he was a disbeliever when it came to heavy focus on things like conservation and energy efficiency.
Hon Mr Charlton: My personal feelings about the departure of Mr Holt may exist, but they don't have any relevance to this discussion. I did not in any way contemplate either removal of or the ability to remove Mr Holt prior to the conversations with Mr Eliesen regarding his intent to raise the matter at the board.
Mr McGuinty: Yes, but do you not feel in your heart of hearts as the Minister of Energy for this province that it is better for Ontario Hydro that Mr Holt leave?
Hon Mr Charlton: It would be better for Ontario Hydro if the things that I've discussed in my letter, which are the new chair and the board together, can effectively put together a management team to ensure an appropriate and efficient operation of that corporation through very difficult times.
Mr McGuinty: In your letter at one point you talk about selecting a new president and chief operating officer. Surely the logical implication is that if you're talking about a new president and chief operating officer, you're implicitly talking about a past president and that somebody who is there now has got to go, are you not? You're nodding your head? You're affirming this?
Hon Mr Charlton: I think what the question you're asking is leading to is, what does this reference mean in the context of the fact that there was a president there? As I told you, in late August, early September, I had a conversation with Mr Eliesen where he made it clear that he intended to raise the issue with the board. It was also clear from his conversation with me that he felt he had the votes to handle the issue at the board.
My reflection over the period of two weeks thereafter, as I've said repeatedly in the House and to the media, was about what the process should be in the context of understanding the very difficult situation that faces Hydro and how best to put in place a management team after that event that served the best interests of Hydro and the province.
Mr McGuinty: So you're telling me that you never, at any time, on any occasion, anywhere, expressed an opinion as a Minister of Energy regarding whether it was a good thing or a bad thing for Mr Holt to continue to be with Ontario Hydro.
Hon Mr Charlton: Not to my recollection, no.
Mr McGuinty: I don't understand why you sent this letter. There was a telephone conversation. You discussed some things, but apparently you did not in any way tell Mr Eliesen that, yes, it was a good thing for Mr Holt to go. I don't understand the purpose of this letter.
Hon Mr Charlton: My view is that the purpose of the letter is very clear. We had a circumstance a year and a half before the events you're referring to where both the positions of chairman and president were vacant. The position of president was filled in the absence of the new chair. It was my concern that that process not be the same this time around, that that was an inappropriate way to create the kind of unity and workability that's required in the very difficult circumstances Hydro and the board at Hydro are now faced by. So my letter was intended to ensure that some process was followed, in an attempt to ensure that there was some unity and unanimity on the board at the end of the day.
Mr McGuinty: Based on your discussions with Mr Eliesen then, it was your clear understanding that something was going to take place, that a number of votes were on side and that ultimately Mr Holt's departure or demise would be brought about.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct. I don't think I've ever hidden that fact. I've certainly suggested in a number of responses in the House and to the media that I was fully aware from my conversations with Mr Eliesen that events were going to proceed, yes.
Mr McGuinty: All right. I've got a copy of an article that appeared in the Toronto Sun on October 1. It says here, "Charlton said he wasn't aware of Holt's sudden departure...until he inquired about it after speaking with a Sun reporter Tuesday afternoon."
I don't understand. You anticipated this was coming about; he was going to leave. You tell us that you had no hand in this, and yet you expressed some surprise when you were informed that he had left.
Hon Mr Charlton: To put it as simply as I can, and again, this has been said a number of times and it's not always--things you say are not fully reported in the media, so let's try and clear up the precise events of the days of that week after September 25.
The Monday morning, after the board retreat, both Mr Eliesen and Mr Davies, my deputy, informed me that at the retreat a motion had been passed by the board authorizing the chair of Ontario Hydro to enter into discussions with Mr Holt about his retirement. That's all that had been passed by the board, as far as I'm aware, and that's the understanding I had. When I got the press call on Tuesday afternoon, I was not aware at that point whether those discussions with Mr Holt had even commenced yet or not.
Mr McGuinty: But doesn't your deputy minister sit on the board?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, my deputy minister sits on the board. My deputy minister was not part of the discussions with Mr Holt; the chair was. My deputy and the chair of Ontario Hydro both informed me on Monday morning that the board had passed a motion to enter into discussions with Mr Holt about his retirement. That's all the motion called for. It certainly didn't end anybody's employment, and unless Mr Holt came to some agreement with the chair in those discussions, there wasn't any leaving. So until I was made aware that some agreement had been reached between the chair and Mr Holt, there was nothing for me to report because I wasn't aware that any agreement had been reached when I received the press call.
1550
Mr McGuinty: So this meeting with the board of directors to which you're making reference took place on September 25.
Hon Mr Charlton: It was over several days, I think. But I think the motion question was on the 25th, yes.
Mr McGuinty: The motion question took place on the 25th. But on the 30th of September, some five days later, when the reporter from the Sun approached you, you're telling us your deputy minister had not told you that the president and chief operating officer--that you weren't even aware of the motion. That's my understanding.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr McGuinty: You weren't aware that the president and chief operating officer of the largest utility in North America, employing some 28,000 people and having some $8 billion in revenues, that his departure was imminent.
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't understand the point. I've just said and I'll repeat, on the 25th, the board of directors, as I'm led to believe, passed a motion which authorized the chair to enter into discussions with the president regarding his retirement. I received a press call on Tuesday afternoon. At the point at which I received the press call, I was unaware of whether those discussions had even commenced or not. I was unaware of whether Mr Eliesen had been able to reach Mr Holt or not. As a matter of fact, at the time of the press call, although I don't know the precise moment of the agreement being reached with Mr Holt, I don't believe there had been an agreement reached. We were in touch with Hydro shortly after that and they told us there would be an announcement.
Mr McGuinty: Do you continue to maintain that Mr Holt retired?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, I do.
Mr McGuinty: We can categorize a firing as a retirement, but surely the true test is one of voluntariness. But this retirement, so-called, was instigated by Ontario Hydro. Is that not true?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr McGuinty: So this retirement was brought about at the instigation of Ontario Hydro?
Hon Mr Charlton: I just said that's correct.
Mr McGuinty: Right. The big difference to me between a firing and a retirement is the cost. If I retire voluntarily, generally speaking I may be entitled to some compensation, but not much. If I'm fired, legally there are different ramifications, and I'm sure you understand that. We've heard that Mr Holt is getting $1.2 million in addition to a pension entitlement, a package that in total is going to exceed some $2 million. How can we expect to believe that he retired voluntarily and would still be getting this kind of money?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't, first of all, recall ever saying, and if I did I was incorrect, that it was a voluntary retirement. I used the term "mutually agreed retirement," and that's what I believe it was.
You talk about tests and how you measure these things. In terms of the board's motion, it's my understanding that if Mr Holt had not agreed to retire, if he had not reached a mutual agreement in his discussions with the chair, then before anything such as a dismissal could have occurred, there would have to have been another round of discussions and a vote at the board. I think if you're going to measure a specific incident, a specific motion, then it has to be understood in the context in which it's made and in which it's carried out. That's my understanding of the process that occurred.
Mr McGuinty: What are the specifics of Mr Holt's retirement package?
Hon Mr Charlton: I said it in the House and I'll repeat it here: I don't know. That information happens to be protected under the freedom of information act. In fact, as I understand it, it would have been illegal for those who have knowledge of what's in that agreement to impart it to me.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Minister, you may not be aware of this, but this committee, out of an abundant sense of responsibility and caution, obtained an opinion from the privacy commissioner. In a nutshell, the privacy commissioner advised that it was all right to provide us with this kind of information. That wasn't the issue. The issue in his mind was the use to which we were to put that information. I'm not sure if you've been provided with a copy of that. We've also obtained a copy of a report from legislative counsel advising us that the directors would not be in breach of their duties by providing us with information. So we've cleared the decks. We're open to receiving this information.
Hon Mr Charlton: I haven't seen those legal opinions, but the legal opinion we've received from the Attorney General and from Hydro itself is to the contrary.
Mr McGuinty: You may be aware, Mr Minister, notwithstanding these letters which you appear to be discounting, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that piece of legislation provides for certain exemptions. One of those is that exemptions will not apply where a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct. Those sections are in the act. If it will help you out in any respect, it is our view that the release of this personnel information regarding Mr Holt is not of an overriding public interest. It's a personnel matter in Hydro.
Mr McGuinty: I don't understand how you can say that. We have ratepayers in this province who, as you well know, are facing increases over three years totalling some 30%, at a time when inflation is less than 2%. This $1.2 million, or whatever it is, is going to be added to the cost to be borne by ratepayers. Either that or it's going to be added to the debt, for some reason unbeknown to me, a debt that is guaranteed by the people of this province. I can't understand why you're telling me that the people of this province, the ratepayers who are saddled with these tremendous rates, cannot be informed as to the cost of this government's bringing about Al Holt's departure from Ontario Hydro.
Hon Mr Charlton: As I've said, in our view it's covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and that's the position we've taken. It's a personnel matter. Corporations, whether they're in the private sector or the public sector, do not do their personnel dealings in public.
