CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Monday 3 June 1991
Subcommittee report
Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Volunteer Fire Fighters), 1991 / Loi de 1991 modifiant le code de la Route (Pompiers auxiliaires)
Conflict-of-interest guidelines
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)
Gigantes, Evelyn (Ottawa Centre 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)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L) for Mr Sorbara
Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L) for Mr Poirier
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
609
The committee met at 1552 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair: I call this meeting to order. This afternoon, we will start with the subcommittee report:
"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday 29 May 1991 and agreed to the following.
"1. That public hearings on Bill 7, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act, and Bill 8, An Act respecting Natural Death, be postponed.
"2. That the committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters, on Monday 3 June 1991 and also that the committee continue consideration of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
"3. That the Chair be authorized to present the budget in the amount of $384,588 to the Board of Internal Economy."
Agreed to.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)
Consideration of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters.
Étude du projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliaires.
The Vice-Chair: I call Bill 87. Any questions, comments or amendments?
Mr Mills: I had to go to the whip's office; I am getting some documentation, apparently, being faxed over to me about this and I would just like to have that before me, if we could just take a couple of minutes to get it.
The Vice-Chair: You move to recess for five minutes?
Mr Mills: Yes, and I will go and get the stuff and I will be back.
The committee recessed at 1554.
1605
Mrs Fawcett: I want to thank everyone again for supporting this bill. It was indeed a pleasure to get all-party support, and I think the volunteer firefighters appreciate also your support and recognition. I am very pleased too that it has been brought before this committee so quickly and I do look forward to it going into the House for third reading and proclamation.
Anything we can do to assist the volunteer firefighters in their response time is really something we should be looking at, and certainly the designated licence plates would be a start in the right direction. We know the volunteer firefighters are very important to our province; 80% of fire departments are serviced by volunteer firefighters. I appreciate the fact that this has come before the committee and hope you will see that access to the scene by these people as quickly as possible would indeed help them. We know the benefits to the municipalities and to people in general, to educators, by this terrific group bears our worthy consideration, so I would certainly hope we can successfully go through the clause-by-clause, and I appreciate the time to do this.
Mr Mills: I have a little problem in that I can remember when we went through the debate with your bill, I had some reservations about it based upon some information from the Solicitor General's office. I have been trying to get that information now. I would not want to go through clause-by-clause without getting the advice I think I should have for this, because I know we had some concerns about this.
Mrs Fawcett: Around what area?
Mr Mills: I am trying to think.
Mrs Fawcett: Would it have been the speeding? Because this is in no way a licence to speed or anything; it is just recognition solely.
Mr Mills: I understood there were some discussions in process at the Solicitor General's office about some sort of things they were doing with the volunteer firefighters. I am trying to think what I said at the committee. I know I supported it. I think there were some difficulties that had to be worked out, and possibly this is the place to work them out through the amendments. Having said that, I am having difficulty getting hold of someone. They are faxing some information over now.
Mrs Fawcett: The week before the bill came into the House, I know the volunteer firefighters and the firefighters had a meeting in Markham. A resolution from them came on the floor very much like my bill, so certainly they are in support of this bill.
Mr Mills: I could not agree with you more. The problem is that until I arrived here this afternoon I did not know this was being debated today; I thought we were speaking on the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Chair: You received a notice.
Mr Mills: No, I did not. That is the trouble. That is why I am trying to get at now.
Clerk of the Committee: Just to clarify, there was a package sent to everybody's office that everybody's office signed for on Friday explaining what was on the agenda today: a copy of Norm's letter, a copy of Bill 87 and background material.
Mr Mills: The problem is that I was not there Friday and I have not got it.
Ms Gigantes: I could find nothing.
Mr Mills: You got nothing? No.
Ms Gigantes: Not to my knowledge, unless I got it through the mail.
The Chair: I received my information on Thursday, I believe.
Mr Mills: I feel somewhat ill at ease going through this without having that.
The Chair: If there is a question around preparation, I have certainly had adequate notice.
Mr Fletcher: I did receive mine at my constituency office on Friday. It was faxed down from my office. I was one of the lucky ones, I guess.
Do volunteer fire people have flashing lights or something already? Do they already have that?
Mrs Fawcett: They did have an amber and white light, but it is not manufactured any more so obviously they do not have access to those lights. There are some volunteer fire departments which do use a green flashing light, but that is solely on their own discretion and really the public is not aware as to just what this light means. That might be something we can look at further down the road, but this would at least open the door to assisting the volunteer firefighters in that respect.
Mr Fletcher: Is one of the purposes of this bill to assist the public in knowing who is a volunteer fire person?
Mrs Fawcett: That is correct.
Mr Fletcher: So it would have to be advertised wherever there was a volunteer fire department that someone with this licence plate is a volunteer fire department person.
Mrs Fawcett: That is correct. I think we would work in conjunction with all of the fire departments to get an idea of the kind of licence plate they think would be suitable, along with the ministry, of course. That is why I left it open, so that those kinds of things could be worked out to the satisfaction of everyone involved.
Mr Fletcher: I am just wondering, is there not something that would be better than a licence plate, something more visible for people to be able to visually see that it is a volunteer fire person? Licence plates are hard to read sometimes.
Mrs Fawcett: Right now some departments also use stickers, which of course are not able to be seen. They really are not. The firefighters themselves seem to think that a licence plate would certainly be a start in the right direction. Fourteen states in the United States use this now, they are looking at it, I believe, in Nova Scotia and BC and it seems to be the licence plate that they request right now.
Mr Fletcher: This would go along as far as public safety is concerned, when a person is going to a fire or an emergency call?
Mrs Fawcett: Right.
Mr Winninger: Just to supplement what Mr Fletcher asked you, do volunteer firefighters use sirens at all?
Mrs Fawcett: No, not in their cars to get to the firehall or to the disaster. Their own cars are not equipped. Certainly once they get there, then they can get on to a fire engine or whatever and then of course they have the sirens. Right now, their cars are in no way designated to say this is a volunteer firefigher trying to get to the disaster as quickly as possible. In rural Ontario this is really important, simply because in rural Ontario fire departments are really made up of volunteers. It was just a way to really assist those people.
Mr Winninger: Second, do you know if regular firefighters use any kind of special licence plate?
Mrs Fawcett: No, not yet. Most of the regular firefighters are on duty at the firehall and so they are already there when the call comes in. They just board the engines and so on. I would certainly be open to include regular firefighters as well. There is no problem with that.
Mr Winninger: I guess the engines do not need special licence plates because they are quite easily distinguishable.
Mrs Fawcett: They already are designated. They are visible and certainly you do hear them.
Mr Mills: During a debate on this private member's bill, I believe the Minister of Transportation spoke to it and he was in favour of it.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, he was.
Mr Mills: But I can clearly recollect his mentioning some problems about the issuing of the licence plate and the difficulty of putting something like this into the system. Having heard what he said and remembering it, why is there not someone, Mr Chair, from the Ministry of Transportation here? Why do we not have some input on this? Because to pass this, and we say we are going to authorize the issuance, without knowing the ramifications of that when I think the minister said that was a concern --
Mrs Fawcett: But as you can see by the bill and what it says, it is left wide open so that the real concerns can be addressed by the ministry. Certainly the second part of the bill addresses the fact that if a volunteer stops being a volunteer, we get them back again. This way, it could be up to the individual firefighter, it could be up to the municipality, it could be up to the ministry. This is just to allow this to happen, however it happens, that they can be given the opportunity to have a licence plate.
