CONTENTS
Monday 15 September 1997
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1532 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Annamarie Castrilli): I would like to call this meeting to order. We are meeting today to consider the report of the subcommittee on committee business and some items for discussion which have arisen out of that. With your indulgence, I will read into the record the report of the subcommittee and we then will proceed to a discussion and vote.
"Your subcommittee on committee business met on Tuesday 9 September 1997 and recommends the following with respect to Bill 142, Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997.
"1. That groups and individuals be allotted 15-minute presentation slots for Toronto hearings, and 20-minute presentation slots for out-of-town hearings.
"2. That for Toronto hearings the Chair of the committee send out a press release informing the public and interested parties in Toronto of the hearings. The press release will contain the following information:
"The purpose of Bill 142, Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997.
"That the deadline for those who wish to make an oral presentation in Toronto be Monday 22 September 1997.
"That written briefs will be accepted by the committee.
"That this information also appears on the Ontario parliamentary channel.
"3. That the clerk of the committee will submit the names of those groups and individuals who have contacted the clerk's office and wish to appear before the committee in Toronto to the caucuses by 6 pm on Monday 22 September 1997.
"4. That for the Toronto hearings, the caucuses will submit a prioritized list of witnesses to the clerk of the committee for scheduling by 5 pm on Tuesday 23 September 1997.
"The lists may consist of caucus witnesses and/or witnesses from the names provided by the clerk of the committee.
"Witnesses will be scheduled by the clerk of the committee in rounds from the lists provided by the caucuses.
"5. That the committee travel to London, Ottawa, North Bay, and Niagara Falls during the four days of the first week of the next recess as stated in time allocation motion. Dates for each location subject to logistical arrangements.
"6. That the subcommittee meet on a future date to make decisions regarding hearings on the road.
"7. That decisions regarding requests for reimbursement of costs incurred by witnesses be left to the Chair's discretion.
"8. That the Chair, in consultation with the subcommittee, shall make all additional decisions necessary with respect to public hearings."
Is there any discussion?
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I appreciate the fact that my colleague who is our critic for community and social services and therefore the lead on Bill 142 attended the meeting of the subcommittee on my behalf, but I want to raise a concern and I know that it was a concern that she had presented in the course of that meeting. My concern is with the choice of communities that the committee is visiting, and very specifically my concern is that there is no northern community outside of North Bay. We specifically asked that this committee travel to Thunder Bay because we have had requests from people in the community to have the committee visit Thunder Bay, and I would like to know why that request was refused.
The Chair: There was a general discussion on the cities and there was some consensus on these particular issues. The parliamentary assistant felt very strongly about some of the choices and he brought forth four cities that he wished. It was discussed by the opposition critics and this was the consensus.
Mrs McLeod: I understand something of the process; I've been involved in it before. I understand that normally in reaching a consensus there is at least some acknowledgement given to the two opposition parties in terms of communities they would like to see visited. In this case, I understand there was virtually no acknowledgement of the wishes of the opposition caucuses.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Of the four communities that we finally settled on, only one was on the original list that I started out with, so there was indeed considerable consensus.
Mrs McLeod: Your list was somewhat limited, Mr Carroll, to begin with.
Mr Carroll: Well, somewhat limited as it always is when we get into discussing which municipalities we're going to travel to, but the three of us did finally come down to accepting this particular list. It wasn't what any of us wanted, but it was a compromise between what all of us wanted.
Mrs McLeod: I don't believe this committee in the past has worked on an assumption that the government comes in with a list of communities that are not to be visited under any account, regardless of whether or not there are requests from the opposition caucuses to visit those communities. I want to register a very real concern about the process that was followed and the premises under which this committee is going to travel.
The Chair: Mrs McLeod, just for the record, I indicated during the subcommittee that there were only two criteria that we could consider. It wasn't the preference of any particular individual. The two criteria that we had to look at were the geographical locations to which the committee travelled and, second, the number of people who wanted to present in each community. Those were relevant criteria to consider and no others. Mr Kormos.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First I should acknowledge that Ms Martel was on the subcommittee on behalf of the New Democrats. Ms Martel is in committee room 1 where the government is not listening to injured workers in its consideration of Bill 99.
Mrs McLeod's point I must say is well made. Appreciating that North Bay is the gateway to the north, let's cut to the chase here: It's not what we're speaking of when we speak of the north and the unique qualities of the north. The omission of the north in terms of a sitting location is a serious, serious oversight and speaks either to the government simply not really being serious about having thorough public consideration or even modest public consideration or, more significantly, to their not being acutely aware of unique problems in the north and among northern communities in terms of poverty, unemployment and the impact of their amendments.
I have to go further. Appreciating that I wasn't on the subcommittee and appreciating that the subcommittee undoubtedly reached some sort of -- if my friend wants to call it consensus, so be it, but obviously within the constraints imposed by the government -- this simply isn't an adequate agenda.
The government's been crowing about this bill. This is one of the pillars of their Common Sense Revolution. It impacts on so many people. It's, as you know, two distinct parts. In effect, it's two bills in one and it covers such a broad area. This agenda is simply totally inadequate.
I know Ms Lankin is going to address it and I'll be prepared to discuss this further, but I think this committee has to revisit the whole agenda and the whole inadequacy of a mere four communities, a mere four days, and some very modest sittings here in Toronto. The community simply isn't going to be accommodated. They deserve to be heard.
1540
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We should be clear that we on that subcommittee were told in very certain terms that Thunder Bay was not to be visited and would not be considered. It was also suggested at that time that, given the choices the government wanted, we should be fairly happy for what little we did get. Unfortunately, the fear that was parlayed was that if we didn't agree, the whole slew of cities would then be opened up to the committee as a whole, which of course is dominated by a majority of Conservative MPPs, just for a little history on how those cities came to be selected.
Our concern was that we looked at the list of those who, without any advertising, had already expressed a significant interest to be heard at committee. There were hundreds or just under 200 at that time -- I think 150 or so -- of Thunder Bay organizations that had already applied to be heard, and that's why we really thought Thunder Bay should be in the mix and replace North Bay. We had not heard from anyone that people necessarily wanted us to go to North Bay and thought Thunder Bay would be a very easy replacement for the North Bay selection. That's some history I think you need to know.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I actually wanted to raise another couple of questions about the report. It's not specifically on this issue. I echo the comments --
The Chair: Could we deal with this issue first and then we'll come back to yours?
Mrs McLeod: I would like to just follow up the comment that you made, Madam Chair, which was that there were only two criteria which could be, and I believe should be, considered in selecting communities, one being geography so there's representation across the province. I really don't believe that going only to North Bay accesses northern Ontario, gives enough northern Ontario people an opportunity to present to the committee. The second criterion you indicated that would be considered was the number of people who had asked to present. Since that clearly is a criterion that is coming into question, based on what my colleague just said -- that there are a number of people from Thunder Bay who had asked to make presentations and none that she's aware of from North Bay -- I would appreciate seeing the list of people who had already asked to present, even before the committee hearings were advertised.
The Chair: I believe we have that list. It was before the subcommittee. Has it not been distributed to the committee? We'll arrange for it.
Mrs McLeod: I want it for the committee record basically to have some verification that one of these communities being chosen was one that had not asked for representation, and those not on the list had.
The Chair: The clerk will distribute that list as soon as possible.
Mr Carroll: If I could just make one more point on the choice of cities, I have been involved, as all the members have, in subcommittee meetings before. The subcommittees make some recommendations to the main committee. If in fact the people who come to the subcommittee meetings are not empowered to make those recommendations, then I guess subcommittee meetings become a bit redundant.
We started off negotiating, as we always do, the communities we will visit. Whether we visit four or not is not up to us; the time allocation motion allocated how many communities we would visit. We chose four. None of us got exactly what we wanted, but we all compromised on the four. So now to come in and just say, "We didn't choose this one, we didn't choose that one because there was a list of names from this one and not a list of names from that one," I appreciate that. A hundred communities probably wouldn't be enough for the opposition, but four is what the time allocation motion gave us. These are the four we are recommending. If they're not the proper four, then I guess the committee will vote them down in voting on the report.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I just want to register the fact that I think Mrs McLeod's point that there were X number of people from Thunder Bay or any city that may have written in in advance of an agenda having been set or any decisions having been made about where or when these hearings would be is absolutely irrelevant. If that were to become a criterion as to where these meetings were going to be held, then I think very simply you'd do it on that basis and you'd say, "Let's start a letter-writing campaign." Mr Kormos will have someone in his town every time, because I'm sure he'll get out his mailing system and his computer file and will be deluging this place with letters.
I think we have to rely on the wisdom of the subcommittee. If someone has an opinion about this, they should appear there and argue their point, as I'm sure was done and a decision made based on that.