When we dealt with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in this Legislature, your colleague beside you will tell you that all three of the parties in the Legislature at the time demanded the kinds of personal protections that exist in that legislation. Are you now trying to tell me that those protections are good enough when somebody else wants the information but not good enough here?
Mr McGuinty: You may recall at the time of the discussion of Mr Eliesen's salary, the matter was referred to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In a letter to Murray Elston, he says the following:
"It is with mixed feelings that I"--
Hon Mr Charlton: This is a letter from whom to Elston?
Mr McGuinty: From the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Tom Wright. He says:
"It is with mixed feelings that I even raise the possibility that at times the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act could inadvertently inhibit the Legislature's ability to fully, frankly and openly debate matters that members on all sides of the House feel should be publicly addressed."
There's all kinds of news to be brought to the light of day shortly before this committee. To my knowledge, all the directors of Ontario Hydro are telling us that they cannot attend, that to do so and to testify here would be in breach of that particular legislation. It's thwarting--
Hon Mr Charlton: I would suggest to you that in this regard, you've had different legal opinions than we've had and than Hydro has had. If you're as certain of your ground as you seem to be, it would be very simple for you to proceed with a request under the freedom of information legislation and force the commissioner to consider the facts of the case and make a decision.
I'm not going to release a document that I believe is of a very personal nature and affects the personal life of an individual who I believe does not want it released.
1600
Mr McGuinty: I put it to you, Mr Minister, that you are using that legislation, notwithstanding the opinions we've had from independent legislative counsel and from the privacy commissioner himself, as a ruse to thwart the intent of this committee, which is to get to the bottom of this and find out specifically what happened and why it was that Mr Holt ended up leaving Ontario Hydro.
Hon Mr Charlton: Can you tell me what it is about his retirement agreement that's going to tell you that?
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have to move on.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Minister, if you were to run in the next election and lose, would you describe that as a retirement or an election loss?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't get the connection.
Mr Harnick: There's a very definite connection. A bunch of board members met at a retreat and they had a vote and they said, "Mr Holt is going to retire," and lo and behold, Mr Holt retired. He lost the vote. I call that a firing, don't you?
Hon Mr Charlton: No, I don't. Again, as I said, after the board of directors retreat on September 25, I was informed by my deputy and by the chair of Hydro that a motion had been passed by the board authorizing the chair to enter into discussions with the president about retirement. I was also informed, as I've already told the committee, during the course of that meeting that if they couldn't have reached or if they were unable to reach a mutual agreement around retirement, the board would again have to deal with the matter. Elections are much more final than that.
Mr Harnick: Let's put it this way: You've already told us today that Mr Eliesen said that he had the votes. Correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: And if he had the votes and they had to go back, the final conclusion was obvious, was it not?
Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps.
Mr Harnick: Not perhaps; it was definite. If he had the votes, Mr Holt was going to go.
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm sorry, Mr Harnick, it didn't occur, so I'm not prepared to make that assumption.
Mr Harnick: That's because it was so obvious that it didn't occur.
Hon Mr Charlton: The board obviously had some level of reservation that caused it to take the action that it took and I'm not going to prejudge why it made the motion or passed the motion that it chose to pass.
Mr Harnick: Before this meeting, did you ever get a letter from Mr Holt indicating that he wished to retire?
Hon Mr Charlton: No.
Mr Harnick: Was Mr Holt even at the meeting?
Hon Mr Charlton: I believe he was not, but I wasn't either.
Mr Harnick: Let's put it this way: Your deputy minister was there, was he not?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's right.
Mr Harnick: And your deputy minister told you who was present, didn't he?
Hon Mr Charlton: I believe Mr Holt was not at the meeting.
Mr Harnick: Of course he wasn't, because we all know he was in Spain. Isn't that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: I believe that's the case, yes.
Mr Harnick: That's pretty obvious. And I understand that what was really going on there was that there was a meeting of the management resources committee and, in conjunction with that, they decided to have what was really an unconstituted board meeting. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Harnick: Wouldn't it be a little unusual, when Hydro is deciding what its future executive is going to look like, that a meeting such as this would go on and the president wouldn't be there?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's a matter for the Hydro board to deal with.
Mr Harnick: Let's talk for a minute about the reason you wrote this letter. I think you told my friend you wrote this letter because you were concerned about ensuring that a process was followed. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: That's why you wrote this letter, and part of that process was a process in which you knew Mr Eliesen had the votes. Correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: And you also knew that the president of Hydro was not there. That's correct as well. You've told me that.
Hon Mr Charlton: I did not know that anything was going to be raised on the weekend of September 25. When I wrote my letter, I was aware that Mr Eliesen intended to raise the issue with the board of directors. I was unaware when that event might occur, so I was also unaware that Mr Holt would not be present.
Mr Harnick: Let's talk about Mr Eliesen. Mr Eliesen obviously knew Mr Holt wasn't there when he called the meeting, didn't he? That's obvious, and you had discussions with him.
Hon Mr Charlton: I have no way of knowing that, so it's difficult to respond.
Mr Harnick: Let me put it to you this way: The only reason you wrote this letter is because you wanted to ensure that the process that was now in place was a coup of the president of Ontario Hydro. That's why you wrote the letter.
Hon Mr Charlton: No.
Mr Harnick: Let's talk about the letter. The letter says that, first of all, you had discussions about "the search for your successor and the transition." I gather you had those discussions with Mr Eliesen.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: Those discussions, I put to you, had to do with replacing Mr Holt and finding a new president. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: No.
Mr Harnick: What were those discussions about?
Hon Mr Charlton: Well, "your successor," first of all, in this first paragraph, refers to Mr Eliesen and not to Mr Holt.
Mr Harnick: All right. So you're going to talk about Mr Eliesen, who has quit and walked away from Ontario Hydro, and you're going to go and get from the quitter advice about who to replace him with. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: We did not seek advice from Mr Eliesen about the specific individual who would replace him. We did have some consultation with Mr Eliesen about the kinds of things that were going to be required at the board, and we did have some discussions with Mr Eliesen about a process around seeking his replacement.
Mr Harnick: So here's the minister who tells the Legislature that he doesn't like to get involved with day-to-day operations at Hydro having discussions with the man who has quit to find out what he should do in order to replace him, from the quitter. That's essentially what you're telling us. Is that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: Essentially what I'm telling you is that the meeting you're referring to and the discussion I'm referring to here was a very direct discussion with the chair of Ontario Hydro, who was the Premier's appointment--which is the responsibility of the government to be directly involved in--and yes, we had discussions with him about that succession.
Mr Harnick: To go on from there, you said it's "extremely important that the new chair and chief executive officer have the opportunity to work with the Ontario Hydro board of directors to select a new president and chief operating officer." That's what the letter says.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's what the letter says, yes.
Mr Harnick: I put it to you that you already had a president at that time, at the time you were writing this letter.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct.
Mr Harnick: Well, why did you need to find a new president? You already had one.
Hon Mr Charlton: I think we just went through that about 20 minutes ago, but I'll go through it again.
Mr Harnick: Why don't you say it in a more elementary way, so I can understand it.
Hon Mr Charlton: You've asked the question. Let me respond to it.
During the course of those conversations with Mr Eliesen in late August or early September--I can't recall the precise date--Mr Eliesen informed me that it was his view that the president and the board were not in harmony, that he intended to raise the matter of Mr Holt's future with the board, and that he believed he had the votes to deal with replacing Mr Holt. That was part of an overall conversation about the future of Hydro.
My letter, which followed about two weeks after that conversation, was a letter that was written having reflected on both the events of a year and a half earlier, which I described earlier to this committee in which both positions had been vacant and the presidency was filled prior to the appointment of the new chair, and the apparent disharmony that resulted from that process, and my desire to ensure that if the Hydro board was going to proceed to deal with the question of the presidency, it not proceed so far as to fill the position of president until after the new chair had been put in place and that the new chair and the board can consult about a new president.
Mr Harnick: But you'd agree with me that the new chair was not appointed until just about a week ago.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct. You'll also recall, though, that I told you just a few moments ago in the response to one of your earlier questions that in terms of when the actions happened at the Hydro board, I was unaware.
Mr Harnick: You'd agree with me that Mr Eliesen was a reasonably intelligent individual, was he not?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, he was.
Mr Harnick: Surely the information that's contained in this letter, particularly in the operative paragraphs 1 and 2, was not something you'd have to commit to writing so that he would understand.
Hon Mr Charlton: When I write letters, I tend to put them in context, and that's what these paragraphs, in my view, do.
1610
Mr Harnick: You're aware of the fact that this letter was placed before the members of the board at the meeting, are you not?
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm aware that apparently happened. I wasn't at the meeting, so I'm not personally aware of it, no.
Mr Harnick: I put it to you that is precisely why you wrote the letter. You wanted this letter to be put before your appointed board members so they would receive a strong signal from the government as to how they should vote, period.
Hon Mr Charlton: You can make that assumption if you like--
Mr Harnick: Otherwise there's no possible reason you would write this letter, none whatsoever.
Hon Mr Charlton: You can make that assumption if you like. That's not why the letter was written.