Mr Mills: I had some discussion with the deputy minister over there about this issue and I got the feeling from him that there were some different sort of things in the works based upon that resolution from the convention of firefighters. I think one of the things they were talking about or discussing was in fact emergency lights.
I am really reluctant to go ahead and discuss anything until I have some input from those people who, when that private member's bill went through, expressed some very serious concerns. One was the Ministry of Transportation. The Solicitor General's office also asked me to voice some reservations about it. I think I have someone coming over from the Solicitor General's office momentarily with some sort of position that hopefully I can go for. I am not here to obstruct this or anything at all, Mrs Fawcett; I am just here to protect what I thought were concerns when the bill was presented in the House.
Mrs Fawcett: But there is no reason that later you could not have an amendment to say that a light, any kind of light, could be added.
Mr Mills: But the problem I have is the bill is authorizing the issuance of special licence plates. I detected from the Minister of Transportation that it was not just as easy as that either. That is why I would like to hear from him.
Mrs Fawcett: Yet he did speak in favour of it, so there must be ways that he can --
Mr Mills: Yes, but I am wondering.
The Chair: Seeing as we have encountered this difficulty, that Mr Mills is concerned that the Solicitor General's office and the Ministry of Transportation have not been apprised of our discussion today and he is attempting to assure that representation as soon as possible -- however, there seems to be substantive support for the bill that I am aware of -- I am wondering if we might stand it aside for perhaps one hour, Mrs Fawcett, until we have had that representation, still to deal with it this afternoon, though.
Mr Mills: I would just like to make it clear that I am not adopting any partisan position or anything.
The Chair: Would that be suitable or acceptable?
Mrs Fawcett: Mr Elston did have his hand up. I wondered if you were going to recognize him?
Mr Elston: If I could speak just for a couple of minutes, all of this stuff, having gone through some of the things, the New Democrats as government members, who are now looking at providing some protections for the ministerial interests that they do represent, and I appreciate that, know that if anything is of real importance what happens is the minister gets this big huge batch of stuff and even the bureaucrats start looking to see when this stuff starts coming up on the decks of the committees.
I suggest that you have raised some interesting issues, Mr Mills, but none of those is excluded by the two provisions, which are really quite brief and to the point and only say you can have a licence plate as long as you are a volunteer fire department member and if you are no longer a member you have to give the plate back. That does not preclude the use of some kind of signal light or warning light to be attached to the car if they deem that as an appropriate activity. In fact, in some cases there are ways well within the regulation-making authority in which it could be done, even outside legislation.
I am not sure that if you wish to wait for the Ministry of Transportation or the Ministry of the Solicitor General to come and make their formal presentations some person will not show up and say, "We're really not prepared to deal with it today, but there are some concerns in the department." If that is all the stuff we are getting, I would be somewhat concerned inasmuch as the bill itself has gone through second reading. People are following these things. I know the legislation-watching groups that are in all the ministries usually follow this stuff if it affects them anywhere closely at all. We should basically, I believe, proceed to deal with it. I am not sure what else they are going to tell us, except about the warning lights or about something else, but nobody, it seems to me, has said the reason why a licence plate should not issue.
For me, I think we might as well just do it and go. I know it is up to the government House leader again, or others. If we have to move into committee of the whole House to deal with it, we can do that, or it can be, again in terms of scheduling, sent for third reading. There may be some consensual problems or consent requests made. That is often the way things work, and I would just prefer if we went on. We may be waiting all afternoon.
1620
The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr Elston, but what I am concerned about, very simply, is that we could be debating a moot point for an hour or so, simply for the matter of delay until consultation occurs, and if we were to set it aside and still deal with it this afternoon, we could have much more productive use of our time, having the vetting from the Solicitor General's department. I do not think it is the intent of anyone here to delay the discussion of the bill more than an hour or so.
Mr Mills: Not at all. I am sure I speak for all the members of the government side. We are not here this afternoon to cause any delay or play games with this. It is just that I have some severe reservations on going ahead with it, because I spoke to the assistant deputy minister and one of the things he said to me was, "We could have some problems with the regular firefighters, because they drive their cars and they are not always at the fire station and they might take umbrage at the fact that we are looking after one group." Those were some of the things he said, and I would ask your indulgence. The lady in my office is actively pursuing this matter now and I am sure that forthwith she will be here, and I would appreciate that.
Mrs Fawcett: I have no objection whatsoever to including all firefighters, really, in the whole thing.
Mr Mills: Yes, but that was one thing that he said.
Mrs Fawcett: That is absolutely --
Mr Elston: Most of those guys are --
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, they are, but that was included in their resolutions.
The Chair: My last two homes have been opposite firefighters, presently opposite a captain, and their licence plates are personally nominated, "Captain `82," that was when he made captain sort of thing. They seem to take a certain relish in these nomenclatures.
Mrs Mathyssen: I must say that you are positively clairvoyant in your remarks. I was simply going to say that I would feel better if we had some clarity from the Ministry of Transportation. There may be some wisdom that they have that we do not regarding this. I think what is paramount here is the safety of the volunteers, so I would support Mr Mills in his motion to set this aside until we have the information we need to make a good and informed decision.
The Chair: Can we have an agreement that we will stand it aside for no longer than an hour?
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, before you do that, just so that I am not mistaken, Mrs Mathyssen just mentioned getting information from the Ministry of Transportation. Are we not waiting for the Solicitor General's material, as I understood from Mr Mills? Are we also going to step it down until we get some information from Transportation? That was not what I understood from Mr Mills.
Mrs Mathyssen: Did Mr Mills not say the Ministry of Transportation?
Interjection: No, he said the Solicitor General.
Mrs Mathyssen: I am sorry. That is my mistake. Pardon me. The Solicitor General then.
The Chair: So we shall resume discussion of this bill no later than 5:30.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
Resuming consideration of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Chair: We are now moving on to conflict of interest. Where are we here? If you would take out of the materials that were circulated to you, the document dated 27 May is an update of the draft report that Susan Swift prepared. Basically we have gone through the preamble, the preface and purpose in regard to conflict of interest and are now on page 4, which starts with, "The committee therefore recommends that the guidelines be adopted."
We had agreed to go over these items paragraph by paragraph. This is page 4 of the document, 27 May 1991, the draft report, conflict-of-interest guidelines. The only difference between this and the earlier one should be the earlier changes and underlining, crossing out from our last discussion. We are starting with the second line down, which is "Divestment vs Disclosure."
Mr Mills: Did we not reach some consensus on how we were going to do this? We thought the way we were going on would take from now until Christmas. Why do we not do some reading and then sort of decide?
The Chair: I am sure we can read it quietly to ourselves. Do we have an alternative suggestion?
Mr Mills: I was under the impression that we were going to move these sections in chunks, not line by line as we are doing here.
The Chair: Was that a serious suggestion?
Mr Mills: At the top of page 4 it says "The committee therefore recommends that the guidelines be adopted." Why are we going over that? Is that not a statement in itself?
The Chair: We are not. That was one of the additions we came to during our last discussion.
Mr Mills: So that does not mean anything then.
The Chair: No. We are starting with "Divestment vs Disclosure" and the first paragraph under that.
Mr Harnick: Are you saying now that the line that says "The committee therefore recommends that the guidelines be adopted" has been accepted by the committee?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Harnick: With respect, that statement does not mean a lot. Let me defer to the clerk for a moment.
