CONTENTS
Monday 3 December 1990
Organization
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1537 in room 228.
ORGANIZATION
Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, it is my duty to call upon you to elect a Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr Morrow: I would like to nominate Drummond White.
Clerk of the Committee: Are there any further nominations? I declare the nominations closed and Drummond White elected as Chair.
The Chair: May I have the names for election as Vice-Chair, anyone who stands to be nominated for Vice-Chair?
Mr Mills: I would nominate my colleague Mark Morrow as the Vice-Chair.
The Chair: Any further nominations? Hearing none, Mark Morrow is declared elected as Vice-Chair.
I think the first order of business is the subcommittee. We need to have a subcommittee on committee business that will be appointed to meet from time to time at the call of the Chair or at the request of any member thereof to consider a report to the committee on the business of the committee; that substitution be permitted on the subcommittee; and that the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting; and that the subcommittee be composed of the following members --
Mr Carr: I will move that the members be Mr White, Mr Morrow, Mr Harnick and Mr Sorbara.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Any further business at this time?
Mr Harnick: Yes, I have some other business, if I may provide you with a copy.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, would you like to speak on the motion?
Mr Harnick: Yes, Mr Chairman. I have provided you with a document requesting, pursuant to standing order 123, allocation of 12 hours' time for my party in the calendar year 1990 to study the matter of victims' rights. I would like to amend the document that I filed with you by taking out in the fifth line the word "approved" and replacing it with the words "received second reading," and I would request the allocation of that 12 hours' time for the year 1990. If you would like me to read it, I can read it.
The other thing I would ask is that we have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow that we can discuss the mechanism for the 12 hours' use of time.
The Chair: Let's deal with the business first before we talk about the timing of the subcommittee meeting, please. Could we have a reading of this before we have a discussion of the timing?
Mr Harnick: Yes, it is to the Chair and the clerk of the standing committee on administration of justice:
"For the purposes of standing order 123, I request that the subcommittee on committee business meet to consider a report to the committee on the following matter to be designated for consideration by the committee:
"The current status of and improvement upon the relationship between victims of crime in the province of Ontario and the justice system in that province, with particular consideration of the issue of a victims' bill of rights as suggested by Bill 220, introduced by the member for Burlington South during the second session of the 34th Parliament and received second reading by the members of this House 5 April 1990; including the operations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. To be considered for a period of 12 hours."
Mr Winninger: Are nominations for the subcommittee closed yet?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr F. Wilson: To the motion --
The Chair: It is not a motion; it is a referral.
Mr F. Wilson: Referral, I am sorry. As worthy an agreement you will get on the fact of the value of what you are saying, I am just wondering how much time in hours we have left between now and the end of the year of the committee.
Clerk of the Committee: This committee meets on Mondays and Tuesdays after routine proceedings between 3:30 and 6 o'clock; so there would be tomorrow, next Monday and Tuesday and, I believe, the Monday and Tuesday following. This committee can always, if it so chooses, request extra sitting time from the House leaders. This committee can meet up to and including 18 December.
Mr Sorbara: Why do they not all get -- because the House is not sitting?
Clerk of the Committee: Because this committee meets only on Monday and Tuesday, and that is the last week the House is sitting for this session.
The Chair: The request was for 12 hours in 1990 as well.
Mr Harnick: No, it was not a request for 12 hours in 1990. It was my request for the allocation of 1990's 12 hours. I do not take the position that it has to be in 1990, because obviously we are not going to make it, but the rules do entitle us to 12 hours designated. It does not specifically indicate that it has to be in that year, but I submit it would be for that year.
The Chair: Okay. So is it your request at this moment that that time be allocated as soon as possible?
Mr Harnick: January is fine. January or in the new year.
Mr Sorbara: This is my debut as a member of a committee of the Legislature and I confess I have not studied the standing orders nor, in particular, have I studied the standing order that my friend Mr Harnick is speaking to in making a suggestion that we use, as he says, 1990's 12 hours some time in January or February.
Before I make a decision on how I feel about it, I want to have some counsel from those who know better than I whether or not one can, in 1990, simply say that we are going to do those 12 hours some time in 1991. Frankly, if that is the case, it seems to me that we could decide today how we will use 1992's time and 1993's time and 1991's time and when we will do that. I am wondering out loud whether or not that is an appropriate allocation.
The Chair: Are you requesting time to seek counsel on this issue prior to the subcommittee report?
Mr Sorbara: There may be some experts here at the table, the clerk or research officer, who might advise us on that, or we may just take the matter up at the subcommittee level before we decide on it. I just question the member's suggestion that 12 hours allocated to 1990 can be used in 1991. I do not know.
Clerk of the Committee: On a cursory reading of the standing orders, it would appear that as long as a member designates in 1990, there is no requirement that the 12 hours actually be heard in 1990, but we will check into that and give definitive information at the subcommittee meeting later today or tomorrow.