Mr Harnick: Surely you didn't have to tell Mr Eliesen what's in section 6 of the Power Corporation Act. Surely you didn't have to tell him that it's important for the president and the chief operating officer to be in harmony with one another and that, "You should be considering getting a new president." You told them that in the discussions. What possible other reason can there be to have written this letter? To ensure a process, and the process was the coup of the president of Ontario Hydro, and you know it, Minister.
Hon Mr Charlton: The purpose of my letter was to confirm a conversation I'd had with Mr Eliesen and to reflect my thoughts coming out of that meeting.
Mr Harnick: Well, these were very profound thoughts, and it just begs to ask the question why such profound thoughts had to be confirmed if it wasn't the intention to make sure that this was put before the board.
Hon Mr Charlton: It was already clear to me that it was going to the board.
Mr Harnick: And this would be the signal as to how the government wanted the board to vote. You'll acknowledge that I believe there were 12 members on the board when you became minister, or thereabouts?
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't recall, to be honest.
Mr Harnick: Let me put it to you this way. There was a slew of appointments your government has now made to increase the size of that board, correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: No, none of the new appointments resulting from 118 have been made yet.
Mr Harnick: Just let's go back. How many of the members of that board are appointments of your government?
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm afraid I don't have an exact count. We can get that for you, though.
Mr Harnick: Has the board been expanded?
Hon Mr Charlton: The board was expanded by Bill 118, which was passed in May or June of this year. Those appointments have not yet been made.
Mr Harnick: I put it to you that there were a whole lot of vacancies on that board.
Hon Mr Charlton: There still are.
Mr Harnick: And there were a whole lot of appointments you as minister or your predecessor made. Correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: We've certainly made a number of appointments, including several reappointments that were made last spring.
Mr Harnick: And that's why you knew you had the votes.
Hon Mr Charlton: Reappointments of old board members.
Mr Harnick: That is why you knew you had the votes, isn't it, Minister? You'd made appointments and you knew that they were your appointments and that when they saw your letter they would vote the way you wanted them to. Isn't that correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm sorry. I've got to say to the member in response to his again speculative assumption that I haven't sat at board meetings, I have no idea of the voting patterns of the board members and had, other than the comments of the chair, nothing to base my judgement on in respect to having the votes or anything else.
Mr Harnick: Oh, really, Minister? I thought you told us a few minutes ago that your deputy goes to those meetings.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's correct. He does.
Mr Harnick: Doesn't he report to you after those meetings?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, he does.
Mr Harnick: And doesn't he tell you who voted for what?
Hon Mr Charlton: I would suggest to the member that if he thinks we waste our time enumerating after every board meeting the way in which each individual board member voted on each individual issue, I think the member is living in some kind of technicolour world. We spend our time talking about very important policy issues, like the matter of having to defer $7 billion of $10 billion of capital expenditures that were before the board last month.
Mr Harnick: That's right, Minister.
Hon Mr Charlton: Those are the kinds of issues I deal with my deputy about.
Mr Harnick: And when those things come before the board, your deputy tells you what the comments of the board members are, doesn't he, and he tells you about the nature of the discussions at those board meetings.
Hon Mr Charlton: I have never on any occasion sat down with my deputy and enumerated the way in which board members voted on any particular issue.
Mr Harnick: But he tells you what resolutions were before the board, and he tells you--
Hon Mr Charlton: Whether they passed or didn't, yes.
Mr Harnick: Exactly. And you know--
Hon Mr Charlton: We have never on any occasion enumerated how anybody has voted on any of those issues.
Mr Harnick: And you don't need much more than that, do you, to find out what happened at the meetings. Correct?
Hon Mr Charlton: Is what correct?
Mr Harnick: When your deputy minister--
Hon Mr Charlton: You made the accusation that somehow I knew and had a good reading on how all of those board members voted, and I'm telling you, Mr Harnick, that you're out to lunch.
Mr Harnick: I may be out to lunch, but it seems to me when you have important issues before the board and your deputy comes back and reports to you and says, "We passed this resolution. Boy, it was only by a single vote, it was really close. We'd better stack a few more NDP members on the board so it's not so close next time," surely, you're aware of that.
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm aware of what the reported vote was in number terms.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Just like the Senate.
Hon Mr Charlton: I have no personal information in terms of who those people were. I can make some guesses in some cases, but even then my guesses might be wrong because I don't know who all of the five, for example, who are reported to have voted against it were.
Mr Harnick: But you know that you had enough to make sure you were going to win.
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't know why you're making so much of a point of this. I answered that in response to the very first question from Mr McGuinty earlier in this meeting. That's what I was informed of by Mr Eliesen in August or early September.
Mr Harnick: And when a board votes to remove someone from his position before that person has even been consulted, when he's in Spain and not even present to make representations, you still insist that's a voluntary retirement?
Hon Mr Charlton: I think I characterized it as a mutual retirement where they reached a mutual agreement around Mr Holt's retirement.
Mr Harnick: When half of this mutual deal was going on and Mr Holt was about 4,000 miles away and knew nothing about it, what's mutual about that?
Hon Mr Charlton: I think Mr Holt sought legal advice and I'm not going to comment on what Mr Holt thought in that whole process, because I wasn't with Mr Holt. What I am aware of and what I will repeat is what I said earlier, that if Mr Holt and the chair of Hydro, through their legal counsels, had not reached a mutual agreement, the matter in question would have had to go back to the board of directors for resolution and Mr Holt could have been present for that board meeting.
Mr Harnick: At which time you knew you had the numbers to pass whatever resolution you wanted. He knew it, you knew it, and that's why he was fired.
Hon Mr Charlton: Again you make that assumption. I don't know that's the case and I'm not going to assume that on the part of the board.
Mr Harnick: I don't know why you're so afraid to use the F-word. You gave him a severance package, didn't you?
Hon Mr Charlton: I didn't give him anything.
Mr Harnick: Hydro gave him a severance package.
Hon Mr Charlton: He had discussions with Ontario Hydro about his retirement and he reached some kind of an agreement with Ontario Hydro, the facts of which I do not have.
Mr Harnick: As minister, I know you would be the first person who would want to congratulate a retiring 36-year employee at a retirement party, if somebody retired. How was Mr Holt's retirement party? Were you there?
Hon Mr Charlton: I'm not aware that there's been one so, no, I was not there.
Mr Harnick: Thank you.
The Chair: Two minutes.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you, Mr Minister, for coming this afternoon. I know that time is short, but I would like to ask you why, when I asked you directly in the Legislative Assembly if you had any input, direct or indirect, into the disposing of Mr Holt, you said, "The answer is simply no," then later out with the press, when they questioned you, you said: "Well, I guess I may have. I thought it was time for me to get my oar in"?
Mr Minister, in all fairness, as you like to refer to, do you yourself not find that contradictory relative to the answer you gave me in the Legislature?
Hon Mr Charlton: No, Mr Jordan, I don't, and I'd refer you to your own question. The verbal exchanges that occur in the House are at best, based on the length of preambles and so on and so forth, answered in part, not in full.
For example, when I look at your question after a lengthy preamble: "My question to the minister is: Did your ministry give any direction?" and then you went on to talk about whether there was any input on my part, well, the ministry did not give any direction to Hydro; this minister did not give any direction to Ontario Hydro.
1620
Whether there was any input is something that I think only the board members can answer, but I don't believe I influenced anybody. I believe that each of the members of the Hydro board happen to be very competent and very strong individual people and that the fact that there was a split vote on the issue to the extent that there was says, in my view, that I had no input or influence on the decision that was finally made.
Mr Jordan: Mr Minister, surely you find what you're saying now completely contradictory to what you've said here already this afternoon.
Hon Mr Charlton: No.
Mr Jordan: Just let me finish now. You've stated that you had discussions with the chairman of the board regarding the requirement to remove Mr Holt because he was not compatible with the policies of your government and there was friction there and he had to go. There's no question that those discussions didn't take place.
On top of that, you followed up with a letter of September 16 to the chairman of the board asking him to get on with this and deal with it in a fairly quick manner. I forget the exact wording of your letter--
Hon Mr Charlton: The word "quick" isn't there.
Mr Jordan: --but I believe it said, "I am therefore requesting that you raise this issue with the board and ask them to resolve this in a timely way."
Hon Mr Charlton: In a timely way when there's a new chair.
Mr Jordan: In a timely way when there's a new chair. You knew very well, as you pointed out earlier, that you had the vote to put Mr Holt on retirement or out of business one way or another.
Hon Mr Charlton: Your colleagues said I knew I had the vote. What I said earlier--let's not mistake what your colleagues say with what I say.
Mr Harnick: You said Eliesen told you he had the votes.
Hon Mr Charlton: What I said, Mr Jordan, was that Marc Eliesen told me he believed he had the votes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Jordan: The matter of the presidency--
The Chair: Thank you. We have no more time for this particular caucus. Mr Huget.
Hon Mr Charlton: The matter of the presidency of Ontario Hydro is an issue for the board of directors.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Jordan: You gave us a completely contradictory statement--
Hon Mr Charlton: There's been no contradiction in my comments at all.
The Chair: Mr Charlton, Mr Huget has a question.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Mr Minister, could you tell me what you think the most important issues are that are facing the Hydro board?
Hon Mr Charlton: The most important issues that are facing the Hydro board?