The Chair: I appreciate your point of view, Mr Klees, but the criterion stands. If you look at the list, you will see that the requests that have been made have been made by organizations that represent Ontario quite broadly. It's not the letter-writing campaign that you may be suggesting.
Mrs McLeod: I want to point out I am trying to keep this discussion based on the procedural issues. Indeed, Ms Pupatello attended in my place fully empowered to have the discussions and reach some consensus, but there were procedural points which nobody would have expected to arise which I am raising because I feel that they are not following the normal procedures for a committee.
Specifically, the criterion that the Chair has indicated is that you look at geography, and the second criterion is that you look at whether or not there are a number of people from a community who have asked to make representation. I'm not suggesting, Mr Klees, that this be a popularity contest. I am suggesting that when the government representative comes to the subcommittee prepared to boycott particular communities, that is an unfair procedure. I can only interpret the fact that Thunder Bay was not even going to be considered in spite of the fact it had asked to be considered, and a community that had not asked for representation was on the list; that my community -- it happens to be my community -- was not to be considered under any conditions; that there was not a basis for the three people who were invited to attend the subcommittee to truly negotiate and reach a consensus. I really feel that the procedures for this committee have been violated and that the committee will begin its hearings under very unfortunate circumstances.
Mr Carroll: Just as a point of interest on me boycotting --
The Chair: Just a minute, Mr Carroll. Ms Lankin is first; we'll come back to you.
Ms Lankin: As I indicated, I have another issue I want to raise, but just on this particular point, Mr Klees, if we were in a situation which I think is more the norm, where we have some time before committee hearings commence and we advertise and let people know that committee hearings are happening and we invite presentations, your point with respect to who may or may not have indicated early on would be well taken. In this case, we are not going to have broad advertisement. We're sending out a press release. This is quite different from how, particularly on controversial bills, the public has been notified of committee hearings in the past. I think the committee is left with less possible information in terms of making some of these decisions. It is of interest to note that there have been many applications from Thunder Bay in particular.
But the point that I want to stress is that it is critical on any piece of legislation which is so important and has such a massive impact in the province that northerners have appropriate opportunity to present before the community. If we were having many more days of hearings, as I wish we would be having with such a controversial bill, particularly with two bills put together, I think it would be appropriate to go to North Bay as one of a number of communities. But if we only have four days and we only have the opportunity to have one day of hearings for northern Ontario, I think North Bay, which is widely referred to as the gateway to the north and is not situated, by most people's view, in any kind of a centralized access or centre of population for northern Ontario for either northeast or northwest -- and I realize we're down to making a decision whether we go to northeast or northwest -- I think at the very least we, as a committee, should be ensuring that we do have a true northern population centre that we are going to. I think, unfortunately, that we would have to look at a centre other than North Bay to fit that criterion if we only have the one day to go to the north.
Mr Carroll: If I could deal with a number of issues, one about me boycotting Thunder Bay, that did not happen. The first city that came up was the city of Chatham, which I believed made sense in view of its physical position between Windsor, London and Sarnia. Mrs Pupatello said, "No, we're not going to Chatham." When it came around to talking about Thunder Bay, I said, "We're not going to Thunder Bay," and she said, "Why?" I said, "For the same reason you don't want to go to Chatham." So that was the boycott.
The Chair: With respect, Mr Carroll, I indicated at that point in the discussion that those kinds of preferences were irrelevant, that we were only really talking about geographical issues and the number of presenters that we could expect. I would thank you, please, to just sort of stick to the facts rather than --
Mr Carroll: I'm trying as best I can.
I'd like Ms Lankin to know that I also suggested that instead of North Bay we go to Sault Ste Marie. That was rejected by the subcommittee and they chose North Bay over Sault Ste Marie.
The Chair: I'll recognize you in a minute, Ms Pupatello. You are being given the list of the proposed presenters or people who've asked as of September 9. We've done, just for your information, a tally as of today's date of the people who have asked to participate. We have five from Thunder Bay, 80 from Toronto, 13 from Ottawa, eight from London, none from North Bay and none from Niagara Falls so far.
I think Mrs Pupatello was first, then Mr Klees.
1550
Mrs Pupatello: I might say regarding Chatham that what the discussion unfortunately fell to was some selection of a community in southwestern Ontario. If we were going to choose a community in southwestern Ontario, then very clearly you would choose Windsor as opposed to Chatham. It's a larger centre so that you will have, just by virtue of its being a larger centre in this regard and what the bill deals with -- looking at those who have already indicated an interest in presenting, the majority are in Windsor. Therefore, you should select Windsor as your southwestern centre.
The point is that your representative on the subcommittee threw all of the pieces together: "If I don't get this, you don't get any more time in Toronto." Even though they're completely different issues, this is the kind of negotiating -- you insisted on putting everything together. The point is, if it's going to be in southwestern Ontario and you use one of the criteria allowed, then you would very clearly select Windsor as your site because of this list alone. I'm just eyeballing; you've got nine from Windsor alone. Very clearly, you would select Windsor as the site.
But, Mr Carroll, as a rep to the committee you were very certain about where you will and will not go. If you're prepared to open it up again, my fear is that you're going to want all the cities and towns you brought to the table, none of which have reportedly expressed an interest in presenting, which is a function of the criteria. If you're going to redo the subcommittee, then I'd appreciate your looking at the list and going from that list. If you only went from the list of expressed interest, you would have done a number of things, including allowing for more than five hours in the city of Toronto. Right at the outset, you would have acknowledged that, just by virtue of the people who have expressed an interest. Windsor is probably second on the list in terms of who and how many and what communities have expressed interest in presenting to the committee.
Let's be fair and let's get all of the information out here. If you are going to use the criteria, you most certainly wouldn't be in Chatham and you certainly would be in Windsor, you certainly would be in Toronto and in Thunder Bay. For some reason which you refused to give at the time, Thunder Bay would not even be considered by you. The threat at that point was you'll just take it back to the whole committee, and of course by your majority on committee we won't have any of the cities we would like to have. That is exactly how it played at the subcommittee. If you're going to start dredging it all up, you'll have to dredge it all up, because that's how it was.
Mr Klees: I am sorry I didn't get invited to the subcommittee. It sounds like a good meeting.
I wanted to follow up on my colleague's very reasoned comments about the importance of having regional representation on the list here. I happen to agree with that. I think it's important that people from all regions in the province have an opportunity to make their submissions. When I look at the four cities, I think we've got that, frankly. We've got eastern Ontario represented, we've got southwestern Ontario and we've got Niagara Falls and Toronto in terms of central Ontario. The question now remains, is North Bay --
Ms Lankin: Just because it's got "North" in the name doesn't mean it's in the north.
Mr Klees: I've been to North Bay and I've also been to some of the other cities.
Mrs Pupatello: You should want to come to Windsor based on your experience.
The Chair: Let Mr Klees finish, please.
Mr Klees: There is some logic to my comments here. In the past when we've had presentations, quite often there have been certain groups that had common interests that they wanted to bring before the committee. It's not news that in various centres, whether that be throughout the north or throughout Ontario, there are recurring themes, and that's appropriate because, depending on what organization it is, obviously they share some common concerns.
I would think that when we announce the fact that for northern Ontario we're going to host these meetings in North Bay, if there are organizations either in Thunder Bay or Sault Ste Marie, they would presume upon their counterparts in North Bay to make the appropriate representation in an organized and collaborative way. The other thing I'd suggest is that, whether it be in Thunder Bay -- you know, Thunder Bay for me is perhaps a more difficult place to get to than North Bay.
Mr Kormos: No kidding.
Mr Klees: Let's say it was Thunder Bay and I'm from North Bay. Then I travel to where to make my presentation? What if I'm from Sault Ste Marie?
Ms Lankin: You are closer to Toronto.
Mr Klees: What if I'm in Sault Ste Marie? Do I go to Thunder Bay? Where do I go?
The Chair: Mr Klees, I should tell you that under the new rules you can't speak for longer than 20 minutes.
Mr Klees: Who introduced that?
The Chair: You did.
Mr Klees: Okay. How long have I got?
The Chair: You have a little time.
Mr Klees: One minute left? I guess what I'd suggest is that if there are people from Thunder Bay who want to make presentations, we accommodate them in North Bay and make sure they get on the agenda. I think we should hear from North Bay. I think we should hear from Kenora. I think we should hear from these places.
Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just wanted to clarify your ruling with respect to the time limits on Mr Klees. I don't believe --
The Chair: No, no, he wasn't close to 20 minutes. Don't misunderstand.
Ms Lankin: Thank you. I don't want him to be cut off.
