CONTENTS
Wednesday 28 October 1992
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Waters
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffiére: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1700 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): There's a quorum present. All caucuses are represented and I want to indicate some of the outstanding business the committee is charged with.
The committee will recall that in April 1991, Dan Waters, on behalf of the government caucus, requested a 123 designation regarding the Workers' Compensation Board. There are 38 minutes remaining in that matter, and we'll speak to that when we talk about the subcommittee report.
In 1991, there was a designation under what is now standing order 125 from the Progressive Conservative caucus regarding a graduated driver's licence system. There has been no earlier request for a 123 or 125 12-hour hearing by the Conservative caucus in 1991. That was their 1991 request as of right. That matter hasn't been dealt with because of intervening government business and because of private bills being outstanding, but it's the government business, of course, which interrupts it.
There were no other caucuses requesting designations in 1991, other than Dan Waters on behalf of the government, and the Conservative caucus. There was the one, of course, that was dealt with and completed on the agriculture issue in Ontario, brought by the Liberal caucus.
In 1992, the Conservative caucus, under standing order 125, sought the 12-hour time frame for discussion of the departure of the president of Ontario Hydro. Again, that's as of right. There had been no earlier designations under 125 or the earlier 123 requested by the Tory caucus or indeed by any other caucus, at least that was outstanding.
Ms Cunningham's private Bill 124 is outstanding and the subcommittee has heard some comments about that and will be reporting on that to the committee in the relatively near future. There's also private member's Bill 141, Ron Hansen's bill, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, and Bill 82, a private member's bill by Steve Owens, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.
With respect to the fact that there's a 1991 designation outstanding which hasn't been dealt with, a request by the Conservative caucus, a 123/125 designation, that was brought in the late part of the year, in November 1991. It clearly wasn't going to be dealt with in 1991 because of government business and the fact that the House was soon to break.
Then a subsequent one was brought legitimately within 1992, without having dealt with the earlier one. There was some concern with the rules not indicating whether you had to exhaust or utilize your first 12-hour time period before you could go to a subsequent one. Standing order 125 states:
"In any calendar year, each member, other than the Chair, of a subcommittee on committee business...shall be entitled to designate,
"(i) matters to be considered by the committee relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of a ministry, office or agency, board or commission assigned to the committee."
The standing order, as indicated, does not address the issue of whether or not the designated matter must be considered in that calendar year or of whether or not they are cumulative. I'm advised that the practice by committees since this provision was established in the standing orders has been that while only one matter may be designated by each party in a calendar year, there is no requirement to have the matter considered by the committee in the calendar year or in the session in which the matter was designated.
As well, I'm satisfied that they do not have to be dealt with consecutively in the order that they are brought, that this is the decision of the committee. In this instance, there was unanimous agreement that notwithstanding that the 1991 designation on graduated licences was outstanding, the Conservative caucus's request for its 125 designation regarding the departure of the president of Ontario Hydro could be dealt with earlier, which is why the subcommittee now makes this report.
The subcommittee met yesterday and again today to discuss the committee's agenda with regard to the standing order 125 designations before the committee. It was agreed that senior officials from the Workers' Compensation Board would be invited to attend the committee meeting next week on either Monday or Wednesday, depending upon their availability, to review the report they submitted in response to the standing order 125 designation discussed last year. There are 38 minutes remaining under that designation.
The subcommittee also discussed the standing order 125 designation tabled on October 15, 1992, by the Progressive Conservative member dealing with the departure of the president of Ontario Hydro. The subcommittee agreed to start consideration of this matter on Monday, November 16, 1992, with the usual timing in the day.
The subcommittee agreed, by unanimous consent, to hear from the following witnesses: Brian Charlton, Minister of Energy; Marc Eliesen, former chair and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro; and R.M. Mathur, member of board of directors of Ontario Hydro.
The majority of the subcommittee agreed to hear from the following four members of the board of directors only: Michael Cassidy, K.C. Cummings, James Hinds and James O'Brien.
The majority of the subcommittee agreed to hear from the following witnesses: George Davies, deputy minister; David Agnew, secretary of cabinet and former principal secretary to the Premier; Al Holt, former president of Ontario Hydro, and Phil Carter, executive assistant to Eliesen.