Mr Huget: The most important.
Hon Mr Charlton: I guess in that respect there are probably two key areas of concern presently for the Hydro board. One, obviously, is the rate structure and the operational costs of the hydro system which impact directly on the way in which rates have been going up over the last couple of years.
The second key issue before the Hydro board, aside from trying to figure out how to reduce the impact of significant rate increases over the next few years ahead of us, is the issue of how we restructure Ontario Hydro to deal and deliver in a very new electrical energy future in this province.
Mr Huget: Do you agree that Hydro needs to be more accountable to the ratepayers in this province?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, I do.
Mr Huget: Do you agree also that if Hydro had proceeded with the $60-billion expansion program, rates in this province would have to rise?
Hon Mr Charlton: Absolutely. They would not only have to rise, but if Ontario Hydro had proceeded with the kinds of plans it tabled in 1989 before the DSPS hearing at the Environmental Assessment Board, this province would have been in significant difficulty in terms of both hydro rates and our ability to compete in most sectors.
Mr Huget: Would you also agree that nuclear power generation has a major impact on rates in the province of Ontario?
Hon Mr Charlton: Certainly in the last several years when we've had inordinate rate increases resulting from the commissioning of the Darlington nuclear station, yes, the nuclear system has had a very serious impact on rates. The experience that Ontario Hydro is going through around premature need for major maintenance like retubing of nuclear reactors is also having a significant impact on the rate structures.
Mr Huget: Would you agree that Hydro needs to get its costs under control?
Interjections.
Mr McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We have specific terms of reference governing the proceedings of this committee, and this has no bearing whatsoever on the issue before us. If I can quote from the terms of reference, it's "An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding, and the involvement of the Minister of Energy in, the sudden departure of the president of Ontario Hydro, Mr Al Holt."
The questions being asked by Mr Huget have no bearing on that whatsoever, and I ask you, in your capacity of Chairman, to direct him to ask questions that are relevant to the matter before us. If he's not prepared to do that, then give us the time, because we could use it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McGuinty. Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: Thank you very much. Would you provide an answer, Mr Minister?
Hon Mr Charlton: Would you repeat the question, please? I got lost in that one.
Mr Huget: I guess my question was, what's your view and do you agree with the statement that Hydro needs to get its costs under control?
Mr Harnick: Mr Chair, a point of order.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Harnick: I didn't hear your ruling about the relevancy of these questions, but I'm renewing the request made by my friend Mr McGuinty. Quite simply, this has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of reference of this inquiry. My party asked for 12 hours to examine "the circumstances surrounding, and the involvement of the Minister of Energy in, the sudden departure of the president of Ontario Hydro." I don't know what a discussion of Darlington and hydro rates has to do with the departure of Mr Al Holt and the minister's involvement. I would like at least the courtesy of a ruling so that we have it on the record why this is relevant to these terms of reference.
The Chair: Mr Huget, I trust you intend to get to where you're going.
Mr Huget: Exactly. I'll be there in very short order. Perhaps I could get an answer, the response on the cost control measures and how you would see those cost control measures developing.
Hon Mr Charlton: The need for cost control measures at Ontario Hydro is very dramatic. My view is that the board of directors at Hydro has made some progress in the last year and a half in terms of cost controls, but there's still a significant amount that needs to be done to bring Hydro costs into line with some of our competitive jurisdictions.
Mr Huget: How would you see that developing?
Hon Mr Charlton: How would I see it developing? It's got to happen in a number of different ways. It's got to happen in terms of operational cost: the basic operational structure, employment structure, divisional structure and so on and so forth at Ontario Hydro. It's also got to happen in terms of a really hard look by the board of directors of Ontario Hydro at its future capital spending plans. That's part of the comment I made earlier about the need for Hydro, at it's October meeting of the board, to deal with reducing a planned $10-billion set of capital expenditures over the course of the next decade, and reduce those $10-billion planned expenditures by $7 billion.
Mr Huget: In order for that to happen, would you agree that all senior executives would have to buy into and fully participate in that type of cost-cutting strategy, in order for anything at all to happen in terms of proceeding in a direction of cost control?
Hon Mr Charlton: Certainly, unity around issues like that makes them much easier to deal with. Obviously, they're not precluded from happening with some dissent, but the more unified at least the senior management team at Hydro is in terms of having to pursue very difficult decisions like that, the more likely they are to happen in the most appropriate way.
Mr Huget: Would you agree that Mr Holt and the board of directors had differences of opinion or major philosophical differences on the need for strategic change at Hydro?
Hon Mr Charlton: I have certainly heard comment to that effect, but never having sat through a Hydro board meeting, it's difficult for me to define in precise terms what those might have been.
Mr Huget: Did you know that Mr Eliesen, referring to the infamous letter, would be distributing your letter to the board members?
Hon Mr Charlton: I didn't specifically know that, no.
Mr Huget: Is it your understanding that Mr Holt retired, or is it your understanding that he was fired?
Hon Mr Charlton: My understanding is that as a result of the motion that was passed by the Hydro board, Mr Eliesen entered into discussions with Mr Holt and they reached a mutual agreement around Mr Holt's retirement.
Mr Huget: Nothing further, Mr Chairman.
1630
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's been interesting.
I come from a county, Huron, and my involvement in electricity and Ontario Hydro issues has been a long-standing involvement, through the federation of agriculture, and in fact now. About nine years ago, when I started to pay my own hydro bill, I even got more of a personal involvement in what Hydro does or doesn't do.
But one of the questions that keeps coming back to me, and I don't know if you can answer this or not, is that people in my riding over the years have talked about the management of Ontario Hydro, good, bad and indifferent. Myself, four years electricity, I've always told people that life is never so simple. You need to know a lot of issues, you have to trust a certain amount all management decisions that are made and you shouldn't criticize unless you've walked in their shoes.
I've done my share of criticizing--you can find old Hansards, I'm sure, in the federation of agriculture--but one of the things that some people have asked me on the streets, especially when the rates keep going up, is why is the opposition so interested in someone leaving, or staying for that matter, at Ontario Hydro and why are we having this special time? I don't know. Do you know that answer?
Hon Mr Charlton: I certainly can't answer that on behalf of the members of the opposition, but you have raised a couple of issues that I think are important in this whole discussion.
We find ourselves in the present circumstance in a rather unique situation for Ontario Hydro, when those who for as long as I can remember, and probably the member for Renfrew North as well--AMPCO, for example, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, and the MEA, the Municipal Electric Association--have always been very avid, very strong supporters of Ontario Hydro and the direction that Ontario Hydro has taken, all of a sudden, in the present circumstance, have found themselves being opponents of Hydro's present state of operations.
I think that's a measure of the extent of the difficulty that Hydro is faced with and is going to have to deal with as we move into the future, where you've got associations like AMPCO demanding a rate freeze in 1993. Having largely achieved the policy direction it advocated in the middle 1980s, it is now finding itself in that inevitable rate crunch that's doing serious economic damage out there in the province.
It's led us to a situation where the difficult decisions that Hydro and its board of directors are going to have to make over the next several years, as we move into the future, are much different than the kinds of decisions it's been confronted with in the past.
Mr Klopp: Thank you. That's my only question I had from Huron.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klopp. There are eight minutes, the balance of the time, which will be dealt with by the subcommittee, in the manner agreed upon by the subcommittee. I want to thank you, sir, for appearing here today. We appreciate your coming.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I take it that the eight minutes remaining is only to the New Democratic Party?
The Chair: No, but it's not to be used here and now. It will be dealt with by the subcommittee.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Chair, just on that very point, it was my understanding that the issue of remaining time dealt with time remaining at the end of the hearing of all the witnesses and not with respect to this final time within a one-hour period.
Mr Jordan: That's right.
The Chair: It was agreed that no caucus would have more than 20 minutes but that a caucus could utilize less than the 20 minutes, in which case the remnant of time would be dealt with by the subcommittee. That was the report as submitted to the committee and deemed to have been adopted. Specifically, any time remaining will be allocated at the decision of the subcommittee.
Mr Charlton, thank you kindly.
Hon Mr Charlton: Thank you.
The Chair: Now, there are a number of matters that the committee may want to consider. One is the number of, I suppose, Dear John, Dear Jane letters that have been mailed to the clerk. I believe everybody has copies of those. They've been made exhibits. Go ahead.
Mr Harnick: May I make a motion, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Sure can.
Mr Harnick: I would move that the balance of the list that we have asked to appear here be subpoenaed for the purpose of their attendance.
Certainly, it is the intention of my party not to ask any questions pertaining to the severance package that Al Holt obtained. That's not why we're here. The terms of reference are into the circumstances of his departure, not the package that he received by way of severance from Ontario Hydro. I and Mr Jordan have no interest whatsoever in that severance package, the contents or the details of that package, in any way, shape or form. If that will maybe allay the fears of some of the witnesses, I would like to move then that they be subpoenaed to attend here for the balance of these public hearings.