Clerk of the Committee: The process we went through last time was that we started to go paragraph by paragraph, the changes and what the committee decided were put in, and that is what Susan wrote in terms of the underlining. We have not yet gone back to clarify, to see if the committee agrees with what Susan wrote. In essence, the majority decision of the committee was, "The committee therefore recommends that the guidelines be adopted." We have not totally precluded going back. There is a point where Susan writes something and we have to go over it one more time before we finalize the report.
The Chair: This is the second draft.
Clerk of the Committee: Correct.
Mr Harnick: The very crux of that statement begs the question, "The committee therefore recommends that the guidelines by adopted," but what I say is, adopted as what? Are they to be adopted as guidelines, separate and apart from legislation? Are they to be adopted as guidelines and are they to be put into the conflict of interest act? That statement, as bald as it appears, does not mean anything. I suspect at that particular point in the document that statement should not appear. It should probably appear in another place as a conclusion, with some justification and elaboration, but to merely put that statement there is totally meaningless.
1630
The Chair: I think you are quite right, Mr Harnick. However, I would suggest that before we go back over what we had agreed upon for a second draft, we go through the rest of the report. As a committee we will have to adopt the final draft so we have the opportunity of amending that or whatever we have agreed to at this point, in terms of how it fits in continuity and congruity with the rest of the materials.
Clerk of the Committee: In terms of report writing, it was decided by this committee: "The committee therefore recommends the guidelines to be adopted." They have been adopted by the committee. That was a vote and the committee did decide when they started this so they would not keep going backwards. Just to clarify what I said before, we have to go backwards and doublecheck what Susan did. But in terms of redebating the sections that we have already debated, it is probably open to a good argument that the committee should not be going backwards. The committee can decide that they want to do that, but when we started, it was clearly put on the record that once the committee finished a section and adopted its recommendation, it would not go back and redebate it. The report has not been adopted yet, but that was what was put on the record at the first meeting.
Mr Harnick: I only point out that this particular statement is bald and meaningless in that particular place. It really confuses the issue. But if that is what the committee decided, I guess there is nothing we can do about it at this stage.
Ms Gigantes: I have no objection to your proposal, Mr Chair, but it does not seem to me that this is out of place here because, as I understand it, the committee was looking at the question: "Are the guidelines necessary?" The answer is that the guidelines should be adopted and then you decide how they are adopted, which is the next section. That is the question, I guess, we are about to enter.
Mr Harnick: "Divestment v Disclosure" is part of the substance --
Ms Gigantes: All right, over here on page 6, "Guidelines or legislation." So we will be coming to it momentarily, as we say on this committee.
The Chair: Can we move on then to at least the first paragraph of the next section? Mr Winninger, you had your hand up a few moments ago.
Mr Winninger: Yes, Ms Gigantes touched on the reference on page 6 that I was going to mention.
Mr Elston: I am sorry, I was a little slow there, but I am at a bit of a disadvantage because I did not sit on the first drafting of this. I was looking to see if it talked about "the guidelines" or whether we should be saying, "The committee therefore recommends that guidelines be adopted over legislation." Is that more correctly the result of that first debated section, rather than saying "the guidelines," which I believe would answer the question about whether you have divestment or disclosure or otherwise? But I suspect you would say "guidelines be adopted" if it is just talking about the principle of guidelines and you could strike "the." I do not want to confound the issue.
Mr Harnick: With a small g, right?
Mr Elston: I do not even care whether they are small g or big G, but "the guidelines" that we are talking about now are interesting.
Ms Swift: Just as a stylistic comment, I have used capital G throughout when I refer to the guidelines, as a short form, for referring to "the Premier's guidelines" because that is how the reference was made to the committee. So the committee might want to consider that.
The Chair: Are we moving on or are we discussing guidelines or "the guidelines?" Yes, discussion on the first paragraph.
Interjection.
The Chair: The first paragraph after "divestment versus disclosure." The second paragraph; is everyone all right with it?
Mr Elston: Basically, is it not clear that when you go through pages 4 and 5, it is really a recitation or a compilation of material? Again, I did not listen to all of the presenters, with the exception of one whom I heard speak at length and in rather great detail while I was sitting in the witness chair. After that, I was not able to attend the hearings. So long as this is compilation of what was said, I do not think there can be too much debated on that content. Where you end up having some discussions is probably at the top of page 6 where it talks about discussion and recommendations, I presume.
The Chair: There could still be additions or corrections to the printed material. There are, it seems, none to the first three paragraphs. The fourth: Any changes before the bottom of page 5?
Mr Harnick: It seems to me the conflict commissioner made certain very pointed comments about a great many of the aspects of divestment. He made comments about the use of a trust as being the appropriate vehicle, and he made comments, I believe, about the definition of undue hardship. It seems to me that some of those comments he pointedly made should be included in this section. I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but I certainly recollect --
Ms Swift: With respect to the trusts you mention, on page 6, under section 15, my recollection is that the commissioner said the terms were vague and meaningless, and I have included that. I think the summary of recommendations and comments I prepared for the committee included the comments of the commissioner and most of those have been included in one way or another in the report. Certainly, the comments that the guidelines were draconian appear on, I think, page 4.
Mr Harnick: Should we not attribute some of those comments to Justice Evans?
Ms Swift: The committee may wish to.
Mr Harnick: Because I think those are particularly important comments he made in an area where he was deemed to have particular expertise and knowledge. I think this document should reflect specifically his comments, particularly because he is a neutral individual. I think the document should have reference to that.
The other thing I cannot see here in a fast read are some of his comments about trusts, because he, my recollection tells me, was not inclined to take the position the final paragraph on page 5 indicates.
Ms Swift: That is true. I missed this when I mentioned this before, but on page 15 I have a section on trusts, under section 16 of the guidelines. That may not be as explicit as to his comments as you might like, but I do deal with that section.
The Chair: We have another basic issue here. Mr Harnick is raising the question of whether the witness should be specifically identified, particularly Commissioner Evans. I think that is a significant aspect in terms of our direction to Susan. Are there any comments on that issue?
Mr Winninger: I guess I agree with the thrust of Mr Harnick's remarks. I would say, though, that if other witnesses reiterate or Chief Justice Evans reiterates what other witnesses have said, surely we do not need to separate his comments out from theirs. Where it says, "those witnesses" or "other witnesses," I do not think we need to segregate out Chief Justice Evans's comments.
If, on the other hand, Chief Justice Evans makes comments that are distinct from those of others and noteworthy, I think perhaps his name should be there just to highlight the fact that he, with all of his experience, has said this. That is all.
Mr Harnick: I can live with that.
Ms Swift: Just to clarify, attributions will be made with respect to the commissioner only, then, not to other witnesses as well.
1640
Mr Winninger: My only point was, if the Chief Justice says something that other witnesses have said, before or after him, why segregate his name from the others? If he says something that distinguishes his observations from others, that would be an appropriate circumstance to reflect his name.
Mr Harnick: Certainly we all know that he was the one who came and said the guidelines were draconian, and that was specifically his terminology, so I suspect we would be in agreement that that should be attributed to him. My recollection is that he also indicated, in terms of trusts, that he thought they were a good vehicle. In this section we have a comment that trusts were not deemed to be a good vehicle. I think we should have his comment about trusts specifically, and also that he went on and indicated that trusts should be paid for by the government, rather than the cost being borne by the individual, as has been the case in the past.