If Mr Holt, the former president, is not available, then Mr Rod Taylor would be called upon to testify in his stead. The witnesses will be invited for a maximum of one hour each and the time is to be divided equally among the three parties for questioning. There is to be no time allowed for preliminary comments by witnesses. Any time remaining, if time is not fully utilized by the three caucuses' questioning, will be allocated at the decision of the subcommittee. Any witnesses may be recalled at the direction of the subcommittee for a further one hour, maximum.
The clerk has been instructed to obtain a legal opinion on conflict positions of the directors, as it relates to the Business Corporations Act and the Power Corporation Act and an opinion from the commissioner of freedom of information on the request for documents from Ontario Hydro as they relate to, among other things, pay records, termination agreement and records relating to a termination agreement with respect to Mr Holt, ongoing terms of employment of Mr Holt and any agreement regarding a non-communication or, colloquially, muzzling or gag order as it applies to Mr Holt or the parties related to his termination agreement.
The committee will have a minimum of one hour for report preparation.
Is there any valid reason why the report of the subcommittee, as it relates to either of these 125 designations, Workers' Compensation Board or the matter concerning the departure of Al Holt from Ontario, should not be deemed to be accepted?
1710
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Just one point: I think you said James O'Brien. There are undoubtedly half a dozen James O'Briens working over there, but Joseph O'Brien is the guy we're after.
The Chair: I didn't say "James" and if any heard me say "James" they misunderstood me, including Hansard, because I said "Joseph O'Brien," Ontario Hydro board of directors.
Mr McGuinty: Okay.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): A point of clarification on how decisions are made about, say, our caucus has a 123 and then all of a sudden I have a better idea and I want a 123 to go above it: Does the committee as a whole vote on that, or is it the decision of the Chair or is it just an automatic thing if the party itself wants--
The Chair: In this instance there was unanimous consent, so it doesn't have to concern either me or the committee as to how it happens next time. Obviously, people may want to make any number of arguments as to whether it's the right of the person or the caucus making the designation, or whether it's the obligation of the subcommittee or of the committee. In this instance, since there was unanimous consent, I haven't had to decide as to how it would take place where there isn't unanimous consent--
Mr Klopp: In the subcommittee, there was unanimous consent?
The Chair: No. In this committee, there was unanimous consent.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On the 15th.
The Chair: On the 15th.
Mr Klopp: Do we have records from that meeting?
The Chair: In Hansard.
Mr Klopp: I recall questioning a number of times, if it's a vote, can we vote no? I was under the impression that it's one of those things that is automatically on track. That's why I'm just asking for clarification for next time.
The Chair: I recall your questions and they flowed from my less-than-precise manner of presenting the report of the subcommittee, which I correctly presented today, which is to merely request if there are any valid reasons why it should not be deemed to be reported. Your concerns were about the deeming of a subcommittee report, not about the sort of hierarchy of 125 designations.
I specifically sought and obtained unanimous consent regarding the hierarchy of the outstanding 125 designations of the Conservative caucus, which eliminated any need to consider the order.
Mr Huget: That's right. In other words, what you're saying is that on October 15 you did in fact receive unanimous consent from this committee to alter, I suppose, or elevate the recent 125 from the Conservative Party up into some other area where it wouldn't normally be, because there are other matters before the committee.
The Chair: Quite right. I do not have to concern myself whether they have to be dealt with in chronological order, so I don't have to concern myself with that in this instance and neither does the committee. Down the road it may have to.
That's deemed to have been adopted.
Any other matters to deal with?
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Mr Chair, you make reference to the October 15 date. Maybe I wasn't here but I don't remember voting on something of that nature.
The Chair: You didn't have to, because the 123/125 order is deemed unless there is valid reason not to, and there wasn't any presented.
Mr Hope: But the question wasn't called for any deeming through the direction of the Chair. The Chair never said, "Is it deemed that this is inappropriate?" That question was never put forward to us.
The Chair: No, because deeming means precisely that: There's no question.
Mr Hope: But the Chair never directed that to the members of this committee.