The Chair: It's my understanding that only the House can order or call upon the Speaker to issue Speaker's warrants, and this committee, of course, can, by report to the House, call upon the House for that motion to be put to the House, so you're asking for Speaker's warrants--
Mr Harnick: It strikes me that we're not going to have much of a hearing if nobody shows up. I don't know why the government wouldn't encourage all these people to attend, one of them being the deputy minister. Mr Hope holds up a document written by Mr Holt, and as I indicated a moment ago, there is no interest in the severance package.
Mr Hope: Then read the letter.
Mr Harnick: I would like him to attend, and the details of that severance package are not something that is of any interest, so therefore I would like to make that motion.
Mr McGuinty: I want to speak in favour of that motion, Mr Chair. You may recollect that both the Premier and the minister have indicated quite clearly in the House that this committee and the inquiry that it's presently conducting will be able to get to the bottom of this. We can hardly do that if the only witness who's prepared to appear before us is the minister.
Just to reiterate what I said earlier, the committee has obtained--out of an abundance of caution, out of a sense of responsibility, showing sensitivity--letters, both from the Information and Privacy Commissioner and from legislative counsel. They tell us it is all right for the members of the board to appear before us.
We now are beginning to receive letters from witnesses. I'm not sure if there are any other witnesses prepared to attend before us. The issue that remains is not whether we can obtain the information; legislative counsel and the privacy commissioner tell us, yes, we can and we have the authority to do so. The issue is what is the use to which we could put that information, and that we can discuss at a later time. At the present time, it's important we get those witnesses before us.
When you look at the grand scheme of things, Mr Chair, I'm sure you will appreciate that this is one of the few privileges we as members of the opposition have: to conduct an inquiry and to get the story behind the story. At the present time, we are being thwarted from doing that as a result of directors of the board who have received advice from legislative counsel. The minister today has not cooperated fully in the sense that he has not advised us of the contents of the severance package.
We are being thwarted from getting the information that we need and that the people of this province would like to have, notwithstanding that we've had opinions from the Information and Privacy Commissioner and from legislative counsel that we can do that and that we're right in doing so.
The Chair: And you find that it's a right very much without a remedy.
1640
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, you are here for a particular purpose, other than to take up room in the chair. Quite frankly, I know full well that if questions were being asked that were improper, you, more than anyone in this room, would have the knowledge to instruct immediately a witness not to answer that question. A person such as yourself, learned in the law, particularly in the rules of evidence--
[Laughter]
Mr Harnick: Your colleagues laugh--
Mr Hope: That's at you.
Mr Harnick: --but I happen to know that you, more than anyone in this room, have the ability to do that. They may not think much of your ability, but I think very highly of your ability.
The Chair: God bless you.
Mr Harnick: Furthermore, I keep watching people hold up this little scribbled piece of paper, but that little scribbled piece of paper doesn't tell me about Mr Holt's retirement party and it doesn't tell me about the two security guards who accompanied him to his office and gave him one half-hour, I believe, to clean out his desk.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Read the letter, Charles.
Mr Harnick: I didn't see anything about that in the letter, Mr Wood. I didn't see anything about the retirement party or what they served that day. I want to know whether they were drinking beer or champagne, but the fact of the matter is there are a whole lot of questions that can be asked that bear little resemblance or even come close to dealing with the severance package.
What I would suggest happen is that we see if we can obtain the Speaker's warrants, and I'm sure my friends are not going to object to that because they want to have a full and open hearing, subject to your ruling on the evidence as need be.
Furthermore, I think we should ask these people to come without warrants on the understanding that we're not going to be delving into the severance package, if that is what the big dilemma is. I know that my friends on the government side are interested in having all these people appear and they're interested in hearing what they have to say, because they know that it may well exonerate the minister.
Mr Conway: I just want to make a couple of observations. I appreciate the difficulties that seem to be inherent in this process, but as one of the people who was around when this standing order was written into the rules a couple of years ago, I think I can say that the intention was to provide an opportunity for members of the Legislature and, quite frankly, opposition members of the Legislature, to exact some accountability from government where they felt they wished to exact and extract that accountability. So it's a very interesting experience, because this is probably one of the first occasions when this standing order 123, now 125, is being tested.
Again, it's difficult, because a number of people who are involved in this understandably weren't here when these changes were made, and I can appreciate that, but the intent of this provision was to provide an opportunity for members of the Legislature, many of whom felt that they were simply not being given an opportunity, to pursue issues that were of interest to them, and obviously in many cases those issues that were of interest to them were not going to be of interest or of liking to government. The notion was that standing order 123 would provide a more enhanced role for members of the Legislature to exact that accountability. That's the first point.
The second point is that what we now have in front of us in this particular reference, for whatever reason, I think comes close to constituting a contempt of the Legislature, if it is possible in our proceedings. If any of us thought we were going to be permanently in government, then I think you would clearly try to restrict this as tightly as possible. That was not the intention when the rule was written, though there were many people in government who did not like what 123 contemplated.
I think any self-respecting member of Parliament would or ought to be concerned about a situation where, under a standing order of the Parliament to which the person belongs, an inquiry is launched and then essentially many of the key participants in the inquiry, many of whom are under the umbrella of the public sector, simply decline to participate in the proceeding and therefore reduce the proceeding to a nullity. I think that is something that ought to concern people. If we allow that to happen in this instance, I think we might really want to think about where that leads.
The member for Cochrane North is waving around Mr Holt's letter, and I appreciate that. I read this letter. I think I know exactly what I have in front of me. To me, this looks like a significantly lawyered letter. I think I do know what happened here.
I may be different from other members of the opposition. Particularly given the policy the government enunciated with the amendments to the Power Corporation Act, the amendments that were Bill 118, I perfectly respect the right of the government to decide a course of action for Ontario Hydro. I believe that is what the government did in this case. I may not agree with it, but I entirely accept the right of the government to have done so.
What I find really passing strange about this proceeding this afternoon is that the government now seems to be so shell-shocked and so paranoid that it doesn't even want to admit to what it clearly did. That is certainly puzzling to me.
But I simply say, speaking to the point that was raised by my friends from Ottawa and Willowdale, that before we adjourn these proceedings, I think we all better think a little bit about where we now find ourselves. There is an issue that is very much of interest to members of the Legislature, an issue, believe me, that is an issue with a lot of people in the province.
My friend from Sarnia talked about some of the issues that concern him. I've got to tell you, in rural Renfrew county, where people depend on Hydro to a very real extent, the idea that a multimillion-dollar termination agreement was paid out, for whatever reason, will be of very real interest to the people I represent. They would be very interested to know the circumstances around that. It may not be of interest to the minister, it may not be of interest to some members of the Legislature, but I can tell you, as one member, that kind of--some of you were here. A former Clerk of the Legislature was once given an interesting separation, and boy, there were a few people around here, and we were in government then, who thought that mightn't be such a big issue, because clearly it was done on the advice of lawyers. Well, the good folks outside of the pink palace were in a rather different mood when it came to the separation that had been afforded Mr Lewis.
My concern is that we are sitting here, after several days of preparing for these hearings. We've now had a very summary appearance by the minister. The idea that he was allowed to be here for 53 minutes is to be noted. I certainly had a number of questions. I suspect that other members had additional questions that I do not feel--and I understand entirely the pressure on ministers' time. I remember spending a year of my life, almost, in this room, and I probably had better things to do, I thought, but members of the Legislature wanted to ask questions about important public policy and they had a right to do so. That we got 53 minutes of the minister's time today to have five members put questions I think is interesting but not adequate.
Beyond that, we now have a situation where we have a party to which none of the invited guests show any inclination of attending, for a whole series of reasons that we could speculate about, and I just think any self-respecting member of Parliament, legislative committee and parliamentary body in general would be concerned about the fact that the will of the Legislature, as expressed through one of its committees--and I use this reference as one example--could be just so breezily ignored. If that is what this Parliament wishes to have as its legacy in this matter, the devilish part of me wants to say, "Be my guest," and, "What goes around comes around," but I think it would be a very wrong decision.
1650
I conclude, again, by observing that a lot of members of this Legislature and other parliaments say, "We don't feel very useful, we don't feel very important, because we really can't get our teeth into anything." Members opposite may not like this particular effort, and I can understand that. If I were in government I probably wouldn't like it either. But, I tell you, to be left with this spectacle now after 53 minutes of, in some cases, delightfully sweetheart cross-examination of the minister, whose conduct in this matter I think is very questionable--my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew has put that case more passionately than I have. But I just think that to allow this reference to vaporize after 53 minutes and to simply allow people to say, "Oh, well, I'm away"--I liked Mr Davies in his wonderful way just telling us how he just certainly couldn't make himself available.
I've just got, I guess, too much self-respect to allow any parliamentary proceeding to be abused in the way this apparently is about to be abused, and I don't believe it is the kind of precedent that honourable and self-respecting members of Parliament--
Mr Wood: Thousands of people take the pension every year, Sean. Thousands and thousands.
Mr Conway: Actually, to be perfectly honest with my friend from Cochrane North, the issue for me is not that somebody has taken a pension. I mean, there's something almost surreal about the discussion in here. We have a letter which I hadn't seen before today, and my friend from Willowdale and the member from Ottawa were talking about this. Where I come from, we're fairly direct, plain-spoken folk, and when somebody writes me and says, "Because of the Hydro board's decision to request me to retire from my position as president of the company," we call that dismissal or firing.