The Chair: I think Mr Klees understood my meaning.
Mr Klees: My light went on but I didn't say anything. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: Chair, this is very troubling. As I understand it, the time allocation motion which was passed by the government in the House is what restricted the hearings to a mere four days out of Toronto and a mere two days -- tell me I'm wrong about that.
The Chair: That is the time allocation motion.
Mr Kormos: And not the full Orwellian days, but just the regular days; that is, till 6 o'clock, not the 9:30 days, not the Newspeak days.
The Chair: You're correct in part. That is true for outside of Toronto. Within Toronto it's a limited time. I think we have about five hours in total over the two days.
Mr Kormos: I think, in all fairness, all members of this committee, government members as well, can concede that this is simply an inadequate period of time for anything akin to a proper consideration of the bill, especially in view of the fact that it's two major issues put together in one bill. The issue here isn't so much what cities you can and can't go to. It's that since there are only four days out of town, it's only going to be four cities. Even with the argument of Mr Klees about whether or not it's easier to get from North Bay to Thunder Bay or Thunder Bay to Toronto or whatever it was he was trying to explain, the fact is these people can't appear before the committee anyway because there's no time in Toronto for them to appear before the committee. It's not a matter any more of merely excluding cities. I look at the list here and this is the tip of the iceberg. It's trite for me to say that but this is the tip of the iceberg because you haven't had any publicity about the committee process yet through the form of advertising or press releases.
I endorse Mrs McLeod's argument about the complete absence or the complete denial of the existence of the north. But it goes beyond that because none of those people are going to be able to participate, whether they're travelling to North Bay, Niagara, Toronto, Ottawa or London. This committee has an obligation -- and I believe it can on its own motion -- to determine that the time allocation motion simply didn't provide for adequate time for anything akin to a proper consideration. This committee should be making a motion calling upon the House leaders, because it's my submission that by agreement they can do anything they want virtually -- we're talking about consent -- to provide proper time.
I'm hoping the Tories who voted for the time allocation motion are going to tell us today that they voted for it mostly because it was a time allocation motion in terms of getting this thing into committee. I'm hoping they'll indicate they voted for it notwithstanding that they suspected that the time frames being proposed were far too restrictive. I think that's what this committee has to do now. You're going to have people thoroughly ticked off, to say the least. This committee, if it proceeds with this agenda, is inviting some major and angry responses from a whole lot of parts of Ontario that are going to know that they have been denied access to the process.
1600
Mrs McLeod: It's exactly this discussion that brings me back to what, Madam Chair, I think you tried to establish as two fairly objective criteria for the committee to use. Given the fact that we only have four days outside of Toronto, these were not going to be easy decisions, and I believe that the use of your objective criteria would have taken away the need for this discussion.
Mr Klees, nobody is arguing about geographic distribution. I may quarrel about whether or not North Bay gets you really into the north, but the fact that there has to be, with only four days, each of the four geographic regions outside of Toronto, everybody would agree. The question then is, which communities in those geographic areas do you go to? The second objective criterion you tried to put in place, then, was that it would be based on the numbers of people seeking representation. I feel that would have been objective, that it would have prevented this kind of discussion, and I still don't understand why that criterion has not been accepted by the committee.
I wasn't sure exactly what reasons Mr Klees was offering. They didn't sound terribly objective to me, Mr Klees, I must confess, whether it was the recurring themes and the fact that you might hear continued opposition to the government in Thunder Bay, which I'm sure you would, or the difficulty for Torontonians in getting to Thunder Bay versus North Bay. I hope I've misinterpreted you, because that infuriates northwesterners.
If I heard you suggesting that perhaps those who wanted to present in communities outside of Toronto who can't be accommodated because the committee's not visiting their community would be invited to present in Toronto and would have their expenses paid to present, I would certainly be prepared to support that motion coming from a member of the government and think that could be quite productive. But I can't ask the Coalition Against Poverty in Thunder Bay to come up with the $900 for each presenter to come to Toronto to present.
The Chair: For the record, Mrs McLeod, if you read the subcommittee report, the decision with regard to reimbursement has been left to the discretion of the Chair should the subcommittee report be adopted.
Mrs McLeod: What I'm doing is pointing out that there were, at last count, five presenters from Thunder Bay. I don't know how many others from the north nor do I know how many would have wished to present if the committee was coming. I think I'm appreciating Mr Klees's suggestion that they should be given an opportunity, but I suspect that it is beyond the mandate of the Chair or the budget allowed to the committee to ensure that all of those Thunder Bay individuals would be brought down at the cost of about $1,000 per person. I'd appreciate your clarification on that.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, we've done a tally of requests from Windsor to date. We have 15.
Mrs Pupatello: Fifteen? So that would be over the 10% I had just calculated. What's the total? It was 104.
The Chair: It's 145 at the moment.
Mrs Pupatello: You're still at the 10% mark of presenters from Windsor alone, so for Windsor not to be on the list I think is a significant sacrifice.
I must say, though, to my colleagues' comments and Mr Klees, even if you had the space -- it's like saying in Windsor when you need emergency service, "Go to the other emergency." That's how ridiculous that is, because in Toronto what we were studying at first blush was two and a half hours a day on September 29 and 30. Two and a half hours a day would have meant, as we calculated at even just 20 minutes per presenter, you were looking at three per hour and a total of five hours. That was a total of 15 presenters for this area, in Toronto. That was it. Where you would ever find room to bring in people from Thunder Bay -- you can't even think about it because there is no room.
If I can make a suggestion as an addition that may help us over this hump, we could ask the House leaders at their meeting to authorize an additional day to be added to hearings, a specific day to travel to Thunder Bay. Mr Carroll at this point has to go to the House leaders and ask their permission to extend the days in Toronto on September 29 and 30 into the evening so that we have five hours a day instead of two and a half hours a day. That has to be granted through the House. So since we have to go to the House anyway for that extension of the Monday and Tuesday, adding the hours for Toronto, we at the same time can ask them to add the additional day in Thunder Bay and that probably will solve the problem. Mr Carroll will get North Bay, which is what he wanted, and we'll be able to say, at minimum, for the people of Thunder Bay, with the significant number who have already responded, that yes, we'll go to Thunder Bay as well. I'd like to add that as a motion for an amendment to the report.
The Chair: We can't entertain an amendment to the subcommittee report until we adopt the report, which hasn't been done yet. Could I ask for someone to move adoption of the subcommittee report, and then we can entertain amendments.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I'll move adoption of the subcommittee report.
Having moved it, I would like just to clarify a couple of issues. On number 6, "That the subcommittee meet on a future date to make decisions regarding hearings on the road," because we don't know the dates that we're going to be on the road, we don't know the times, those are the kinds of decisions we're talking about there. They're not about extending them or which cities. Those are just about the logistics of those particular situations that we're going to go to. On number 8, "That the Chair, in consultation with the subcommittee, shall make all additional decisions necessary with respect to public hearings," keep in mind, of course, that we're dealing within the terms of the time allocation motion. I just wanted to clarify those two points.
Mrs Pupatello: You mean not counting the decisions that have to go back to the House, like an additional day in Thunder Bay?
Mr Carroll: I am not prepared to take anything like that back to the House. We have a subcommittee report that I believed we had agreement on. It seems that I was misunderstood in that agreement. But I have now moved adoption of the subcommittee report.
The Chair: There are two separate matters, with respect, Mr Carroll. You've moved adoption of the subcommittee report. We can now open to entertain amendments if people wish to make any, and I understand Mrs Pupatello does.
Just for the record, though, with your clarification, if I could just bring your attention to another matter that is still to be decided with respect to the hearings outside of Toronto, and that's the whole issue of advertising, which was also left to be decided. I imagine that would be under section 8 with respect to decisions that need to be made with respect to the public hearings outside of Toronto. That also includes the advertising we would have to do. So as long as we have that clear on the record.
Mrs Pupatello: I move my amendment.
The Chair: Your amendment?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes. Do you want it repeated now?
The Chair: Please.
Mrs Pupatello: I would have an amendment or an addition to the subcommittee report on number 9, that we add an additional day as a trip to Thunder Bay.
The Chair: Perhaps you can write it down, but it ought to be a request to the House leaders.
Mrs Pupatello: Yes. We would request that the submission go to the House leaders. As it stands, this has to go to the House leaders for approval anyway. It would be requested of the House leaders that an additional day on the road be added and the fifth day would be for participating in hearings in Thunder Bay.
The Chair: Do I have a seconder for that amendment? Mrs McLeod. Discussion on the amendment?