Mr Morrow: I am really glad that Mr Harnick raised the trusts question. We feel that Judge Evans was correct when he said that a trust can never be a blind trust. We therefore feel that the disclosure alone cannot suffice, but rather must be accompanied by divestiture. We therefore further recommend that the divestment section remain as an integral part of the Premier's guidelines.
The Chair: So you are suggesting a couple of things: one, highlighting that Mr Justice Evans made that reference to blind trusts that have many holes in them, or eyes in them; and also the recommendation that divestiture is an integral part, a central part.
Mr Morrow: Yes.
Mr Harnick: I do not recollect that that is specifically what he said, but if you are telling us he agreed with divestiture but also called it draconian, I find that somewhat inconsistent. What I am saying is that, rather than argue about this line by line, we leave it to Susan to go through that aspect of the evidence and to cull out the significant areas that Justice Evans commented on and provide us with a synopsis of those within this section.
Mr Fletcher: I have no problem with what Mr Harnick is saying, except that the only thing I can remember Judge Evans being specific on was the "draconian" statement, and I have no problem with that being attributed to Justice Evans. Even when it comes to trusts, he was not the only person who spoke on trusts and what trusts were. When it came to a lot of other things, such as undue hardship, he was not the only person who spoke on that. When it came to draconian, that was what is attributable to Justice Evans. I have no problem with that phrase being attributed to him, and if Susan would like to go through and make that, that is fine, but along with what David was saying, I do not think every statement that the judge made should be taken out and just attributed to him alone.
Mr Harnick: I am not saying that. I am saying that we leave it to Susan to review that aspect of the evidence and cull out those areas of significance that he commented on in somewhat of a more expert and independent way than the other witnesses. We had witnesses who obviously had party affiliations. The beauty of Justice Evans's evidence is that it was independent evidence, particularly based on experience in dealing with conflict-of-interest matters, and certainly that makes him as a witness somewhat more reliable than witnesses who came here and had a political affiliation and a political partisanship.
Mr Elston: Just a minute.
Mr Fletcher: That is right. Just a minute is right.
Mr Elston: With all due respect.
Mr Harnick: With all due respect to Mr Elston, who did appear as a witness.
Mr Fletcher: But again, that is part of my objection also. We did have witnesses here who are no longer in the political spectrum -- maybe they still belong to a party -- and I valued their testimony. Mr Sweeney, who had the respect of every person sitting in this Legislature, every person in his riding and across the province, I consider to be non-partisan, only because of the kind of person I know Mr Sweeney to be.
Again, I am not sure about Justice Evans and what his political affiliation is, if he has one or if he does not. You know, there may be something there. The only thing I remember Justice Evans saying that was any different than any of the other witnesses -- if you go through the transcript of these -- is the "draconian" statement and I have no problem with that. If Susan wants to go through and do that, that is fine, but let's not just take every statement that Judge Evans said just because he was a third party. If you go through and look at it, a lot of what Justice Evans said and a lot of what the Liberal people were saying is exactly the same. I have a problem with that.
Mr Harnick: Why do you have a problem? Are you doubting the independence of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?
Mr Winninger: We are just for zero tolerance.
Mr Fletcher: That is right.
Mr Harnick: And we have seen how that has worked so far.
The Chair: We have injunctions with regard to quotations or the orientation. Does that seem to be agreeable?
Mr Fletcher: I trust Susan.
Mr Harnick: I do not want a debate line by line, or what the right position or the wrong position is, but if Susan can provide us with some of those comments, we then can come back here and go through them and vote on them if that is the way we do things here.
The Chair: Okay. Can we move on now to recommendations? Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: I have a question with that. I was reading over some of the material that Lisa had given us here, a letter from Judge Evans. This is a question for Susan. I was wondering how you took that information and sort of condensed it down. What was the process? How did you go through that?
Ms Swift: The material you are referring to there was provided, I think, last week. It was after I had prepared the report, but I left a space for it. On page 16 where it referred to amendments to the conflict of interest act, if you recall, Judge Evans made recommendations with respect to the guidelines and a fairly detailed list of recommendations with respect to amendments to the existing legislation. I think the letter you have there is in response to Mr Harnick's request to the commissioner to provide a list of the guidelines, to cull from the guidelines what provisions he would include in the existing legislation. So I have not dealt with those independently at all.
Mr Harnick: I note for Mr Fletcher that I have just received a letter from Justice Evans to Lisa Freedman and on the second page of that letter he makes certain comments about trusts. He refers to some amendments he would like to see, one of which would be that there should be more discretion for the commissioner to determine what businesses should be placed in a trust, and there should be provision for a trustee to consult with, or seek an opinion from, the commissioner with respect to the operation of the trust. Certainly, his position with respect to trusts, if that is any indication, is somewhat different from what the member -- and I believe it was Mr Morrow earlier -- quoted. So I think it is well worth having Susan review that material and provide us with some accurate synopsis of what Justice Evans said and what his position is and then we can review it.
Ms Gigantes: I have been given background information which has quite a substantial amount of information about that evidence, that testimony to the committee. I am wondering if it would not save time if members of the committee referred to that rather than asking for another report. I think that has already been pulled out.
Mr Harnick: Pulled out and put into the document we are now reviewing as the report?
1650
Ms Gigantes: No. Now there, Mr Chair, I would like to ask a question. Are we here to highlight Commissioner Evans's views of what should happen or are we here as a committee to give our own report and what we believe should happen?
I think, with all due respect for Justice Evans's experience, much of what he gives that is most -- how can I say it -- charismatic, in terms of contributions to the discussion, is a matter of opinion. I think in this we have to weigh all opinions. I certainly have no objection, in certain sections where it seems particularly noteworthy, to noting what he said and saying who he was, but I do not think we should allow his evidence to write the report, as it were.
Mr Harnick: I am not saying that. If I have given that impression, I have not intended to give that impression. But there were certain salient areas where he provided us with evidence based on his experience and knowledge of the area, and all I am saying is to cull that from the mass of material and include it in the report. In fact, the member for London South agrees with me.
Mr Winninger: To an extent.
Ms Gigantes: I agree with you to an extent.
Mr Harnick: That is fine. I mean, let's see what it looks like after it is done and then argue about it, rather than waste time now. You are going to win anyway; you have more members on the committee than the opposition does.
Ms Gigantes: It just seems like a circular motion, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Morrow, I think, made a suggestion regarding the recommendations for the committee. Can we move on to a discussion of that recommendation, and if so, can we please have a repetition of that suggestion, sir.
Mr Morrow: Do you want me to read them in again?
Mr Elston: On a point of order -- I am not exactly sure which order you want to take this in -- maybe we should just resolve what has happened here so that I understand, when Mr Sorbara asks me to brief him on what happened today, whether we are going to highlight some more of Judge Evans's testimony or we are not. Let's just finish off that end before we move on to deal with Mr Morrow's suggestion.
His is a very specific recommendation which has been prepared for consideration here today, but the answer to the question posed by Mr Harnick, at least partially supported by the member for London South and partially but not totally supported by the member for Ottawa Centre -- I think she is looking more for a balance perhaps, or whatever -- I want to know what we are doing before we get on with talking about Mark's stuff. We have to know what is going to happen and whether Susan is going to be left sort of to freehand some of this stuff.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, in my opinion the Premier's statements are just as important as Justice Evans's statements and therefore I would like to see the Premier's statements put into the record, if that is the way you want to go. As Ms Gigantes has said, it is just a personal opinion of Justice Evans and I do not think that should carry any more weight than anyone else's statements. That is why I cannot agree with what we are saying about Justice Evans having his statements taken out and put in by themselves.