If the government wishes to fire the president of Ontario Hydro, it is clearly the right of the government to do so. You strengthened your right in passing Bill 118; I'm not quarrelling with that. What I find incredible is that we're having this debate this afternoon. To hear the minister talk about what he does and does not know is, for me, really incredible. I know the minister. He's not a fool. But I'd have to take him as a complete nincompoop to believe the things he's put before us in testimony, and I don't believe him to be a nincompoop.
But here we have, "Well, did Al Holt retire?" It's quite clear to me that Al Holt was fired by the government, from the government's point of view, because the government felt Mr Holt was an obstacle to new directions at Ontario Hydro. I don't think he should be embarrassed about that. It's your right to do that. You might very well be embarrassed.
I have an interest in the severance question. It is, I think, a matter of some embarrassment that if you fired somebody after 36 years at an annual salary of something in excess of $300,000, the people at Hydro, whether your lawyers or your human resources people, are going to tell you--it wouldn't take 10 seconds for a senior human resources person at Hydro to say, "Well, Minister, chairman of the board, you understand this is going to produce a separation allowance in the seven digits." There's no one who is going to take more than 10 seconds to give you that advice.
In that respect, that's why Mr Holt's lawyered letter, in my view, is both necessary and helpful to the government's case. One of the questions I'd like to ask somebody is, accepting the government's right to fire the chief executive officer or the chairman--and governments have done it before. I mean, a Liberal Premier did it in a very complicated and not particularly efficient way some years ago. You're not the first government to face this problem. I just don't see what the problem is in admitting it.
"We are the duly elected government. We do not like the policy that Hydro has been pursuing, for the reasons that the member for Sarnia was, from his point of view, very carefully outlining in his questions, and we want new direction." You've won the right to do that.
You do not have the right to then cover up what you're doing. That's why I find this proceeding this afternoon bizarre. Are you so paranoid now and so shell-shocked that you don't even want to admit to the things that you're clearly doing and have the right to do?
I'm repeating myself and I apologize for that, but I say finally, again, that for any self-respecting member of this Legislature to allow this proceeding to terminate after 53 minutes of questions and answers to and from the Minister of Energy, and with a fairly long list now of germane witnesses saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, but we are otherwise engaged," is I think to quite frankly bring upon yourself, myself, ourselves the cynicism and the opprobrium that the community is increasingly willing to assign to us because it sees some gap between what we say we want and what we actually do when we're given the opportunity to do some of the things we say we want to do.
One of the reasons we're here today, under section 125, is that private members have said for a long time, "We want to have more say in some of these committees around policy issues that we, not the government, determine as a matter of public interest."
Mr Huget: I think there's a little more to this than as it was laid out by the member for Renfrew North. There's the whole question of balance here, I think: the balance of personal privacy and the balance of a public interest or a public need to know.
If you look at what has been submitted to this committee, I think Dr Mathur's letter is a good example. He states in his letter that, "It is paramount that discussions by members of the board, regarding personnel matters, as they relate to any employee," which Mr Holt was, "not be disclosed."
That's the issue at stake here. I take offence at someone suggesting that the government members of this committee are involved in some kind of coverup process to the person. The board members themselves have responded and said, "No, we are not prepared to violate personal privacy." That's the question here.
Mr Holt's letter is pretty clear. So I don't get the sense, certainly from the board members, that what you're saying is an accurate reflection about how they feel. In fairness as well, I have to admit that during the process of these hearings I raised a caution to people on this committee countless numbers of times. Was the committee prepared to put people in a serious position of conflict?
I must say, from the opposition I got some degree of concern. I also must say that from the third party I got no degree of concern whatsoever. It's a fundamental issue of personal privacy, and that's all that I think these letters and these responses are pointing out. I don't recall a response that would be the same as the member for Renfrew North has alluded to, the one that says: "We're just busy. Don't bother us." Not so.
Mr Harnick: Quite frankly, I don't believe we have to get into the details of the personnel records, as I said before. I said I felt that you could easily adjudicate on those issues as they arose, but it may well be worth this committee looking at the idea, if it became necessary to get into those personnel matters--which I don't believe it is--that we could move to an in-camera proceeding in order to do so.
I don't think it would have to happen, because I don't think those issues are particularly the reason we're here. I think that is yet another method of being able to resolve this difficulty. At any rate, the clerk has asked me to make my motion in a formal sense, whenever you want me to do that, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: You'd better move the motion that's going to be the motion that's going to be voted on.
Mr Harnick: Yes, sir. My motion is that the committee report to the House and request that a Speaker's warrant be issued to summon the invited witnesses who have declined the committee's request to appear before the standing committee on resources development if the witnesses do not agree to attend voluntarily upon receiving a second request from the committee.
Mr Jordan: I would support that motion.
1700
Mr McGuinty: I am in favour of that motion, as you may have gathered, Mr Chair. Just so the government members fully understand what we're contemplating doing here, if they defeat this motion--we had contemplated having, I guess it is, some nine witnesses appear before us, and each would take at least an hour. We had some time to deal with subsequently if they didn't consume the entire hour. We've had 53 minutes of evidence from one player only. We will not have the opportunity to cross-examine any other witnesses to either corroborate or contradict the information the minister provided to us today.
I think it's critical to note that the legal advice stems from one source. The legal advice that's telling these people they can't come before us all comes from Ontario Hydro, and Ontario Hydro happens to employ seven of the nine witnesses. I would suspect that more than a few of those witnesses would be prepared to attend before us and to testify.
Just as a case in point, if you look at this letter provided to us by Mr Holt, in here he says that if he appears, if it's going to constitute a breach of the provisions of his agreement, it could potentially expose him to legal action. If that is not a threat of sanctions if he was to appear before this committee and provide us with information regarding his departure from Ontario Hydro, then I don't know what is.
This committee, this inquiry, is going to be totally eviscerated if the government members don't support this motion. The necessary safeguards will be in place. We've already shown our intention in that regard. We've obtained two legal opinions. Those lawyers say that it's okay for those people to appear before us. The additional safeguard is your presence on this committee. If you want to disallow a question, you disallow it. If we want to go in camera, we go in camera. If we want to set terms as to the uses to which we put the information we acquire, we do so. There is no legitimate reason not to proceed to bring these witnesses before us.
Mr Conway: Again, I want to just focus in on what it is that is being sought here. My friend McGuinty read the reference, and everyone has it. Essentially, what this committee seeks to do under this reference is to inquire into the circumstances of Mr Holt's departure from Ontario Hydro. That's essentially what the committee is about.
A number of people opposite have raised the concerns, and they're legitimate concerns, about how far any kind of parliamentary inquiry can go into matters of remuneration and severance, and I understand that. Let me be honest: We don't need Al Holt for that. I can make it very easy for you. If anybody's interested, we can pick a couple of human resource people, bring them in and let them testify. It won't take them very long to tell you what a 36-year veteran who's earning $300,000-plus is going to be given if he is "asked by his employer to retire from his position." Any of you who've had any experience in management will know how that world works.
I wouldn't want to embarrass Mr Holt in putting those questions directly, because I don't need to put them directly to him. I can understand why Hydro, with a good lawyer, would tie him down to the kind of policy and the kind of position that is so clearly outlined in his November 12 letter. But I think we have clearly a right to have Mr Holt and board members--I don't think we necessarily need every board member, and I can understand how not everyone might be available, but all I have is what I have in front of me. We've thrown a party and nobody is coming.
Mr Hope: What does that tell you?
Mr Conway: That tells me a number of things, I say to my friend from Chatham.
Mr Hope: I thought you'd go to 6 o'clock, so I just thought I'd help you--
Mr Conway: It's good to know that Clarence Darrow had children. I just want to say this: It is my view that the committee has a right to reasonably request a number of people to come to address the subject of this reference and I think we can do it. I agree with my friend McGuinty that the Chairman, who is a rigorous fellow, as we all know, has the right to protect us from ourselves, but I don't see this business of the right to privacy.
The minister made a comment, which I don't agree with, when he was here. He said that the member for Renfrew North will remember the days when we passed freedom of information. You want to believe I remember those days, and I don't remember anyone, including my friend the sainted Donald C. MacDonald, late of York South, imagining that the day would come when the freedom of information act was going to be the shield behind which we could hide a whole series of data otherwise available to the public. That certainly wasn't my intention.
I can remember, when I was government House leader, a member of the press phoning the Board of Internal Economy wanting to get information that had been available for years. It had to do, quite frankly, with a member's pension. In my view, that information ought to be public. It is public information. The reporter was told that information he'd gotten for years was now no longer available. That, I've got to tell you, was not what I thought I was passing when I passed freedom of information, and I don't accept the notion that it's now a shield that will deny the public a right to a lot of information that--
Interjection.
Mr Conway: I'm just trying to make my point to my friends opposite that what we are about as a committee is an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the departure of Mr Al Holt from the presidency of Ontario Hydro. We've had a clear indication from a lot of witnesses, whom I think we ought to have, that they are unwilling or unable to attend, and I just don't want to leave here today without some commitment on the part of all of us that we are going to pursue this to a point where we have Mr Holt and some representatives of the board and anyone else we think is germane to this inquiry.