Ms Lankin: I'm going to fold in my other issues at this point in time because they have to do with respect to potential changes to the time allocation motion. I am a bit confused by something in the subcommittee report. You may have dealt with this, Mr Carroll, before I came in. I'm sorry, I was a few minutes late this afternoon. I had understood from speaking to Ms Martel that one of the things the committee had arrived at agreement on was to make a recommendation to the House leaders that the times of the sittings in Toronto be extended on the 29th and 30th for 6:30 to 9 o'clock in the evening sessions. Am I correct on that, and why isn't that in the --
The Chair: Ms Lankin, that issue was left for the committee to decide. There was no consensus on that, so that we can deal with immediately after the subcommittee report.
Mr Carroll: If I could clarify that just a little, as I understood it, we had agreement on the subcommittee report and on four other conditions, one of them being what you just suggested. We had agreed, three of us, that we would approach the House leaders on that. Now I come into this committee today and I find that we have argument about this report that I thought we had agreed on and now we're asking for an extra day in Thunder Bay. None of that was what we had agreed to, so quite frankly all of those agreements that I understood we had made --
Ms Lankin: Don't say that yet, just so you don't back yourself into a corner here. A couple of things I think have developed. As I understand it, and let me sort out some of the conditions, I think there was debate with respect to clause-by-clause and the time allocation motion language that said that would be done in the next recess, what that next recess was, whether it was the fall recess or the December recess. There was discussion about some extra hours in Toronto and there was discussion about time for the minister to be able to present and the other parties to be able to respond.
1610
As I understood it, on those points, separate from the rest of this, there was some agreement that the committee would be asked to recommend to the House leaders that there be the extension of the times in Toronto for evening sittings, and in response to that, the minister would be invited for 20 minutes, the other two parties would be able to respond for 20 minutes, and the argument about what "next recess" meant would go away. Do I have that in a nutshell? One thing I'm wondering is, why is that not here as part of the report?
If I could just give you a bit more context, some other things have developed since your subcommittee met, and this is an issue the whips are trying to deal with. The time allocation motion is kind of vague in its wording in that it calls for the travel and the hearings to be held in the first week of the recess. It would have been more helpful had the actual week been established. The problem that gives rise to is that while none of us are quite sure yet when the first week of the recess will be, there is a very good chance that it may be the week following Thanksgiving weekend, which would move this to Tuesday to Friday.
From the whips' perspective, that had been a week in which we were hopefully, on all three parties' part, planning not to schedule hearings. So it has been agreed to by the whips of all three parties, and the House leaders have no problem with this, that we would actually schedule these hearings for this bill in the week following Thanksgiving. That requires a motion to come back to the House because it will be changing the time allocation motion. There has been an agreement that if that motion comes back with a number of elements in it, it will be treated by unanimous consent during routine motions, therefore not an order of the day, and it won't be debated. So there are some developments that have happened.
In my discussions with the chief government whip, I also indicated that I thought as part of that motion there would be the extension of the hearings in Toronto, and it is possible that we could, as a committee, if we chose, include in that a recommendation for a fifth day of hearings on the road in Thunder Bay.
Let me suggest to you that the package is workable there. A motion has to come forward. It will set the date of the hearings, the travel, the week following Thanksgiving week. It would hopefully extend the Toronto hearings for two evening sessions on the Monday and Tuesday nights, which will allow us to have an additional five hours of hearings. Given that we will be travelling in a week in which we have all five days of the week -- it won't be truncated by the Thanksgiving holiday -- we could actually travel Monday through Friday and I think we could accommodate the concerns that have been raised about northern Ontario.
As a negotiator and a mediator, I thought I saw a deal coming here if we were to accommodate the member for Port Arthur and the member for Chatham-Kent in their own particular desires with respect to their communities. It seemed like maybe a deal could be made, but an alternative suggestion has come forward, which is to add a day, and it is doable.
The only discussions I've had with the other whips, which have been translated to House leaders, and as I understand it, they are all fine if this committee recommends, are with respect to scheduling travel the week following the week of Thanksgiving and extending the Monday and Tuesday.
In any event, I think there needs to be an amendment that would reflect that coming from the committee and I would just speak in favour of adding Mrs Pupatello's recommendation to that as well.
The Chair: Are you making a friendly amendment to the amendment?
Ms Lankin: No, I think at this point in time I'd like to get some indication from the government whether there is any willingness and support for Mrs Pupatello's amendment. We'll have to come forward with the second part of this as well.
The Chair: The issue has been raised. Mr Carroll and then Mr Klees.
Mr Carroll: If I could clarify, I understand that exactly as you so eloquently explained it. The House leaders have to deal with part of that, and I thought our responsibility would be to write a letter requesting them to extend the hearings in the city of Toronto.
The idea of an extra day of travel to Thunder Bay is brand-new today. I've never heard it before and I'm not prepared to support that request. My concern is that we are now getting into add-ons to what I thought we had agreed to was a deal among us. If that is the situation, then I'd rather go back to the beginning.
Ms Lankin: Could I ask a question, just to follow up on that? There are two parts to this question, Mr Carroll. I understand that the subcommittee arrived at an agreement, but that can be modified -- they have been from time to time -- if there's agreement around the room. I was wondering specifically what reasons you would give for not including an extra day; and second, if we were to look just at the four days, what reasons you would have for continuing to insist on North Bay as opposed to Thunder Bay, given the arguments that have been made by people with respect to what are hearings in northern Ontario.
Mr Carroll: First of all, as far as the extra day goes, I believe the time allocation motion was discussed and people different from this group decided there would be two days in Toronto, four days on the road and two days of clause-by-clause. To extend the two days in Toronto for an extra two and a half hours at night to accommodate some more people in Toronto, I thought that was a reasonable request. In the package of things we talked about, I said I was prepared to go forward on that. I believe that was a fair package of proposals. To add an extra day for Thunder Bay or anyplace else -- Thunder Bay, Chatham, Welland, wherever -- I don't think is in the spirit of the time allocation motion and I'm not prepared to support it.
Ms Lankin: With respect to the location of North Bay versus Thunder Bay, at this point is there not some room to understand that some valid arguments have been made about northern Ontario and what is a true northern Ontario population centre?
Mr Carroll: I understand the valid arguments and in the course of discussion I said, "Okay, let's compromise on Sault Ste Marie," and the group said, "No, we'll go up to North Bay rather than Sault Ste Marie." The subcommittee made a conscious decision to pick North Bay over Sault Ste Marie, so I think we had that discussion about the north and we settled on North Bay. I guess if we're going to open up one community, then we'll open them all and start talking about all of them.
Mr Klees: My colleague Ms Lankin reminded me of my former life, where I would call that incremental negotiations. I have to say it was really quite effective, how she led us to that very logical, illogical conclusion. I appreciate it.
Ms Lankin: Was that a compliment or an insult?
Mr Carroll: I think it's a compliment. It was a compliment, I think.
Mr Klees: I want to return, though, to the point I was trying so desperately to make and I wasn't communicating well with Mrs McLeod. What I was saying was that I think it's appropriate that we hear from people in Thunder Bay. I was going from the basis that we had before us an agreement that was being brought forward from the subcommittee and that the decision was that we're going to North Bay.
I was involved in a committee, I forget which one it was, maybe Bill 19, where we had a similar discussion. We wanted people to have an opportunity to make a presentation and we agreed, as a committee, that we would pay expenses for people to travel here.
I wasn't suggesting necessarily that they come to Toronto, because I understand Mrs Pupatello's point about the shortness of time that we have there. I was suggesting that perhaps we ask these people to come to North Bay and take that full day with us there and give them a 20-minute slot.
Surely we understand that part of this was that we want to move matters forward. It surely is a lot less expensive to have someone come from Thunder Bay to North Bay than it is to take all of us and the sundry support staff and so on into Thunder Bay. I think that's a logical way of perhaps compromising on this and saying, "Yes, we want to hear."
I go back to Mrs McLeod's point that there are five people there, and are we going to bring them all in? If we follow that logical reasoning, that means we have to do that for everyone from any other city who wants to come forward. Obviously we can't do that. I think people understand that. It's matter of saying let's have the Thunder Bay people decide who is going to make the presentation and let's keep in mind that part of this process involves written submissions as well. Some of the information I have had to consider as a committee member in the past -- some of the most effective presentations have been through written documents. So again I don't think we should leave the impression with anyone that because people can't make a personal presentation, their input is not going to be considered.
1620
Given all of that, my opinion is that we should go with the decision that was made by the House. If there was agreement to extend the time in Toronto, I'm open to guidance on that, but I think that to reopen everything sets a dangerous precedent here. Depending on who can make the more powerful argument about which city something should be at, we're going to be in trouble on this committee and any other committee in terms of setting precedents.