The Chair: The Chair doesn't have to. I did it today as a courtesy and I intend to do it like that in the future.
Mr Klopp: Is there no way of laying down a policy? I guess that's where I'm coming from, for down the road on any other committee, if there is a 123 or 125, that there is a standard procedure for all parties to know.
The Chair: The procedure isn't laid out. I didn't present the matter as clearly as I should have the last time it was presented. Today I believe I have presented it as clearly as I can think of presenting it, and that is to say, the standing orders say it's deemed once the subcommittee makes that report, as it has now.
Obviously, if there's a valid reason why it shouldn't be deemed, there should be an opportunity to raise that. So I've decided today--this democracy business has its shortcomings, maybe again, inviting problems that I'm foolish to invite, but wanting to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to speak to--I'm not being critical--the propriety of it.
Mr Klopp: Well, I agree with that.
The Chair: But I'm deciding, every time I have to deal with one, to invite people to object to the deeming of it in the event that they want to raise a valid objection to the deeming of it. If there's some procedural wrongdoing or problem, I think people should have a right to do that, and I don't think it should just be slid through--
Mr Klopp: I agree with that. I just wonder if it should be thought about in a committee, put it in there. Other groups or other Chairs are maybe not as democratic as what you would be.
The Chair: Bless you.
Mr Hope: Just so I can get this clear. The Chair had made an error in the previous--
The Chair: No.
Mr Hope: No. I just want some clarification.
The Chair: I'm glad you're giving the Chair the opportunity to indicate that, far from erroneous, the Chair has had a chance to reflect on a more precise and clearer way of doing this.
There's something beautiful about simplicity and directness. I haven't seen a whole lot around here for the last two years, but there's something beautiful about it. Obfuscation is to be avoided at all costs. Thank you, Mr Hope. It's such a real pleasure to do business with you.
Mr Hope: Why I raise that is because you said the committee--and I know I was here in good mind and good thoughts, and when you say that the committee accepted it, and I'm sitting there questioning--I don't remember voting. I remember the presentation being made, and I remember the Chair didn't know what was going on or wasn't sure of the process--excuse the expression--and that's the last I heard of it until today. Today we come in and we find out that it's the policy or direction that we're going now.
The Chair: No, it's my decision as to how to present that. Again, if people have a better way of doing it--I reflected on how I had done it last time, and I wasn't happy with how I had done it. Again, being self-critical is a nice thing to have to submit to once in a while. But I was self-critical; I agree with you. Today I'm satisfied that we've done it well.
Yes, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: I'm just on a bit of an information search, I suppose, if you will. It would appear that the members who gave unanimous consent on October 15--at least one or two of them--may have been confused on what they were given unanimous consent to. That is becoming a little obvious by some of the statements that are being made today.
I just wonder, from my own perspective, I suppose, what the procedure would be in dealing with that issue, when in fact people have given unanimous consent and perhaps they didn't know to what they were giving unanimous consent. If that's the case, what would be the procedure to undo what they unwittingly did?
The Chair: Okay. In this instance, it's for me to determine as Chair that whether or not you give unanimous consent, I'm going to rule that there is no chronological hierarchy, and that it is the prerogative of the person doing the 123/125 application to determine the order in which they're heard. I didn't want to have to do that, but I am determining that, and if anybody objects to that, they should move a reference to the Speaker. That is what I understand the Conservative caucus is doing. Thank you.
Mr Klopp: Since you're ready to admit and just maybe for my clarification, the other day it was mass confusion, and it was stated poorly, about which you stated you didn't do a very good job, and it's good to be self-critical. But since that happened that day, that's going to stay that way, but from now on, it's going to be that if my caucus decides that a 123, they want to go up, as a standard procedure, which I agree with, you will ask that there be a vote taken among all the--under discussion.
The Chair: No. There won't even be a request for unanimous consent any more when I'm the Chair, unless the Speaker directs me otherwise, about whether you have to do them in the order that they're presented in. As far as I'm concerned, the persons doing the 123/125 designation have the right to determine the order, as the Conservative caucus determined they're going to do their second one first, the time slot being available to them.