Mr Harnick: The wording appears quite clear: "in any calendar year." It says, "each member...shall be entitled to designate matters to be considered" and "the time for consideration of each matter, provided that not more than a total of 12 hours may be devoted...." So it is the designation, I submit, that has to be in 1990, and hence the designation today.
Mr Winninger: I have a written request pursuant to standing order 123(a)(ii) that the subcommittee, on committee business, meet to consider a report to the committee on the following matter to be designated: the mandate, administration and procedures of the support and custody enforcement branch --
The Chair: You are making a referral to the subcommittee.
Mr Winninger: Yes.
Mr Harnick: I do not wish to interrupt, but I did not realize we were finished with the first item. The balance of what I wished to ask for was that we arrange a subcommittee meeting for tomorrow so that we can consider the mechanism for proceeding with the motion that I have filed.
The Chair: I appreciate your request, but there was also Mr Sorbara's request in terms of consultation.
Mr Harnick: Yes.
The Chair: The issue of when we strike the subcommittee meeting is to some degree in contention.
Mr Harnick: I would be content to have the subcommittee meet today after we finish this meeting.
The Chair: That seems like an excellent idea because our agenda here should be fairly short. It should be.
Mr Harnick: We are almost 90% finished now. I understand that other committees are proceeding on this same basis.
The Chair: Indeed. Is there any further discussion on Mr Harnick's motion?
Mr F. Wilson: On a point of clarification: I have read this twice now. Does this mean that for 1990 we have only 12 hours for all subjects in this type of referral, or do we have a 12-hour maximum for any subject?
Clerk of the Committee: The way the rule is intended, each party can designate up to 12 hours to study a subject.
Mr Harnick: For 1990.
Mr F. Wilson: When those 12 hours are gone, is that it? If the one matter takes up the whole 12 hours, there is no room for anything else?
Clerk of the Committee: Each. There are 36 hours altogether, 12 hours per party.
Mr Morrow: Are we now finished with that?
The Chair: Yes. Can we vote on it?
Clerk of the Committee: No.
Mr Morrow: It is going to the subcommittee.
The Chair: It is referred. Thank you.
Mr Morrow: Can I now raise another matter?
For the purpose of standing order 123, I request that the subcommittee on committee business meet to consider a report to the committee on the following matter to be designated for consideration by the committee: the immediate administration and procedures of the support and custody enforcement branch, 12 hours.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on that particular request?
Mr Sorbara: Did I not just hear that?
Mr Morrow: We did, but I am not a member of the subcommittee.
Mr Mills: It was a procedural error.
1550
The Chair: Any discussion? It is referred. Mr Sorbara, would you wish to postpone the meeting of the subcommittee?
Mr Sorbara: I do not have anything to refer to the subcommittee for the purposes of the next 12 hours of this committee's life in 1990.
The Chair: Would you prefer, however, the issue we had been discussing, was the timing of --
Mr Sorbara: No, I will not have any problem with the matters being referred to the subcommittee, none at all.
The Chair: Okay. So you have no problems with the subcommittee being struck and meeting immediately after this meeting.
Mr Sorbara: No problem with the subcommittee being struck. My major problem is whether I am going to get through the rainstorm this evening on my way home.
The Chair: Indeed.
Mr Sorbara: Other than that, I do not have any problems with what is going on now.
Mr Fletcher: Just on a point of clarification on what Mr Sorbara said about finding out what this committee is going to be doing and the time allocation: When is that coming back to committee so that we can find out?
The Chair: What I am proposing, with Mr Sorbara's acceptance, is that the subcommittee meet immediately after this committee has adjourned. It would investigate the business before us and report back and call a meeting probably tomorrow.
Mr Fletcher: Of the subcommittee. At that time will Mr Sorbara's party have a chance to designate its 12 hours and what they are for?
The Chair: He says he has no interest at the moment in doing so, but he is on the subcommittee, so he could do so at some later point.
Mr Fletcher: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Lisa informs me that we would have to have a meeting of the full committee tomorrow after the subcommittee has met, very simply because of the time between now and the end of the calendar year.
Mr Sorbara: Just to inform you, Mr Chairman, and the other members of the committee, I am perfectly willing to have the subcommittee meet this afternoon, but I want to make it perfectly clear here that I am not prepared for the subcommittee to make any decisions on what matters will occupy our time, so to speak, until I have consulted with my colleagues on the committee and other members of my caucus to determine what it is, if anything, we propose the committee take up its 12 hours' worth with; that is to say, what work we shall have expand to fill the time available for its completion.
The Chair: You have heard the referrals under standing order 123. How much time would you need before we meet?
Mr Sorbara: I guess I will just refer my question through you to the clerk to determine whether or not a matter under the 12-hour rule can be put directly to the subcommittee, or does it need to come to this committee in order to be referred to the subcommittee.