The Chair: Mr Harnick has referred to the phrase "draconian," other phrases such as "the blind trust with many eyes" have been referred to and Mr Fletcher suggests spots where the Premier has particular interest or salient points. If members wish to highlight the author of certain statements, they could give that direction to Ms Swift, and the other members can agree or not.
Ms Gigantes: The document to which I was referring is dated 6 May and it is from Susan. It has, starting on page 7, a fairly extensive list of some of the more pointed comments by the commissioner. I think if there are members of the committee who would like to recommend to us now that one or other of these comments be included, it has to do directly with the question of divestment, which is where we are; pages 6, 7 and 8.
Mr Mills: What is the delay?
The Chair: There is no delay. We are busy looking at quotations. Are there any statements from this compendium of quotations from Justice Evans that members wish to have included?
Mr Carr: You have incorporated a lot of his statements, going way back. Just as a point of clarification, how did you decide what to put in, Susan?
Ms Swift: Basically the structure of the report, the shell that you have, is a recitation of the evidence that was presented. I did not make any attributions to any witnesses, so that it flowed stylistically. That is basically what my criterion was, aside from ensuring that the ideas, at the very minimum, were in there. Certainly I have included some of the more pointed references or statements that were made by witnesses, but that is essentially how I went about it. Again, I think the letter that you refer to could perhaps be dealt with in that final section where it deals specifically with the act as opposed to the guidelines.
The Chair: So is it the intent of the committee that there be any highlighted statements attributed to Justice Evans?
Mr Mills: I would just like to speak to that, Mr Chairman. I must admit that I have very little experience in this committee forum here, but my opinion when I came here and became part of this committee was that I would listen to all and sundry and take note of what everyone said, and that part of the position of this committee was to decide what would be in the report. Were they placing any particular connotations to Justice Evans? I respect him as a person and as a judge, but nevertheless I am against highlighting particularly what the judge said because I have a fear that once we do that, it almost looks as though, "Well, look, folks, this is what the judge said and he is right." I do not think personally this is the role that I was put here to do, so I am not going to support it.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this issue? Can we move on now to committee discussion of recommendations?
Mr Morrow: Would you like me to read my recommendations back?
The Chair: If you can remind us again, yes please.
1700
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. "We feel that Justice Evans was correct when he said that a trust can never be blind. We therefore feel that disclosure alone will not suffice, but rather must be accompanied by divestiture. We therefore recommend that the divestment section remain as an integral part of the Premier's guidelines."
Mr Carr: Where were you reading that from?
Mr Morrow: That was my own part. I just wrote it down.
The Chair: Is it acceptable, Mr Elston?
Mr Elston: I am not so sure. Again, the nature of the delivery is for me too general in some ways. If you want the principle of divestiture to remain as part of the guidelines, we all face the numbers here. But I would hate to have the statement made at the beginning, or at least at the end of the one section, and then talk about divestiture when there are people who have raised very serious concerns about what divestiture means for certain people.
I know, for instance, that the member for Scarborough East, Bob Frankford, has an impossible task to divest his practice. It has cost him his parliamentary assistant's position. To be quite honest, I am not sure that is fair; in fact, I think it is not fair. Because of the difficulty associated with delivering a practice of that type, it puts an unfair burden. I only wish to bring that example up as a case in point where I think it is extremely unfair.
If we make Mark's recommendation part of the report without having, in my view anyway, some kind of more flexible wording attached to it, then we condone I think the dislocation that has occurred for one of our current colleagues. That would probably be a mistake in the writing of the report. If there were something we could attach to that recommendation that would develop a little bit of flexibility and would answer a couple of the calls for less draconian consequences of a policy of divestiture, then I would be somewhat more comforted in the writing of the report. Let's just keep that one in mind.
I know the current Minister of Tourism and Recreation had to do some things with respect to a business that he built up. In the next three or four years, perhaps there will be a different result in an election. There is a person who is forced to get out of a business he has done a lot of work on. The member for Guelph shakes his head, but these things happen even to Liberals. It might even happen to some others.
It is just a very difficult thing for somebody to go back three years or four years later after having been told: "You have the stuff to be in cabinet. Get rid of your business." If you happen to either be turfed out of the cabinet or turfed out during the election, then to start from square one four years later in your life, that is the type of stuff I have real problems with. I have a real problem if we just say "Divestiture stays" and there is not something that allows us some flexibility. Those two examples are current. I can give some examples from the days when we were in government that would really make you sit up and take notice. I just want to leave it there.
Ms Gigantes: I do not fully understand, because I have just joined the committee, exactly how the report relates to the the Premier's proposed guidelines. Within the divestment section of the Premier's proposed guidelines, there is a section that makes exception. The exception is related to satisfaction of the Premier, which maybe we can discuss separately. But personally I would be unwilling to let go of the notion of divestment. I know there are real live difficulties for people. I nevertheless think the principle is important enough that we should be willing to confront those difficulties. Where exceptions have to be made, then we should provide some mechanism for exceptions, but the principle itself should be one of divestment.
The Chair: The next section will deal with the issue of hardship, so are you suggesting we leave that discussion until the next section?
Ms Gigantes: No. Again, what I would like to do is establish the principle and then if there are going to be exceptions -- just as we did in the previous section -- we answer the questions in order, with a kind of logic to it.
The Chair: Okay, but it is the next section that deals with those exceptions.
Ms Gigantes: I think we should say in principle that we support divestment.
Mr Harnick: I have really no problem with the comments just made except in terms of the way the legislation or the guidelines will look at the end of the process. For instance, if the guidelines are to remain guidelines that belong to the Premier, I can accept the fact that if this Premier believes in divestiture and he wants guidelines that reflect that belief, I do not have a problem with that. But as the guidelines are now written it becomes impossible, at least for me logically and, I submit, for you, to make that decision, because if the guidelines become the law and become part of the conflict of interest act, they take on a different character.
The problem I have if these guidelines become law -- if we look at section 15 it says, "Ministers are required to divest themselves of any asset, liability or financial interest which causes or could appear to cause a conflict of interest." The answer to what could appear to be or to cause a conflict of interest is left open for someone to decide. If the decision is pursuant to guidelines that are not legislation, it would be the Premier making that decision. If the guidelines become law, who makes that decision?
Certainly the Premier, when he came here, indicated that these matters were to be satisfied or solved to the satisfaction of the Premier and that is what the guidelines say. So if the guidelines become law, they are still at the behest of the Premier and not at the behest of the conflict commissioner. And it becomes very difficult to make those decisions unless you know whether the conflict guidelines are to remain guidelines or become matters of law and become part of the conflict of interest act.
I certainly do not have any problem with the concept of divestiture if that is what this Premier wants for his cabinet ministers and if he wants to be the judge, jury and executioner in terms of the implementation and enforcement of those guidelines. But if those guidelines are to become law, the categorization is different. To be perfectly fair and honest we have to make a decision about whether these guidelines should become law or whether they remain as guidelines, and then the way we categorize these different aspects to it becomes much easier.
The Chair: That is two sections away. "Guidelines for Legislation" addresses that question. Do you want to reserve your comments for that section?