My sense is that we go with the committee report, we make accommodation at the Chair's discretion in terms of picking up some costs for people who need to make some travel arrangements and get on with it.
Mrs McLeod: It's exactly the logic Mr Klees has suggested that is the reason I have raised this and am pursuing it. I think a dangerous precedent has been set. If I didn't think it had been set, I wouldn't be pursuing this in the full committee meeting as I am. I happen to believe that if a committee is going to go out and consult, it should be a genuine consultation. You go where you're going to hear from people, whether those people are going to be opposed to what you're proposing as a government or whether they're going to be sympathetic. It's supposed to be a consultation. You take what you get on the road.
The only way you can avoid making those decisions very subjectively is if you have some kind of objective criterion. I suggest to Ms Lankin that this is not a negotiation about how I get the committee to my community. If it were Sudbury or Sault Ste Marie that had the larger number of requests for presentations, I would be arguing that that's where the committee should be going. I'm trying to say that there should be something objective and not subjective, so that we don't get the feeling that communities are being boycotted.
In the absence of any reason why the communities that have the greatest number of requests for presentation have been excluded, I can only assume there are some as yet unstated reasons as to why the committee is not prepared to go to what happens to be my community. But again, Madam Chair, I stress the fact that if it were another community in the north, just as it is Windsor in southwestern Ontario, I will raise the same question: Why were the objective criteria not followed? I think not following them does set a dangerous precedent for the committee unless some discussion at the subcommittee level has given very clear reasons as to why different choices have to be made.
Mrs Pupatello: Let me review the items that were under negotiation, in the end the decisions that had to be made among the subcommittee members with Ms Martel and Mr Carroll. In order to get the days of the 29th and 30th extended from 3:30 to 6 each day to 3:30 to 6 and 6:30 to 9, this is what we had to be willing to give up: We had to give up an hour of the additional five hours in order to have the minister present, which we did not want to do. We felt the minister can call a press conference at any time and as minister can bring forward all kinds of new information in any number of ways. Yet they insisted that the minister take up time from the additional five hours.
We also had to agree on the clause-by-clause confusion in terms of how it was written, which says "next recess." We had to agree we were talking about clause-by-clause happening in the same recess as opposed to the next recess. As Mr Carroll put it there, it likely would have moved the clause-by-clause into the Christmas break, which means you weren't getting it back in the House until the new year, which was not what you were looking for. So we had to give up and agree that you meant to say the same recess the clause-by-clause would be dealt with and we agreed to that because that was Mr Carroll's intent.
We also had to give up debate on this change when it goes to House leaders and House leaders agree. We agreed that when it comes to the House in the extension of that time for Toronto, we would not debate that change and that would pass unanimously.
Those were the issues that were outstanding, because in the course of the subcommittee meeting the debate on the cities absolutely ended because Mr Carroll was inflexible on Thunder Bay. Once we knew he would be completely inflexible, it was simply not proceeded with because all the other items then were in a state of flux. We would get no additional Toronto hours because everything was bound together in the same discussion. In order to get this minimal addition for Toronto, those are all the things we gave up. The cities, by the end of the tussle landing with London, Ottawa, North Bay and Niagara Falls, there was simply no further negotiation on those cities. Ms Martel on behalf of the NDP and myself identified that there were other cities that clearly would be ahead of North Bay and Niagara Falls.
If we pass this report, I'd have to say to Mr Carroll that maybe we should have included in this the extension from 6:30 to 9. I don't know why it is not in this subcommittee report. Is there some reason you didn't include that portion in this?
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, the answer to that is that the 6:30 to 9 was not in the time allocation motion and it was not within the powers of the subcommittee to deal with it at that time.
Ms Lankin: I think it is well within the powers of the subcommittee to make a recommendation that this committee recommend to House leaders, and it could have been in the report from the subcommittee here. Having said that, we'll deal with it by amendment, but I don't think, for the sake of precedent, we should allow it to go by that it could not be included in the subcommittee report. It would have to be careful in its wording; it would have to be a recommendation, but it could have been included.
The Chair: Ms Lankin, let me clarify. It needed to be a separate request and there was no consensus on the subcommittee for it to go forward. That's why it is not part of the subcommittee report. Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: Now that I have the floor, I would like to move a couple of amendments.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, if I could stop you, we're dealing with an amendment that Mrs Pupatello has put forward. We need to dispose of that first before we can go on to any other amendment. I have you on the list to speak, Mr Carroll, or is that what you wanted to speak to?
Mr Carroll: If we're going to speak on the amendment that's on the floor, a couple of things to correct the record just a touch: On the extra hour Mrs Pupatello refers to, she and the members of her party are quite welcome to give up their 40-minute share of that extra hour. The minister is only going to take 20 minutes of it. You're quite welcome to give up your 20 minutes and Ms Lankin can give up her 20 minutes. We're only going to take 20 minutes of the hour.
Ms Lankin: You can go on again.
Mr Carroll: You made the point that you were going to give an hour to the minister, so I just want to correct the record. It's 20 minutes for the minister, 20 minutes for you and 20 minutes for the third party. You're more than welcome to give yours up if you'd like to.
As far as what we meant to say in the time allocation motion, we all know what we meant to say. There's no question about reference to "next recess." It always was a reference to the same recess. However, we did concede and I, in talking with you, got, "Yes, okay, let's brush that one over and I'll see what I can do about getting some extra time in Toronto." That was kind of a gentleman's agreement that I thought we had.
As far as the "inflexible" on the places we went to, you were pretty inflexible on St Catharines, Cornwall and Chatham and I was pretty inflexible on Thunder Bay. I think that's kind of a quid pro quo.
Mrs Pupatello: They don't appear on the list at all, Jack.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, please.
I'd like to state something here. When we left the subcommittee report, there was no agreement with respect to the extension of time. There wasn't even an agreement with respect to putting the matter to the House leaders. Whatever may have happened subsequent to the subcommittee, it's not something the Chair is privy to. If there has been an agreement, it's not an agreement that was put to me.
Mr Carroll, do you have anything else to say about this?
Mr Carroll: No.
Ms Lankin: I'm on your list, as soon as this amendment is dealt with, with some other amendments.
The Chair: Yes, you are on that list, as is Mr Klees.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Before we vote on it, Mrs Pupatello, can I ask you to read your amendment? It's been a while since it was put.
Mrs Pupatello: That a request be made to the House leaders to amend the time allocation motion to include an extra day of public hearings on the road and that that extra day be in Thunder Bay.
The Chair: Do we have a seconder for that? Okay?
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Kormos, Lankin, McLeod, Pupatello.
Nays
Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Leadston, Munro, Newman, Parker.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Ms Lankin, I think you're next.
Ms Lankin: I would like to move an amendment to the subcommittee report:
That this committee request the House leaders to amend the time allocation motion to allow the committee to be scheduled to meet for the purposes of public hearings on September 29 and 30 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm in Toronto and, further, that the committee be scheduled to meet for four days of public hearings during the week of October 20.
1630
The Chair: Discussion? Ms Lankin, do you want to add anything to that?
Ms Lankin: No, I think it's fairly straightforward.
Mr Carroll: I defer to your experience here, Ms Lankin, but is there any need and benefit for the committee to have a technical briefing? If there is, could it come as an hour and then add a half-hour to each one of those days? Would that benefit the committee?
In other words, after the minister has had her 20 minutes and each of the opposition parties has had its 20 minutes, if we added a technical briefing in there for an hour, and then on the two evenings went to 9:30 rather than 9 o'clock, is it to the advantage of the committee to have that technical briefing, in your opinion?
Ms Lankin: It can be at times if members of the committee have not sought or had an opportunity to receive briefings. In this case, because the bill has been out for some time -- I will speak for my caucus -- we have, both staff and members, sought and received technical briefing on the bill, so it would not be a necessary element, I would say.
Mr Kormos: Chair, staff --
The Chair: I think Mrs McLeod was on first. Is this on the same point?
Mr Kormos: Obviously staff are going to be here in any event.
The Chair: All right. Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: On the same point, Madam Chair: If the government feels, for whatever reason, it would be helpful to members of the committee to have a technical briefing, surely that doesn't come within the mandate of the time allocation motion and could be held outside the time allocation period of time.
Mr Carroll: We would be more than happy to schedule that, say, on a Monday morning at 10 o'clock or something, for anybody who was interested.
Ms Lankin: That's a good idea.
The Chair: All in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote, please.
Mrs Pupatello: May I ask a quick question?
The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry, Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: Ms Lankin, you're expecting then that the recess is in that week. If the recess is the week following, would we then be forced to have it while the House is sitting? You've assumed we're off that week. We tried to get that information and we didn't have access to it last week.