We cannot allow the situation to obtain where a legislative committee inquires--and I can imagine cases where the reference might in fact be out of line. I don't believe this to be one, particularly in light of what the government itself said a few years ago, and I respect the informing principle of Bill 118, "We want, as a newly elected government, to have more accountability of Hydro."
Surely this is an accountability exercise. I see it as being very compatible with the stated plan of the government. As I said earlier, I don't have a problem--some might--with the government saying, "We don't like the direction and we're going to change some of the players." I might have a very real question with the way you did it. I tell you, before I fire somebody who's going to cost me that much money in separation, I might be looking for some alternative strategies that are not going to cost my ratepayers nearly that kind of money. Believe me when I say that big corporations, whether public or private, are doing those kinds of things all of the time--you know, sending some senior executive on an 18-month study program or whatever.
I don't need to know what the exact separation was because I think I know what it was, but it might be interesting to talk to somebody, not Mr Holt, about: Did anybody bother to look at other strategies--moving him out of the presidency but perhaps giving him some other assignments that were somewhat less onerous in a financial sense to Hydro ratepayers?
Mr Wood: He took a pension.
Mr Conway: I don't know what he took. All I know is that the total package is a seven-digit package. That's a pretty expensive separation. I simply say that we've got to remember why we're here. The reference is clear on that and I think there is a way to do our business that respects the integrity of the privacy provisions of the freedom of information policy while at the same time allowing members of this committee to have a good discussion about an issue that they have identified as one of concern to them and many of their constituents. A good steering committee quite frankly ought to be able to work this out. It's not an insurmountable problem, in my view.
1710
Mr Huget: I want to refer again to the letter by Dr Mathur, who clearly states that personnel matters, as they relate to an employee, which Mr Holt was, are personal, private and should not be disclosed. I think several other board members echo the same sort of sentiments.
I think it's important to understand that the freedom of information and protection of privacy law strikes a balance between the public's right to know and a private individual's right to protection against unwarranted examination of personnel files.
Mr Conway: But it's quite clear, Bob--
Mr Huget: We can have a two-way conversation out in the hall, if you like, but at the moment I'd like to conclude. This government will not break the freedom of information and privacy laws just to force board members to appear at this committee.
The Chair: Before Mr Conway, as Chair--and it's not a matter of taking a position on the motion--it seems to me that it's clearly for people, if they have a problem with the questions that are being put to them, to say that they have a problem and why they have a problem when they're sitting here as witnesses before the committee, but not to deal with that in advance, before being aware of what any of the questions are, by simply saying, "I'm not going to come." It seems to me that committee members and members of the Legislature have their partisan responsibilities, but they also have a responsibility to make sure the system works.
I'm not particularly impressed with the nature of the standing orders, which seem to leave it to the majority as to whether a Speaker's warrant can be called for, but it remains that this is the way the standing orders are as they stand now. But it would bother, I think, most people, because the message that could well go out is that legislative committees simply don't have any impact of any sort if the government wants to use its majority to preclude the request for Speaker's warrants. This impacts not just on this issue, but on any number of issues that can be dealt with down the road.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Just as a question, how is that not taking sides, Mr Chair? I was just wondering how exactly is that not the taking of sides.
The Chair: It's an observation about the process, and it's a prediction as to what will flow from a refusal to call witnesses. Witnesses have an opportunity--
Ms Murdock: As Chair, I don't believe it is your right or duty--
The Chair: One moment: Witnesses have an obligation, an opportunity, once they're here, to express concern or object to questions put to them and to state the reason for those objections and to have that adjudicated.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): You're being very presumptuous, Chair.
The Chair: You don't do that by refusing to attend, and no forum, judicial or quasi-judicial, could ever function if that were the case. Go ahead, sir.
Mr McGuinty: Your comments are well taken and well received, Mr Chair.
I would commend to the members reading something I had a chance to go over, and that is the debates surrounding the original 123 motion and the reasons why the NDP and the Conservative parties of the day, as represented in this House, gave up some significant rights they had, which they had taken full advantage of at the time. They did that on condition that 123, now 125, be included.
If the government members don't support this motion here today, then we might as well not have this provision in our standing orders. We might as well not be able to call for an inquiry since you're going to dictate who it is we can and cannot have appear.
Mr Owens: This is not an inquiry. That's not what was envisioned by us.
Mr McGuinty: There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
Mr Owens: This is not an investigation. It's not an inquiry. I don't understand why you think that.
Mr McGuinty: If I might continue, Mr Chair, one of the concerns we have--it's the primary concern, the overriding concern--is that if we can't convince the government members to come to some kind of understanding, reluctant though they may be, that this is supposed to be, as the original intent was, an opposition-driven procedure--it is our kick at the cat; it is the only one we get--if we can't take advantage of this, then there's nothing that we can do in terms of bringing about some kind of procedure that will enable us to obtain information the government members are not willingly providing to us.
I can go on to say that the government members are implicitly telling us that they're not interested in the amount of Mr Holt's severance package. Whether it's $12 million or $1.2 million doesn't matter. That's something that Hydro's board of directors dealt with. That's something between them and Mr Holt. I would argue differently. I think the people of this province, and Hydro's ratepayers in particular, would be very concerned about the amount that is being paid to Mr Holt. I think, as the people who are footing the bill for this, they are legitimately entitled to know what that amount was.
Mr Conway: I have just a couple of comments again. By the way, I want to say to Steve Owens that I was around. I remember having to negotiate this, and the intent is exactly as my friend the member for Ottawa South has pointed out. I was somewhat reluctant to give it, as the government House leader. It was part of a trade. The trade on this was that the members were going to have essentially some opportunity to initiate inquiries and examinations on their own, apart from government.
Mr Owens: When you're talking about compelling witnesses in terms of an investigation, that's not what's envisaged by this section.
Mr Conway: With all due respect, the parliamentary committees here do have a practice of asking and sometimes demanding that people attend at their proceedings. It wasn't expressly stated because it's part of the convention, but there was no question at the time of the negotiations what this was. Just as we got rid of the emergency debates and created opposition days on that trade, there was another trade here.
An awful lot of members, including a lot of government backbenchers, were just fed up. They were going through mindless estimates processes that were a waste of everybody's time and effort. This provision was an effort to respond to a number of concerns around the issue of parliamentary reform: How can we make this process more meaningful for private members?
What we did here, and what I believe everyone who was there thought we were doing, was create a mechanism to allow committees, under certain conditions, to launch their own investigations in a way that would be consistent with other aspects of the parliamentary procedure including inviting witnesses to come and appear before them.
I want to come back to Bob Huget's comment. I look at Mr Holt's letter. It certainly does talk about the agreement he's made with Hydro, and I understand that. Believe me, I understand that intimately. But he also talks in this letter about differences of opinion on policy matters, which again doesn't surprise me. Surely, that's a legitimate thing for this committee to question Mr Holt about.
Parallels will fail me here, but can you imagine being a shareholder at General Motors and maybe part of the Stempel crew and you go to the next shareholders' meeting and somebody says, "Oh, well, we can't tell you what we did in respect of Mr Stempel's departure"? I think the shareholders would go completely bananas if they couldn't get some accounting from their management team as to what happened at the senior levels of that corporation.
What I see our job here as simply being is to invite Mr Holt and others to talk about what it is we want to talk about and what it is they're prepared to talk about. There will be some questions in this process, like in just about every other process, where people decline to answer, take legal advice that suggests they shouldn't answer or just choose some other avenue of not answering the question. I'd be very surprised if it didn't happen.
That we simply allow people to write us nice letters and say, "Oh, well, I've got an agreement that's pretty all-encompassing and I don't really think I should attend." Reference has been made to Professor Mathur's letter, and fine. I respect his right to come here and say, "I'm not going to answer questions around personnel." I could put the question and he could put just that, and I have to accept that. But I might very well want to talk to him about many other things quite apart from the personnel matter. I might want to talk to him about the policy direction. Since the minister is absolving himself of responsibility, saying it's all the board's--
Mr Wood: He doesn't work there any more; he quit.
Mr Conway: Why do I do this to myself?
Mr Hope: I don't know.
Mr Conway: I know.
1720
Mr Wood: It's like calling back Peterson.
Mr Conway: We might very well want to. We've called former premiers back here. We might very well want to call back David Peterson. The point is you seem to think that just because there has been an agreement between the Hydro corporation and Mr Holt, that is the end of it and there is no power in the Legislature to inquire into those circumstances. If you believe that, then you didn't believe any of the stuff you said a year ago about improved accountability in Bill 118. I know you believed what you said about Bill 118; it was not an unreasonable position.
I repeat that it's not an unreasonable thing for New Democrats to say, "We don't particularly like the policy that Al Holt was pursuing and we want him out of there." I don't think you've got that right. But that somehow just because Mr Holt's lawyers have met with the Hydro lawyers and they've agreed to consummate an agreement and he no longer works at Ontario Hydro and therefore, thereby, we have no opportunity to ask any questions and to inquire into the final days of that relationship, the final year or whatever? Surely you don't believe that. I know you don't.