Mr Harnick: I find this to be a very difficult process. It is not clear in my mind. What we are getting involved with here takes on a different meaning if we are looking at guidelines or if we are looking at something that is to become law. If it becomes law it is a much more difficult process because we know there are some very grave deficiencies in section 15, for instance, the idea of the satisfaction of the Premier. If it becomes law and it becomes governed by or under the authority of the conflict commissioner, how does that affect the conflict commissioner in terms of carrying out the guidelines when he has to be subservient to the Premier?
Who is going to define what a business interest is? Is it going to be the Premier or is it going to be the conflict commissioner? Who is going to decide whether a financial interest causes or could appear to cause a conflict of interest? Is it going to be the Premier or is it going to be the conflict commissioner? If it becomes law, we will have a real jurisdictional battle that we will have to deal with, and we will also have some very vague definitions. If it is going to become law, I think we should be amending these clauses, because we have been shown by the conflict commissioner that there are some very grave deficiencies in the way it is worded.
Certainly this committee has the jurisdiction and the authority, regardless of what we decide to do with this, not just to determine the principles of this material but also to amend, on a clause-by-clause basis, the materials, and make the sections better, based on the deficiencies that have been pointed out to us.
1710
Ms Gigantes: Rather than getting into a long dispute about this, let me suggest that if we are going to deal with the issue of divestment, we have to say yes or no. We cannot say yes if it is not law, no if it is law. If there are problems with the question of what the guidelines are going to be, law or somebody's idea of how an NDP government should run itself, then we can get to that question, but I think we have to assert that in principle we approve of divestment. We think the holding of interests can create conflicts which we would like to limit, and we would like to limit them by way of divestiture.
The Chair: Have we discussed the issue of the recommendation?
Mr Elston: I think you cannot put it in the report that we adopt this thing unanimously. It is obvious to me that there is a considerable amount of divergence of opinion, even within caucus to a certain extent.
In the government caucus there have been some expressions. Some people want to go on and say, "We have established this principle, period," and I do not think that can be written in the report. Although there may be a majority vote with respect to the wording of the recommendation, I do not think it can be seen to be a unanimous recommendation. That may be the place we have to leave it, that it very well will be an adopted recommendation, having been moved by Mr Morrow, and I think we can anticipate a vote, but at least we can write in the report that there were differences of opinion expressed by the committee members. The resolution was, however, adopted by majority vote. I think you have to leave it at that, because I agree, we cannot sit here and talk about this all -- actually, we could all day today, but not several days.
The Chair: No, we cannot; we are to move back to Ms Fawcett's bill. Can we move along? Mr Elston suggests a vote on this.
Ms Gigantes: I am fairly happy with leaving that statement as our process. I assume we have not adopted that as our process.
Mr Morrow: Mr Chair, the motion is on the floor.
Ms Gigantes: There is a motion on the floor. If it passes, I do not see why the report contains caveats within it. At the end, whoever has caveats can say so, but we do not have to put caveats within the body of the report.
Mr Morrow: There is a motion on the floor. Can we deal with that?
The Chair: There is not a motion on the floor per se, but you do have a recommendation.
Mr Morrow: I made a recommendation.
The Chair: And you would like to vote on it, would you?
Mr Morrow: Yes.
The Chair: We can call it a motion.
Mr Morrow: Same thing -- motion, recommendation.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Morrow is moving the following recommendation: "We feel that Mr Justice Evans was correct when he said that a trust can never be blind. We therefore feel that disclosure alone will not suffice, but rather must be accompanied by divestiture. We therefore recommend that the divestment section remain an integral part of the Premier's guidelines."
All in favour of the motion?
Ms Gigantes: Does it have to say "the Premier's guidelines"? Could it not say "guidelines"?
Interjection: They are his guidelines.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Can we move on to section 15, the first paragraph, top of page 6. "These recommendations were made to the committee concerning the meaning of `undue hardship' and `appearance of a conflict.' It was suggested that the section as a whole is vague and meaningless and that these terms are" -- that should be "too," not "so" -- "too subjective."
Mr Elston: How can we amend this without a vote?
The Chair: I think that is clearly a typographical error, Mr Elston. Besides, it was the suggestion of the researcher, who did do the writing.
This section is what Mr Harnick was referring to earlier, the definition of "hardship" being left up to the Premier; how could that be brought into the legislation or how could it be dealt with? Discussion on this section as it is written? Should the paragraph be adopted? There seems to be consensus that the paragraph be adopted. Committee discussion?
Mr Winninger: I find that while there may be some uncertainty in how these terms are defined, because this section is designed to be a discretionary exception to the absolute rule about divestment, there has to be some broad room for interpretation here in coming to the kind of discretionary decision that the Premier would have to make when faced by a claim to such an exception. If you start delineating in great detail what the exceptions would be, you run the risk that you do not cover all the possible permutations or that by defining them so rigidly you are eliminating any discretion on the part of the Premier there.
I would suggest that while there may be some vagueness there, if you become too precise and too rigid in setting out exceptions, then you remove the element of discretion, which I think goes to the --
Mr Elston: You mean the element of surprise.
Mr Winninger: If I had meant the element of surprise, I probably would have said it, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.
That is the point I wanted to make there. I think the wording is quite satisfactory.
The member for Bruce earlier alluded to the situation of the member for Scarborough East and how he had to give up his parliamentary assistantship. In a case like that, where his capitation contract with the Ministry of Health not only could be seen to be a conflict with his parliamentary assistantship, but also was in fact perhaps a conflict, he had the insight to accept that and resign from his position. There are other cases, of course, where there might not be a direct conflict, where it might be in accordance with the public interest that an investment be continued, and it may constitute an undue hardship to have to give up that investment. In that particular kind of case, the exception could be made within the broad terms of guideline 15, and I find the phraseology in which guideline 15 is couched quite acceptable for that reason.
Mr Harnick: I think experience has shown that this section has not to date worked, and in fact, in order for the Premier to get around these guidelines, he issued supplementary directions in order to extricate some of his ministers from an awkward position. He decided to change the definition of "business interest," and that was quite clear in his February documentation. It seems to me that one of the very grave difficulties with this section is the fact that it is left arbitrarily to the Premier. I will say it again: I do not have a problem with that if these are to remain guidelines, but if these are to become more than guidelines, then we make a mockery of what these sections say if we leave the wording vague and ambiguous. If they become law, they have to be precise and we have to know who is going to be making the decision. If they remain guidelines, then we can live with it as being vague and imprecise because it is a matter for this Premier and that is the course he decides to take in dealing with his ministers and parliamentary assistants.
But I do not think you can do that to the conflict commissioner if these guidelines are to become law. Again, you have the very fundamental question that if these guidelines do become law, does the Premier have the overriding decision-making power, as section 15 seems to set out now, or will that be amended so that it will become precise and understandable and able to be interpreted by the conflict commissioner in an independent manner?
1720
Mr Winninger: Excuse me just briefly, Mr Chair. In response to that, I was just going to ask if he would be content if the divestment sections were put in regulations rather than the act.
Mr Harnick: No, because regulations to an act are law and the effect of its being a regulation is the same as its being part of the statute.
Mr Winninger: You can change that by order in council, though.
The Chair: There is a difficulty about the order of the material we are dealing with, Mr Harnick, and you have addressed that by moving ahead to the question of whether it is law or it is guidelines. Is it the wish of the committee to set this section aside and to move on to the next section? No?