Ms Lankin: At this point in time, you're right that I'm making an assumption. It's an assumption on pretty good information. It is possible that it could change, and maybe that's something we should think about. Perhaps the wording could be changed just to give a bit more flexibility.
Mr Carroll: The first full week.
Ms Lankin: It could be "the first full week." That's one good way of doing it, or it could be "the first week, save and except the week of October 13." Perhaps that gives the government more flexibility and avoids having to come back to the House again.
The Chair: Do you wish to amend your motion to that effect, Ms Lankin?
Ms Lankin: If we use the language of "first full week," does everyone understand what that means?
Mrs Pupatello: That it's not the week with Thanksgiving Day in it, if it falls at that time.
Ms Lankin: We'll go back to the other language. "The first week of the recess, with the exception of the week of October 13." That's our request. The House leaders can draft the actual language that comes into the House, but that will make it clear what we're talking about.
The Chair: All right. Are we all clear on the amendment that's being moved by Ms Lankin?
Mr Carroll: Can we have it read again? I'm sure it's fine, but I just want to --
The Chair: Ms Lankin, would you mind reading it once more.
Ms Lankin: Half of it was on the roll. I'm trying to reconstruct the words. That the subcommittee report be amended to read:
That this committee request the House leaders to amend the time allocation motion to schedule the committee to meet for the purposes of public hearings on September 29 and 30, from 6:30 pm to 9 pm in Toronto and, further, that the committee be scheduled to meet for four days the first week of the recess, with the exception of the week of October 13.
They will understand what we mean.
Mr Carroll: We can't specify the other conditions that we have agreed to attach to that. In our request to the House leaders, are we allowed to specify those?
Ms Lankin: There's no need to. What we could do is have a further amendment to this that the minister be invited --
Mr Carroll: I'm going to move that amendment, but I mean as far as the unanimous consent part of it.
Ms Lankin: No, that's up to them. I just wanted to correct what was said earlier that it was unanimous consent for it not to be debated. Actually, more than that is being asked of the opposition parties. It's unanimous consent for it to be treated as a routine motion, which means notice doesn't have to be given and it's not called as an order of the day, which is a significant unanimous consent. It's not simply that it's not debated; it means you get another full sessional day on another item and it doesn't interrupt that one.
The Chair: Any further discussion on Ms Lankin's amendment? All in favour of the amendment? I think we've had a request for a recorded vote.
Ayes
Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Kormos, Lankin, Leadston, McLeod, Munro, Newman, Parker, Pupatello.
The Chair: Contrary? The amendment is passed.
Mr Carroll: Madam Chair, I have an amendment I'd like to submit.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, before you, I think Mr Klees had his hand up some time ago.
Mr Klees: I'll defer to Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: He told me what he wanted to say.
The Chair: Is that the case? I doubt Mr Klees would ever do that. He can speak for himself.
Mr Carroll: I move that the subcommittee report be amended by adding the following:
"That the Minister of Community and Social Services be allowed to make a 20-minute opening remark and that the opposition parties each get 20 minutes to respond."
I don't need to clarify that that is on the first day of hearings in Toronto.
Mr Klees: In light of the fact that Ms Pupatello indicated that there really isn't a need for the minister to do that, I wonder if we shouldn't take advantage of that and open up another couple of spots for presenters. That would give us the opportunity of having the minister make her statement, but also have two more presentations from the public on that.
Mrs Pupatello: You just don't get it, do you?
Ms Lankin: I would never want to rise to the bait. I'll just say I think that is real silliness. We probably will accomplish more if we have a bit more respect for each other around the table and not play those kinds of games here.
Mr Klees: I'm assuming then that the opposition parties are not prepared to do that.
The Chair: I'm not quite clear what you were trying to accomplish, Mr Klees. Was yours an amendment to the amendment?
Mr Klees: That's what I was proposing.
The Chair: All right, it wasn't clear to me. I apologize. You'll have to move it as an amendment to the amendment. We will then have to --
Mr Klees: I think I have some sense that probably that wouldn't be supported.
Ms Lankin: Go ahead and move it.
Mr Klees: No, I wasn't looking, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine indicated, to play games on that side. I really thought that when Ms Pupatello indicated that that wasn't necessary, she meant that. If we are looking to create some more space for people to come forward, then that's a logical place to do it.
Mrs Pupatello: And the minister should lead by example.
The Chair: Ms Pupatello, you're on the list.
Are you moving it as an amendment to the amendment, Mr Klees?
Mr Klees: I won't. I would have, because I really did think it was a good idea. I want to assure the members of this committee that it wasn't with the intention of playing any games. I'll drop the matter.
Ms Lankin: I would just say that what I heard Ms Pupatello suggest was that the entire hour wasn't necessary for the minister or the response of the opposition parties. If Mr Klees wants to put forward his amendment, he can be assured that if he supports my amendment to his amendment, which is to drop the minister as well, then I'll vote in favour of it.
You are playing games. Either the minister doesn't come and we don't have the responses, which would be fine by us and that would open up three more spots, or we have to take an hour. Fortunately, at least it's an hour of additional time that's being added. But it is an unnecessary step, given the press conferences and other things that have been held, when we have such limited time. But if you are insisting on having the minister present, then I think we will insist on our right to respond to the minister.
Mrs McLeod: I don't believe that we need Mr Klees's amendment to the amendment, nor Ms Lankin's amendment to the second amendment to the amendment.
The Chair: We don't have Mr Klees's amendment to the amendment.
Mrs McLeod: My point is we have a resolution before us. Ms Pupatello was serious in saying that she would prefer to see the spots open for presenters. We'll be voting against the amendment proposed by Mr Carroll for that reason, which would then free all three spots for presenters. I trust, given Mr Klees's statement that he wasn't just playing games, that he will also be voting against Mr Carroll's amendment.
1640
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello?
Mrs Pupatello: I'll pass.
Mr Klees: I think I have to respond to that. I will be voting in favour of Mr Carroll's amendment. The reason for that is that I believe it's important that the minister, on a very important bill such as this, have an opportunity to make her statement. Surely there is a difference between the minister coming forward to a committee and making her statement here and simply calling a press conference. This is the one opportunity the minister has. We all have had press conferences, we've all made statements to the press. What gets reported and what doesn't is a matter of choice of the individual doing the reporting. Hansard is one opportunity we have in this place of ensuring that every word we say gets reported.
Ms Lankin: Therefore, you should want to hear the opposition responses as well.
Mr Klees: And I'm prepared to, happy to. But I was responding to Ms Pupatello's suggestion that it would be a waste of time to have that happen. I thought in that light perhaps she would be willing to give up her 20 minutes to someone from the outside who wants to make a presentation.
Mrs McLeod: We are. What about the others?
The Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Carroll's amendment? All in favour of the amendment? Contrary? The amendment passes.
Any further discussion?
Mrs McLeod: I have a further amendment, Madam Chair.
I move that, consistent with the criterion that in making the choices of a limited number of communities to be visited by the committee the choices be according to the number of requests to make presentations, the communities of Thunder Bay and Windsor be substituted for North Bay and Niagara Falls.
The Chair: Any discussion on the amendment?
Mr Klees: I want a recorded vote on this.
Ms Lankin: Why don't we move to divide on this?
The Chair: It might be easier to ask the person making the amendment to make two amendments.
Mrs McLeod: Madam Chair, it was put together because I really was preparing to come back to the criterion. My understanding of the numbers given to us today was that those two cities would meet, along with London and Ottawa, if I understand it correctly, the numbers of requests for presentations.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this? Ms Pupatello, do you have something to add?
Mrs Pupatello: We also did try to go to Welland just for Mr Kormos's sake, but that was denied us.
Mr Kormos: Niagara Falls was on the list. Folks in Welland know that this bill's a crock --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Well, they do, and that the Tories are going to ram it through notwithstanding. They haven't bought into any of the spin and the propaganda. We're in this unfortunate and difficult position of having to trade off cities, one city for the other. Quite frankly, one is as important as the other. We recognize that, although, at the same time, I understand the significance of submitting an identifiably northern community, not just because it's accessible to northerners but because it's very much different as a community and a place to live and a place to be poor in and a place to have to have workfare imposed on you etc.
Yes, I have no hesitation in saying I'll support that amendment, although I wish Ms McLeod had stuck to the northern communities -- no hesitation whatsoever, because I think the issue of including a northern community outweighs -- again, folks in Welland, when I spoke on Bill 142, those are the sorts of things they had been saying about it, and I'll be saying that to the committee in any event.
Mrs McLeod: I have no hesitation at all in going to Niagara Falls, nor would I have hesitated in going to Welland. I'd love to see them all added. The reason I placed the amendment as I have is simply to try to give some objectivity to this. I'm not advocating that this come to my home community; I am advocating that we look at the number of people who have asked to make presentations and use that as a method of bringing some objectivity to the decision.