Clerk of the Committee: The way standing order 123 works is that it is the right of a member of the subcommittee from each party to designate what it wants studied there.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, it is a matter of what?
Clerk of the Committee: It is a right of each member of the subcommittee to designate 12 hours. They have certain rights that are just designated and certain things that have to be voted on by the entire subcommittee. The subcommittee then reports back to the full committee, and that report is deemed adopted. The full committee does not vote on that.
The problem we are running into now is that the full committee cannot receive that report during the last eight sessional days of the session, which means that it only has until Thursday of this week to receive that full report. The only day other than today that this committee is allowed to meet is tomorrow. So if this committee does not make all those decisions by tomorrow -- I will leave that open.
Mr Sorbara: Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean that the subcommittee could meet tomorrow and consider the various matters which have been referred to it under standing order 123 and then report back to the committee tomorrow?
The Chair: I believe that is the case. We would have to meet tomorrow morning, and the question I had put to you earlier was, is that sufficient time for you to consult?
Mr Sorbara: It would not really have to meet tomorrow morning. The subcommittee could meet for about 35 seconds at about 35 seconds after 3:30 and then the full committee could meet, could it not?
The Chair: Certainly.
Mr Sorbara: Are there other matters to be taken up?
The Chair: But the issue I had with you was, is that sufficient time for you to get the consultation you want?
Mr Sorbara: Sure, yes.
Clerk of the Committee: Can I just point one more thing out with respect to standing order 123? The report that has to come from the subcommittee to the committee must contain a precise statement of the matter to be considered, the time to be allocated, the date on which consideration of the matter is to commence and the names of any witnesses to be invited to appear. All of that has to be worked out before tomorrow morning on both issues.
Mr Sorbara: We have had motions directing matters to the subcommittee or motions under standing order 123. Are they formally correct then, under the rules you have just suggested? It sounds to me like no. They have not referred to a date, they have not referred to witnesses.
Clerk of the Committee: They are formally correct. That additional business is to be worked out in subcommittee.
Mr Sorbara: So a report back has to be -- we would need that information.
Clerk of the Committee: Correct.
Mr Sorbara: There are 24 hours before tomorrow. Surely we could do that.
The Chair: Even in this weather?
Mr Fletcher: I was just wondering, Mr Chair, if the Liberal Party has nothing to discuss, can we use its 12 hours also?
The Chair: No, I do not believe so.
Mr Sorbara: I think we have a lot to discuss. I think we could discuss integrity in government, the comparison of election promises to the performance of governments after.
The Chair: With all due respect, Mr Sorbara, I do not think this issue is specific to this committee.
Mr Sorbara: Just a second, Mr Chairman, I have the floor. We could talk about the expenditure of North York's money for campaign purposes. There are a whole lot of things we should discuss and if my friends from the New Democratic Party think that, in the administration of justice, there is not a lot to discuss, they are absolutely wrong. We could discuss how you get into your party and how you get out of your party and how you sit as an independent. There is lots to discuss in the administration of justice, my heavens, but maybe we will give them half an hour.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sorbara. Under other business, if I could -- I believe we are all new. Mr Chiarelli has been the Chair before and has done an excellent job; certainly the report on the alternative dispute resolution was excellent work. But the rest of us are new to this committee. I have had the opportunity of speaking with Lisa Freedman here, our clerk, who will be our chief procedural officer, as we have seen this afternoon and, of course, will be available to all members to give advice where needed and will be available to sit down with all members to discuss the committee's procedure and issues in front of it. She is responsible for all administrative aspects of the committee, including, I believe, expenses. Our researcher, Susan Swift, who, like Lisa, is a lawyer, will be providing research services with regard to the issues in front of the committee. On your agenda we have a list, which is far too long for me to briefly summarize, of these various services Susan will be co-ordinating and offering.
We will, as we know, be meeting tomorrow afternoon and regularly Mondays and Tuesdays. Is there any further business to come before us?
Mr Harnick: When is the subcommittee meeting?
The Chair: What an excellent question. Mr Sorbara has suggested immediately before we meet tomorrow afternoon. I would suggest the late morning might be better in case there are problems with that. What is the consensus?
Mr Mills: Why do we not meet at 3:15?
The Chair: I am just concerned that that might be insufficient time. We are talking of the subcommittee meeting here: Mr Sorbara, Mr Harnick, Mr Morrow and myself.
Mr Mills: Whatever you think. Originally you suggested the afternoon.
The Chair: Perhaps what I could suggest would be that the four members of the subcommittee meet immediately after this, simply to come up with a time. Would that be sufficient?
Mr Harnick: Or we could meet tomorrow at noon.
The Chair: How about immediately after this meeting? It is agreeable to the four of us. Are there any other motions or issues before the committee? If not, I declare that we are adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1601.