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chairman, I think that again we are proceeding with one order of question after another and there is a logical flow. What may be happening is that perhaps Mr Harnick is reading section 15 in the proposed guidelines as if everything in 15 were what is going to be in the next section of our report, because there it says, "except where the minister is satisfied, the Premier," but we still have to come to the question of how the accountability will be framed. So you need not worry about that, because that can be the next decision. We do not need to decide that right now. All we have to decide at this stage is whether there should be exceptions and whether the wording that is proposed, in spite of criticisms by the commissioner, covers our concerns.
To my mind it does, because, for example, you suggest that in fact the definition of "business interest" had to be changed. That is an inaccurate reading of what happened in the case of rental properties and the Premier's application of the proposed guidelines. There, what happened was that it was decided that undue hardship would be extended, and there, what has happened is that there is a judgement made under a term which has proved to be flexible. It is not the kind of rigid armour that one might be afraid of. I think everybody understood the explanation that was given when that application was made, when that change in application of undue hardship and divestment was made. Nobody in fact said it should not be done in regard to rental property. I think that what we have, quite contrary to what you have suggested, is evidence that these kinds of terms have proved applicable, have proved to be terms which can be explained for given circumstances, and that the Premier's understanding of them and application of them changed because of his understanding of what undue hardship might be in certain cases, and I think that proves the value of the terms.
Mr Harnick: With due respect, I see it from the opposite side. Now that you mention "undue hardship" in the context of the Premier's amendments to his guidelines, if you will, or his adjustment to his guidelines, "undue hardship" was merely another term, now that you mention it to me, that is vague and that permits the Premier, as executioner of his guidelines, to allow people to skate out from under those guidelines, just as the definition of what is a "business interest" is a vague term.
In fact, I interpreted the addendum to the guidelines to be a definition of "business interest" in that the Premier permitted rental income from a residential building to be exempt from business income, and made a distinction with business income when he dealt with the rent from a commercial property. He made a definite distinction. It became acceptable for a blind trust to be set up to administer the commercial property, but the rent from the residential property was not considered to be a business interest.
On top of that -- I am glad you have pointed it out to me -- the other way to skate around these sections is through the "undue hardship" sections. Again, it is so vague that it can be adjusted any which way. I point out that these sections become impossible to interpret unless you know whether they are going to be guidelines or whether they are going to be law. If they are going to be guidelines, I can accept that the Premier can be the judge, the jury and the executioner, because he is making the decision and those are the ground rules he is entitled to live by. It is his prerogative. But if they become law, the characterization and the way in which they are viewed have to be totally different.
The Chair: I have Mr Morrow, Mrs Mathyssen and Ms Gigantes all with incredible interest in speaking at the moment. However, it is also 5:30 and we said we would return to Mrs Fawcett's bill at that time. I would like to suggest that we adjourn discussion of the conflict-of-interest guidelines with Mr Morrow's informed input on hold.
Mr Morrow: Can we finish this section please, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: We have accepted the paragraph but not the recommendations. Those have not been put in as yet. I would like to finish it, but I doubt that we will be able to do that in a period of five or 10 minutes and we did make a commitment to return to Mrs Fawcett's bill. I would suggest that we adjourn this discussion.
Mrs Fawcett: If my bill passes within five minutes, then you can return to this and finish it.
The Chair: That is a distinct possibility depending upon the informed consultation the Solicitor General has offered Mr Mills.
1730
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS AUXILIAIRES)
Resuming consideration of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters.
Suite à l'étude du projet de loi 87, Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliaires.
Mr Mills: I would just like to say a few things in respect to this Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters. I would like to read from Hansard a couple of points that were made on the day the bill was debated. We are talking here of the comments of Mr Dadamo, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation. He goes on and on and he says this point: "The issuance of a special plate series to identify personal vehicles owned or leased by volunteer firefighters would require changes to public awareness programs, law enforcement awarness materials and our vehicle registration system in Ontario. None of these problems, however, is insurmountable, and they pale beside the necessity of this kind of designation of these vehicles when they are responding to an emergency situation."
He concludes his statement and says, "In view of these facts, I want to offer my support of this bill in principle and urge the other members of my party to support it as well, recognizing that we will need to explore implementation issues." That is from the parliamentary assistant to the Transportation minister. In my role as the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General -- and I am sure that you are just itching to hear that again -- I said: "In summary, the Solicitor General fully supports the principle and the intent of the legislation as a symbol of recognition of the dedicated service provided by the volunteer firefighters of Ontario and as a symbol of the need to facilitate their efforts to improve the safety of our communities. However, a caution: We need to find a mechanism to achieve this which is efficient, effective and responsive, and I am sure that this can be achieved."
So what I am saying is that both the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transportation support this bill 100%. But I have had some discussions this afternoon with people in both ministers' offices, and they tell me that at the moment there are tremendous operational difficulties in passing this. So what we are asking, Mr Chairman, is that we want this set aside. We want to have maybe some hearings from the fire departments, maybe some hearings from the public, certainly representation from the Ministry of Transportation, certainly representation from the Solicitor General --
Mr Elston: This is how you are going to put the can on.
Mr Mills: No, no, no, no. There are two ways --
Mr Elston: That is exactly what you guys are doing.
Mr Mills: We are being exactly fair. We could, Mr Chairman, say, "Support this now and we vote on it and it dies on the order paper." We do not want that. We are saying, "Let's keep it open; let's keep the dialogue and let's pass it and let's get it done." I think this is being very fair and very, very up front that this is how we are going to handle it. We could sit here and it would die.
Mr Elston: You make your presentations in second reading for people to send out in their mailings to their volunteer fire departments; then you come into committee and hope you can hide behind something like "There are operational problems." Gord, that is the oldest story in the world in this business, and I will tell you it is just going to postpone this thing. You guys are going to drop this thing off someplace, and before long what will happen? Well, there will be a new way of dealing with it from the Ministry of Transportation. Or there will be a new way of dealing with it and there will be a big fanfare when the minister or the parliamentary assistant or the parliamentary assistant who may become the minister or whatever go out to the annual meeting of the volunteer fire departments of Ontario and say: "We have decided to do this for you. That other stuff that was being proposed in a private member's bill that was supported by all the people in the Legislature is passé, and we are going to give you the new one."
I am very, very surprised that you are doing this and doing it at such a late date. You did not even have the courtesy of telling Joan that you were going to raise this. I am sorry, but this is stretching it a little bit.
Mr Mills: Mr Chairman, if I can reply to Murray's comments, both the ministers' offices that I spoke to during the recess were absolutely unaware that this was coming up so quickly and this afternoon. Believe it or not, they did not know.
The Chair: It is on the order paper.
Mr Mills: I know, but I am just telling you what they said. There is absolutely no intent of either ministry to scuttle this. In fact, I have gone so far as to photostat the debate in the House and send it to every fire station in my riding, as probably you have too, Joan, to let them know where we are at. If you think I am playing games here, I do not intend to play games. I am saying to you that I like to be honest and I want to tell you honestly that we intend to go forward with this, but to vote on it this afternoon -- I am told by the higher echelons that we cannot do this and I am here to put that point of view across.
Mrs Fawcett: I think you are going beyond what the intent of the bill is here, and so possibly are the ministries. If you also notice that, as the minister said, "My ministry will be working whether to implement the contents of this bill," really, the bill just gives permission so that a licence plate may be issued. All of these other things certainly can be worked out. To me those are just ways to implement. They do not have to be in this bill. Even if you want to put them in now, that is fine, but to me they do not have to be there. All we are doing is saying we are going to allow them to have a licence plate and then once they are finished being a volunteer they hand it back in. That is really all that is here. All of this other is something that, together with the fire departments and the volunteers across the province, we can decide. The ministry and whoever is involved can work, but really all this does is say yes, you may have a licence plate. It does not mean that they would go in and demand one.