The Chair: I'm grateful for the objectivity. Any further comments?
Laughter.
The Chair: That wasn't intended to be humorous, Mr Klees.
Mr Klees: No, but it sounded good.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment?
Ms Lankin: A recorded vote, Madam Chair.
Ayes
Kormos, Lankin, McLeod, Pupatello.
Nays
Hudak, Klees, Leadston, Munro, Newman, Parker, Carroll.
The Chair: Any further items?
Mr Carroll: The only thing I'd like to mention is that I will commit to a technical briefing on behalf of the ministry, probably on the Monday morning, but I'll advise the committee members as to when it will be.
The Chair: All right. Tthat doesn't require an amendment to the subcommittee report. May I have a vote on the adoption of the subcommittee report as amended?
Mr Kormos: May I speak to that, because I'm opposed to the subcommittee's report. This is an entirely inappropriate time frame in which to discuss what is important and, quite frankly, dangerous legislation, one that does nothing about the issue of growing poverty in the province, one that doesn't even attempt to begin to address it.
I think the debate around 142, and that includes committee hearings, could and should be a discussion of growing levels of poverty in this province. It won't be, and I think that's very much what the government has in mind with their time allocation motion and the highly restrictive -- literally a handful of hours and a handful of submissions, and already before publicizing the hearings a huge number of illegitimate -- take a look at the groups and the types of groups and the broad interests they represent and the diverse constituencies they represent in the list of requests to appear that the clerk has received already. As I say, this is but the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate that the subcommittee reached their so-called consensus but they did it in the context of that time allocation motion. That's why I want to indicate I'm voting against the subcommittee report as amended.
Ms Lankin: I have one further question. I'm sorry I'm bringing this up at a late date, but I'm just looking at the lists of requests to appear. Was any consideration given to attempting to ensure that there is representation on both parts of the bill? I've made the point a number of times in the Legislature that this is actually two new bills that are created and they're very different bills: one dealing with social assistance and welfare recipients and the other dealing with an income program for members of the disabled community.
They're very different plans, and I am just looking in terms of those who want to come forward. The majority of them of course will be speaking to the social assistance Ontario Works bill. I think it's unfortunate, and I worry that these two bills are not going to get the appropriate separate attention they deserve and that the committee will not actually be able to have enough time to hear appropriate representation on both bills. I don't know whether the subcommittee dealt with this issue or this concern or if the committee has any thoughts about how we will accomplish this major feat that has been laid out before us.
The Chair: Ms Lankin, the subcommittee did consider that very issue and talked about whether the committee should split into two and hear the two parts separately or whether accommodation ought to be made in alternating some of the presenters so we get a full picture. There was no consensus that emerged in fact; other issues overtook it. If there has been --
Mrs Pupatello: It was two to one, Chair.
The Chair: I'm not sure what transpires beyond the subcommittee, whether there has been agreement reached. I guess I would ask the members of the subcommittee whether the status has changed with respect to the subcommittee meeting.
Ms Pupatello, I think you had your hand up.
Mrs Pupatello: We did propose to the government member that we split so, for example, in Toronto we were in two separate hearings at the same time, even if the committee had to split, so that we could put one group that would attend that act regarding issues for the disabled and the other group that would deal with the social reform. That again was denied, although if we had to vote it would have won two to one. Naturally it didn't go anywhere, but we did try to do that, for exactly the reason you mentioned.
1650
Mr Carroll: The only comment I'd make on that: We would be quite prepared to look at a system where every second presenter had to address a different part of the bill. But I think that's unfair, because some will come forward and want to address both sides of the bill. I think it would be fair to restrict them in that. We talked about the fact that we would advise all of the constituent groups that the Ministry of Community and Social Services works with as far as disability supports of the dates of the hearings so they know about them, but --
Mrs Pupatello: It wasn't restricted just to those groups, Jack. It was all the groups that this --
Mr Carroll: Sandra, can I finish, please? You can correct me after if you choose to. We said we would advise them of the fact the hearings were going on and when they were and give them an opportunity to make submissions or to appear. But we would be prepared, if you think it would be a good idea, to say every second slot -- because basically the slots are going to be controlled by the three caucuses. If every second slot was organized for somebody for one of the different acts, we would be prepared to do that.
Ms Lankin: A further question, Mr Carroll. I think notification -- and as the names come in we'll have to respond to the groups that have applied. Is there no room to give consideration to the idea of having the committee split in two so that we could -- in the same time frame, which doesn't affect the bottom line of the government in terms of the time frame -- actually address significantly better both bills? Actually, it would double the amount of hearing time for groups presenting as well.
Mr Carroll: That was another issue that came up and we did talk about that. We believe that the bills are connected, the acts are connected. There are some common features to both parts, and the committee members are going to have to discuss clause by clause together as a group. We thought it best they hear from the presenters as a group. So the idea of splitting the bill was not one that we were prepared to consider.
Ms Lankin: Just further on that point, it's not like we haven't done it before. If you remember Bill 26 -- I know you remember Bill 26 -- we split into two committees and we did come back together to do clause-by-clause. As many times as I hear members of the government say, "Those who can't present to us can send it in writing," and I read every one of those presentations, I can assure you that if I'm sitting on the disability bill side of the committee I will read all of the presentations that have been made to the other, and I will be prepared when we come to clause-by-clause to deal with both bills together.
All I'm suggesting is that it would allow for that kind of concentration. Mr Kormos and I will both be members of this committee. His critic area will deal primarily with the social assistance reform bill. My critic area deals primarily with the disability income program bill. There's a natural split, and I think other parties could find the same way of splitting their membership. It would accomplish having double the number of people be able to present in all of the centres, whether it be Toronto or wherever we go. It just means setting up two committee rooms. It doesn't mean increasing the number of committee members who travel, and we would still accomplish it in the same time line that the government has put forward as being necessary to accomplish their legislative agenda.
The Chair: Ms Lankin, are you proposing an amendment to the subcommittee agreement?
Ms Lankin: Yes, that's a useful suggestion for a procedure. Thank you.
The Chair: That would be a better way to do it, so would you give us some wording.
Ms Lankin: I move an amendment to the subcommittee report that for the purpose of public hearings the committee split itself into two to hold simultaneous hearings in separate rooms in each of the hearing locations for the purposes of dealing with the social assistance reform bill in one group and the disability income program bill in another group.
The Chair: All right, we are now speaking to the amendment to split the committee to consider the bill in two parts. Any comments?
Mr Kormos: This obviously isn't the perfect solution, but it's the only response that you can have to a bill that addresses two very distinctive issues in the same bill. It's an imperfect solution because it's a very imperfect bill in that regard, but I think that's exactly the reason why it should be supported by the committee. As I say, that's not the best approach, of course, but in view of the government's refusal to sever this bill into its appropriate two pieces, I think it's a responsible solution.
Mr Klees: Most of us don't have the kind of experience Mr Kormos does at splitting himself into two, so I couldn't support that amendment.
Ms Lankin: I just want to ask a question. Surely you would agree that you read all of the written submissions that are presented; I hear your members say that all the time. You would be able to read the presentations that had been made or sent in to the half of the committee that you were not a part of, so it wouldn't really be a question of splitting yourself in two, Mr Klees. It would be a question of doing a little bit of extra reading and being prepared for the clause-by-clause, and I have every confidence that you could do that.
Mr Klees: Thank you very much for the compliment.
The Chair: Any further comments? Very well then, all in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment?
Ms Lankin: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Kormos, Lankin, McLeod, Pupatello.
Nays
Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Leadston, Munro, Newman, Parker.
The Chair: We come back then to the adoption of the subcommittee report. We have two amendments, so it's as amended. Any further comment?
Mr Kormos: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Carroll, Hudak, Klees, Leadston, Munro, Newman, Parker.
Nays
Kormos, Lankin, McLeod, Pupatello.
The Chair: The report of the subcommittee, as amended, is adopted.
There are two issues I want to raise. One is what instructions we have for the researcher. We have a very able researcher with us. Is there any background information that you need? What kind of instructions do you have for him? Ms Lankin?
Mrs Pupatello: Maybe it would be easier for us and the researcher if you'd give us maybe a week. We can make submissions to the researcher. With a little bit of time we can do it with some thinking.
The Chair: We could certainly do that.
Ms Lankin: It would be helpful to get some breakdown of statistics on the pilot projects of Ontario Works -- the municipalities participating, the number of people who have participated, the types of jobs -- depending on what's available. I understand there are a few restrictions on that, but some of that background information might be useful.