Mr Klopp: Okay. All right. That's fine.
The Chair: That's in view of the fact that there seems to have been some error on the part of members of the committee as to whether or not they gave unanimous consent. Again, it would have been nice to have lived with unanimous consent and not to have to make a ruling so that you're bound by that down the road, but now--
Mr Klopp: Basically, that's what you did two weeks ago.
The Chair: No, that's what I did today.
Mr Klopp: No, that's what you did two weeks ago. I said, "Shouldn't we have a vote," and you said: "No, it's an automatic thing. Their caucus can change that if there's any rule that says not. So we might as well go for it." And I said, "Okay, then there's no point in having a vote." If it's a right, that's fine. I might want to change it. If he's got a 125 on blue cows and I say, "Gee, I want to have one on green cows," that's our business, and that's what you did that day, which is fine. I just want to make it clear so we don't feel like there's a problem here.
The Chair: This transcript is going to be great reading for those people who are punished and have to read these as a term of their punishment. No, Mr Klopp, there wasn't any consent required with respect to the 123/125 designation. That matter about which unanimous consent was sought and, in my view, obtained, although I'm being advised now that not knowledgeably, was with respect to the Conservatives being able to take their second 123/125 designation precedence over their first one. But since there was confusion about that, I have looked at the matter and I'm prepared to say, "Okay, fine, I don't need unanimous consent because I'm ruling as Chair that they're entitled to do that, which is what they've indicated they want to do." Is that correct?
Mr Klopp: We did that two weeks ago.
Mr Hope: The Chair makes reference to "knowledgeably." I think the direction would be clear direction from the Chair in perspective to a decision process more so than what you've just vocalized from the process, because where the question then lies is the question of private members' bills that were referred to this committee. I say, as you reflect on thoughts about your change of approach to this committee versus when the 125 was put forward to this committee, I'm just wondering, what does that do as far as precedent-setting? It's the future of private members' bills that do not have an opportunity always to get put before us. I just ask for clarification. I'm looking to the Chair for clarification on that.
The Chair: Okay, 123/125s are superseded by government bills. Since they are matters as of right, they are not superseded by private members' bills, be they government private members or opposition party private members. So there was never any quarrel about the outstanding private members' bills, and I'm sorry that I confused the members of the committee by making reference to those. I wanted you to be fully informed about the matters outstanding before the committee. When we're talking about what takes precedence, we weren't talking about what takes precedence over the private members' bills, because we knew, as I'm sure you did, that 123/125 designations have precedence over everything but government bills. So that was never an issue.
This wonderful transcript will reflect the fact that it was an incredible question period and a wonderful subcommittee meeting, and that people were here till 5:30--
Mr Hope: Mr Chair, it wasn't that I was correcting you; I was trying for clarification, because I wouldn't want to refer this Hansard again into the next meeting we go to of a clear definition from the Chair. I just want to make sure that now we ask questions of the Chair instead of looking just clearly at directions from the Chair.
The Chair: The Chair is little more than a glorified timekeeper, and people should understand that. Those of you who chair will know that the Chair is little more than a glorified timekeeper who depends upon members of the committee to be fully informed about the rules and about process.
Mr Huget: Just so I'm clear--I think we could probably move on to other things--but I guess what you're saying, does 123, which is now called a 125, take precedence over Pr124?
The Chair: You got it, member 126. That was as succinctly put as anything was this afternoon. It takes somebody from Sarnia.
Mr Hope: So from now on you refer to it as 125 instead of 123?
The Chair: No, 123/125, for those of us who have a longer history here than you, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: But I think what you have to do is go by the rules of today.
The Chair: Traditionally, we'll perhaps, for the rest of our careers, think of these as 123s.
Mr Hope: But I think most appropriate, now, I guess, it's now in printed form and is before us and is now 125. I just ask the Chair, for confusion process, that he make reference to 125.
The Chair: Yes, 125s, formerly known as 123s.
Mr Hope: Which is currently 125.
The Chair: You got it. Ten-four. Thank you. We are adjourned until the next time we sit, and there will be notice by the clerk as to Monday or Wednesday of next week.
The committee adjourned at 1725.