Mr Huget: First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that this party in opposition very strongly supported standing order 125, which used to be 123, for a very simple reason. It gave the opposition parties a mechanism to deal with issues they wanted to deal with. I wasn't there at the time, Mr Conway, but I would bet that all members who supported this standing order--and I believe it was supported by all parties in the House--did not see it as a vehicle that could be used or should be used as a vehicle that would undermine or attack the freedom of information laws and the privacy laws in this province.
I don't believe that was the intent. If you look at the responses you're getting--you refer to Mr Holt's letter; I refer to Mr Mathur's letter, but I guess we could refer to Holt's as well--it's clear that these people are concerned about the privacy of personnel matters. Mr Holt was not beamed down from some other planet years ago to just show up here and then was beamed away. He's an employee of the corporation. There's a fundamental understanding and I think a fundamental principle here about the discussion--and all the board members refer to it--of private personnel matters.
My point is that Mr Holt was an employee of the corporation. He has retired. He should be allowed to retire in privacy as anyone else would without unwarranted examination of his personnel records or personnel discussions or discussions the board may have had on personnel matters. Fundamentally, those are privacy issues. I think to do anything else other than respect the privacy and freedom of information legislation in this province amounts to nothing more than a witchhunt.
Mr Conway: The member for Sarnia, who's a very able and sensible fellow, seems to see this as only a matter of personnel relations at Hydro. Obviously, I don't share that view. There once was another president who went on ad nauseum about executive privilege and what he believed executive privilege covered. There were a lot of people in Congress and ultimately there were a number of people on the judiciary who said, "Mr President, your executive privilege does not have nearly the sway you think it has." I just come back again to--
Interjection.
Mr Conway: I'm just sitting here listening to what I'm being told. As I said earlier, part of me says, "Make my day." If this is the legacy the New Democratic Party wants in this place, I suspect I will be more a beneficiary of it than you might be. I might be wrong but I'll certainly keep this Hansard for a few years, because you can't realistically believe that a legislative inquiry can be thwarted because some people whose conduct is at issue simply decide to say, many of them in unison, "We conclude that this is a matter of personal and private salary, benefits and separation allowances, and therefore on the basis of our determination of what the real issues are, we're not going to attend."
You can't believe that. You wouldn't tolerate it in any other environment and I know you don't really believe it here.
I say finally that I accept the right of people to come and indicate what they choose not to answer. If they believe the questions are impertinent and intrude on the sacred ground of salary benefits and separation allowances, then they have every right to claim that privilege. But they have no right to not show up here on the ground that everything the committee might ask falls under the umbrella of freedom of information and the right to privacy.
Mr Harnick: For clarification, Mr Chairman, which witnesses have indicated that they will be coming or that they're not objecting to being here?
The Chair: Perhaps the clerk could respond to that, please.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): So far, I have had no response in the affirmative except by the minister. I am still waiting for responses from three people: Larry Leonoff, Joseph O'Brien and Anne Noonan. I haven't heard from them and everyone else who was invited has declined.
Mr Harnick: There was another gentleman by the name of Mr Hinds.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. His letter is in the exhibits before you today. He has said he is unavailable until November 28 or out of the country until November 28. He's back in the country after that, but he is tied up on November 30, December 1 and 2. We do have a number to contact his law office in Sudbury.
Mr Harnick: So we can accommodate him and we can renew our request about Mr Leonoff and see if he can come on Wednesday.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. If that's what the committee directs me to do.
Mr Harnick: I just want to say it's interesting that this will be the third standing order 125 committee hearing the government will have effectively shut down because of the positions it has taken. They didn't permit a hearing into an investigation by the OPP of MPPs' offices from proceeding two weeks ago; they didn't permit a victims' bill of rights, standing order 123, a year ago when the Attorney General convened his own hearing the very same day, using the very same witnesses. You know it just smacks of total paranoia when the government members on a committee can't trust their colleagues and their Chairman, the government-appointed Chairman, to be able to control the process.
The Chair: Please, Mr Harnick, the Chair is an elected position.
Mr Harnick: I'm sorry, Mr Kormos. My humblest apologies.
I just can't understand for the life of me what people are protecting, what they have to hide and why they won't permit a very obvious inquiry with very obvious parameters to take place.
Mr Conway: If it's at all helpful, you might talk to Richard F. Johnston, Esq. Richard and I participated in a legislative inquiry well before the days of 123s. We did an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the closure of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital where Richard, a newly elected member of the New Democratic caucus, did wonderful work.
It was a pretty sweeping inquiry in terms of the people we had and the kinds of questions we raised, and the government was having a complete conniption. The public accounts committee once had a very interesting inquiry into doctors' billings. I well remember a very distinguished member--
Ms Murdock: Did you use Speaker's warrants in all of those?
Mr Conway: In some cases, yes, there was a requirement for a Speaker's warrant, partly because in our system of parliamentary democracy there is the notion that Parliament is important--it's supposed to be independent--and when Parliament summons individuals to attend at its proceedings, that's viewed as an important, significant invitation.
Ms Murdock: The valour and the glory.
1730
Mr Conway: No, it's not the valour and the glory, I want to say to say to my friend from Sudbury. The idea that you can simply tell Parliament, when it invites you to attend at its proceedings, that you're busy or that you have decided the parliamentary inquiry covers areas you figure are outside of its responsibility is absolutely revolutionary.
As I say, if you pulled this stunt in Westminster or if you pulled it--I can't imagine pulling it, because I would expect to be summoned someplace to be told what the conventions of our parliamentary system are all about. That New Democrats, of all people, are prepared to accept the notion that somebody else gets to define and decide the meaning of a parliamentary investigation is to me--that's a first. I've never heard that before. It's a good job Stephen Lewis is not around here.
Mr McGuinty: In terms of the precedent, Mr Chair, I think it's important to understand as well--I'm sure the committee members want to understand this--that any witnesses in the future can raise the spectre that somehow their appearance before this committee will in some way involve a breach of some statute by which they are bound.
We have obtained the necessary opinions. I think surely the committee members would want to ensure that the ultimate decision-making power with respect to whether something is going to be in breach of some regulation or statute should rest with us. We have the ability to obtain necessary opinions, and we always have a Chair who sits, presides and makes the requisite decisions from time to time. So just think of that.
In future, witnesses who are called upon to appear before this committee or any other legislative committee will be able to raise the spectre that their appearance before us, before the committee, will somehow bring about a breach of some regulation or statute and that they have decided that matter for themselves. They have considered it at some length and in their heart of hearts they feel it would be inappropriate for them to appear, and, "Thank you very much for the invitation, but we can't make it."
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Harnick's motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Harnick: May I make another motion, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Harnick: I move that we again ask the people who have refused to attend to voluntarily attend before us for the purpose of this inquiry and that it be specifically provided in the invitation to them that they will not be asked anything to do with the details of Mr Holt's severance package.
The Chair: It's an interesting motion. It's on the floor.
Mr Conway: I guess it begs the question. I mean, I'm very happy to support my friend from Willowdale, and maybe we should send little baskets of candies to the prospective witnesses and tell them we'd really be very happy to have them and we'll treat them with kid gloves and they should fear nothing from an appearance at Queen's Park.
It seems to me that this motion, like the one before it, begs the question, what do we do if we are here and nobody chooses to come to see us and we make no effort as a committee to encourage people to come? Is it the view of the majority of members of this committee that then the committee just necessarily lapses? That would not be an unreasonable conclusion.
The Chair: You know, I trust, Mr Harnick, that the clerk's policy is to issue a second invitation in somewhat terser language in any event.
Mr Harnick: I think the language should be very--I don't mind if it's more terse, but I think if it specifically states that we will not be examining into any of the details of the severance package per se and that if any such questions are asked the Chairman will not permit the questions, then perhaps they may attend. At any rate, my understanding is we will be here on Wednesday to hear the evidence of those people who haven't declined.
Mr McGuinty: A pretty short list.
Mr Harnick: Well, we can do one witness a day for the rest of our lives.
Mr Conway: Do we have any witnesses willing to be here Wednesday?
Mr Harnick: Mr Leonoff has not indicated that he wouldn't be coming. Mr O'Brien has indicated that he may attend. Mr Hinds may be available on the 30th of November, or whatever date it is. If those are the people who are prepared to attend, let's hear from them, starting Wednesday. I don't want to give my friends on the government side the satisfaction of totally closing this hearing down if there are people who are willing to attend.
Mr McGuinty: Perhaps it would be of some use to provide, when the clerk sends off a second letter--I'm not sure what premise we're operating under here now, whether we're dealing with this motion or we're just talking about a second letter.
The Chair: We're talking about the motion that's on the floor. Mr Harnick hasn't withdrawn it.
Mr McGuinty: All right. Then, perhaps by way of a friendly amendment, we could incorporate into the motion a directive that the clerk send a copy of each of these letters from the legal counsel we have consulted.
Mr Harnick: Agreed.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour of Mr Harnick's motion please indicate.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, I couldn't get your eye before the vote, but I was going to say that it's routine procedure for a second request and that we would have no problem with that second request being made.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Harnick's motion? Opposed? This motion passes.
We are adjourned until Wednesday afternoon at 3:30.
The committee adjourned at 1739.