Mr Klees: As written submissions come in -- in the past we've simply been getting copies of those -- I think it would be good to keep an index that would also be updated on a regular basis to show what the subject matter is that --
Mr Ted Glenn: It's included in the summary that we provide for the committee.
Mr Klees: It is? Okay, I've seen some where I don't have that information.
Mr Glenn: In the final edition they are included.
Mr Klees: I know I get it in the final edition. I'm talking about as we're going through. But mind you, we're only doing four days.
Mrs Pupatello: Exactly.
Mr Klees: No, here's the point: Written submissions will come in over an extended period of time. From the time that the announcement goes out people will start sending those in, and rather than getting a package at the end of the day, if we have those on an ongoing basis, and if the index could be updated, I just think it would be helpful. It helps me to organize myself.
Mr Glenn: We'll get it.
Mr Klees: Thanks.
Mrs Pupatello: I wanted to check with the government member on the subcommittee if there's been any reconsideration of the advertising for these public hearings. The last comment was that there would be none and the comments today indicate that you may only be advising through the minister's office the disabled groups that may or may not be affected by the act. We understood in our discussion that the minimum was going to be that the minister would inform all groups affiliated with the Comsoc ministry of the hearings because you had insisted that there wasn't going to be any expense for advertising. Have you reconsidered any of that?
1700
Mr Carroll: First of all, we have passed the subcommittee report that dealt with that issue. I don't really want to bring it up again. We will do what we committed to do.
Mrs Pupatello: But at that point the commitment was not just the disabled groups, but that's what you said today. Our understanding was all the groups.
Mr Carroll: It was the constituent groups who are affected by the act. You were concerned primarily at the subcommittee with the disability groups, with those --
Mrs Pupatello: No, we never specified which of the two. We knew there were groups affected by the social welfare reform and groups affected by the changes to the disability act. We knew that you were going to, at minimum, fax through the minister's office to all of those groups -- both. Are you still committed to that?
Mr Carroll: We will fax to whatever the minister's list is of advocate groups that they deal with.
Mrs Pupatello: Including senior groups?
Mr Carroll: Whatever the minister's group of advocates is that they deal with. We can fax it to anybody you want.
Mrs McLeod: May we then, for the information of the committee, know which groups have been advised of the hearing so that we may know who may have been missed?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes, because we don't know who you'll fax to or who you won't fax to.
The Chair: Mr Carroll, could we have a list at the committee of individuals and organizations --
Interjections.
The Chair: With respect, one at a time, please. Could we have such a list?
Mr Klees: Put your name on it, Sandra.
The Chair: Mr Klees, Mr Carroll has the floor.
Mr Carroll: We will provide a list, if that is what you want, of the groups we're going to send the fax to. Understand that you can send a fax to any groups you want to send it to too. It's quite within your right to do that. This was not an issue at the subcommittee. I'm not sure why it's become an issue today.
Mrs Pupatello: If I may respond to that, the reason it's an issue today is that the way we left it, we thought it was unprecedented that the government would not take any measure to advise Ontario that we're having public hearings, but you chose to do that. Fine, we have to accept that the government does not want to advise the public as to the public hearings. They don't want to advertise or put it in publication. That's on record already and we have to accept it.
But what I'm suggesting is that in discussions on releases going out from the minister's office, we thought it was going to be to all of the groups. Today in discussion you mentioned just the disabled groups. I just wanted to clarify that it would be all the groups, including the seniors and those affected by the other half of the bill. Now that it's clarified, that's fine, but for our sake, having the list of that I don't think is harmful and for Mr Klees to suggest that we would actually repeat that is really needless and inefficient. Jack, I'd appreciate you just letting us know that. We certainly accept that, so I'd appreciate that.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, if you look at item number 2 of the subcommittee report, the press release in fact does not go out from the minister's office. That may be in addition to what the Chair might do, but it's the Chair of this committee who would send out the press releases. I believe what we had was in Toronto only. The others were to be discussed by the subcommittee at a later date, but for Toronto the idea was that the three caucuses would send their list to the clerk, who would then send out the press releases.
Mrs Pupatello: To whom? Someone is going to direct as to where you send it?
The Chair: It'll go to whatever the three caucuses send to us to send out. We could certainly provide you with that list. If the minister is sending an additional press release, then of course Mr Carroll has said that he will provide us with that list. But the decision has not been made with respect to outside of Toronto. We still require another subcommittee meeting with respect to that. Does that address your concerns?
Mrs Pupatello: At least it's on record that it is fairly unprecedented in a market like Toronto to not have engaged in any sort of advertising.
The Chair: Noted for the record.
Mrs McLeod: Is it premature then to ask what procedure will be followed for the advertising of the committee hearings outside of Toronto? Because quite clearly we're talking about the entire rest of the province. I'm not sure that it's reasonable to think that we can provide a list of groups in every community and yet I think clearly people in communities that are not going to be visited by the committee should know that the committee is holding hearings.
The Chair: Given the way that discussions have gone in the subcommittee, the Chair for one would welcome input from the committee at large before we meet as a subcommittee to make those decisions. If you have anything to contribute, we'd be delighted.
Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure exactly why the decision was made not to have a public advertisement, but I think we should be following the process for public advertisement, including in communities that are not being visited by the committee, so that people can be aware and request to make representation. I don't know any other effective way of being able to make the public aware that the committee is going out.
Ms Lankin: Just as helpful input, I would agree that there will have to be some publication of the hearings outside of Toronto so that Mr Klees' suggestion that people in Thunder Bay who are interested can contact people in North Bay so that they can make the presentations on their behalf and make sure their points are included -- if we don't publicize this and advertise this, then people in Thunder Bay will never know to contact the people in North Bay. I'm quite sure that when it comes to the subcommittee Mr Klees will have convinced Mr Carroll to support that position.
Mr Klees: I think a very effective way of ensuring that the people in Thunder Bay will know about the meeting in North Bay is if Mrs McLeod puts out one of her newsletters as a responsible member for Thunder Bay. Then all of her constituents will know about it.
Mrs McLeod: Believe me, Mr Klees, I'm looking forward to a press release talking about the boycotting of my community by this committee. However, I am actually interested in knowing how people in every community are going to be aware that this committee is holding hearings and that they can either ask to make representation in whichever community is closest to them or can make written presentations. I don't know of any effective way for us to make that known other than by the public kind of advertising that the committee has traditionally done in the past and I would ask that it be done.
I have a further question about procedure, but I can hold it until this discussion's complete.
The Chair: We'll certainly take that back to the subcommittee. Your other question?
Mrs McLeod: My other question is in terms of people who have already asked to make representation. I believe it has been past practice for the clerk to contact people who are from communities that are not being visited to determine whether the individuals who have asked to make presentations would be available and prepared to come to another community. Recognizing that the subcommittee still has to draft the lists and the Chair still has discretion about expenses, will there be some effort made to determine who can access the committee in these --
The Chair: That is past practice. It will depend on the lists that you give us. I'm certainly prepared to exercise my discretion.
Mrs McLeod: Does that mean that we need to know in advance whether -- obviously we're limited in the numbers of names. There's a procedure by which we'll have to submit names.
The Chair: That's right.
Mrs McLeod: If we submit names that, in your discretion, can't be funded to attend the committee, will we then be able to submit alternate names of people who could attend?
The Chair: Quite frankly, we've not thought that far ahead, but I assume what discretion means is that it's discretionary. I'll certainly look at the request that you make, and if it can't be done, then we'll talk about it.
Mr Klees: Just by way of a suggestion, once you have the press release drafted for announcing these hearings, it might be appropriate for you to arrange to distribute that generic draft to all of the members of the House with the suggestion that they release it to their local press. I've certainly found that when I do that in my constituency, it gets picked up. It may again be a way that Mrs McLeod may want to consider further informing her community, but --
Mrs McLeod: This isn't about my community, Mr Klees.
The Chair: Mr Klees, once the press release is drafted and ready to go, I certainly will distribute it to all members of the House.
Mr Klees: That way it gets distributed to 130 communities. I think that's a great solution.
The Chair: Are there any other issues with respect to that? I have one other item which I announced. This will be very short, Mr Kormos, and it's simply this: The subcommittee was certainly a very contentious and interesting place to be --
Mr Klees: I can't believe that now.
The Chair: -- and I understand that members of the subcommittee might want to continue the discussion afterwards. I would ask one thing of you, and that is that when there is agreement on issues which were not discussed at the subcommittee, I would appreciate as Chair being informed of those decisions. It does not have to come to me on a rolling basis as you make these, but I would suggest that at least prior to the meeting of the full committee I be advised on issues that have taken place. It would help me do my job and it would shorten the process here.
Thank you very much. With that, we're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1710.