Mr Mills: The difficulty is that the licence plate might not even be the form they want.
Mrs Fawcett: Right, but it does not matter.
The Chair: We have, I am sure, several possibilities in terms of how to deal with this. The ministries seem to be supportive of the legislation. I am wondering if it might not be appropriate for your caucus to discuss how to respond to it at this moment.
Mr Mills: I have told you.
The Chair: You suggest setting it aside until whatever.
Mr Mills: We want it put over.
The Chair: Until?
Mrs Fawcett: Next week?
Mr Mills: Probably. I was just told that this afternoon is absolutely impossible to deal with this. There was no indication given to me that it would be a month, next week, tomorrow, but I have been told, and I am acting on instructions from both ministers, that it is impossible to deal with it today.
The Chair: Okay. For how long do you wish it set over, sir?
Mr Mills: You tell me when you want to put it in the schedule and then we will have people here.
The Chair: What do we have set for next Monday?
Clerk of the Committee: The only thing this committee is currently considering, other than the bill that was scheduled for today, is conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Chair: I would suggest that we set it aside until next Monday.
Mr Mills: Right.
The Chair: Is that acceptable? Hopefully we will have informed consultation by that point.
Mrs Fawcett: Will you be placing some amendments?
Mr Mills: I cannot speak for the two ministers involved. I do not see why I seem to be sort of the bat boy for this. When I came and I saw it, right away red flags started ringing in my brain based upon the debate that day. I took it upon myself to go call these ministers and say, "Look, this is up. What do you want done about it?" and the response that I got back is what I am telling you.
Mrs Fawcett: The Minister of Transportation himself said they would be implementing it.
Mr Mills: You see, to just sit here and say we are going to give you a licence plate number is absolutely incredible.
Mr Elston: That is what the House did on second reading. In principle they have adopted that happening.
Mr Mills: In principle, yes.
Mrs Fawcett: Nova Scotia has it right now.
The Chair: We have a resolution to put it aside for one week.
1740
Ms Gigantes: Is it normal process for the committee to inform the ministry or ministries affected by a bill?
The Chair: The bill was, after all, discussed with the PAs from both of those ministries there and commenting on it. It was passed and was referred here.
Ms Gigantes: To inform them of the schedule of our dealing with matters like this.
The Chair: Oh, I see.
Ms Gigantes: It would make eminent good sense.
Clerk of the Committee: Generally what happens, if the committee is having public hearings on a bill -- I can use Norm Sterling's bill that was just before the committee as an example. Because we were having public hearings, actually the ministries contacted me, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Attorney General, and said they wished to appear on the bill. Because there were no public hearings on this bill, there was no direction to me from the subcommittee in terms of inviting anybody to comment on the bill. If the committee members would like me to, if they were to tell me which ministry or which groups to invite, that could be arranged for next Monday.
Ms Gigantes: I think if we built it into our process, we would certainly avoid this in the future. It is very frustrating for all of us.
Mr Mills: It is. I do not like to be part of it myself.
The Chair: So our suggestion for next week is to have information, to have hearings on this bill. Is that what you are suggesting?
Mr Mills: My suggestion for next week is that there be present here people from both ministries to discuss this matter with some sort of semblance of order and logic, rather than our just saying we will do it.
The Chair: So you are suggesting that there be invitations sent to the Solicitor General's office and the Ministry of Transportation so that if there are other problems with this --
Mr Elston: They would be making presentations, so there are public hearings.
Mr Mills: Yes.
Mr Elston: That is what they are. The committee is a proponent of the bill, and you will have them here as witnesses then.
Mr Mills: Yes.
Interjection.
Mr Elston: No, they are actually the public in that case, because they are not the proponents of it, so they come only as witnesses for the public interest, I presume.
I would not mind asking, Mr Chair, what huge operational problems are associated with implementing a licence plate program. When people in the Ministry of Transportation figured out that they could make big gobs of money by selling the so-called vanity plates, they did not talk at all about the issue of operational problems. The only thing they felt they had to do was have somebody who looked at the public interest behind the vanity plate and what was said on those plates. There are certain things that have to be screened, and I can understand that. What kind of operational overburden could befall a ministry the size of the Ministry of Transportation when it is talking about getting a plate that is acceptable to the volunteer fire department, if everybody is in favour of doing it? I just do not understand it.
Mr Mills: That is what we will find out next Monday.
Mr Elston: I just find that so totally without ground that it is kind of laughable. I suspect Mr Mills has fortunately awakened somebody who maybe fell asleep at the switch or something, but I cannot agree that there is some big, huge operational difficulty that would seem to create a catastrophe-in-waiting if we say, "Yes, now that we have the principle that we will issue these plates and we will take a look at this bill that says, in two sections, if you are a volunteer fire person, you get the plate, and if you no longer are, ie, you have ceased to be a volunteer firefighter, then you have to turn your plate back in," that that somehow is going to create some kind of catastrophe that brings the whole world falling down around us. I just do not believe it.
The Chair: I am sure that if there are some monumental difficulties with implementation of this legislation, we will be informed of them, and if we are not satisfied with the extent of those difficulties, we can pass it.
Mr Mills: Hold it. I have fresh news off the press that the MOT is now going to support this bill. No one can say I did not try to voice my concerns.
The Chair: Any further comments on the bill?
Mr Morrow: There is a motion on the floor.
Mr Mills: I withdraw that motion.
The Chair: Have you withdrawn, sir? Any further comments on the bill?
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Les articles 1 à 3, inclusivement, sont adoptés.
Title agreed to.
Le titre est adopté.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Le projet de loi devra faire l'objet d'un rapport.
The Chair: At this point, shall we return to conflict of interest or to the subcommittee report, which should be quickly accepted? We have a quarter of an hour. We can either return to conflict of interest or adjourn early.
Ms Gigantes: I am prepared to move a motion out of the report, section 15.
The Chair: Unless there is a motion to adjourn or to move on to the subcommittee report.
Mr Elston: The subcommittee report has already been passed, I think, in your absence.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
Resuming consideration of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Ms Gigantes: I am prepared to move a motion, following from section 15, page 6 of the report before us, and I would move the following wording, "However, the committee believes that these terms, as used in the proposed guidelines, will prove useful to their application and to the judgements made under the guidelines."
The Chair: I am sorry. Could the clerk read that again, please.
Clerk of the Committee: Ms Gigantes moves the following wording for section 15, "However, the committee believe that these terms, as used in the proposed guidelines, will prove useful to their application and to the judgements made under the guidelines."
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Shall we move on to the next section or shall we adjourn?
Mr Carr: I move we adjourn.
Mr Mills: Adjourn. We are going to be caught halfway between something anyway.
Ms Gigantes: I think we could probably finish --
The Chair: Moving on to the next section.
Mr Elston: In fairness, this is a section Mr Harnick had a particular interest in, and although we may start the discussion, I suspect we may have to repeat it when Mr Harnick comes back, so maybe Mr Mills's earlier suggestion is a good suggestion for us.
The Chair: We will adjourn till 3:30 tomorrow, when we resume discussion of conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The committee adjourned at 1749.