CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Monday 24 June 1991
Conflict-of-interest guidelines
Subcommittee report
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)
Substitution: Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP) for Mr Winninger
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1549 in room 228.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
The Chair: We have a couple of items of business to deal with. Obviously there is Ms Swift's compilation or draft report, which has been circulated, and I am sure that today we will enter into a discussion of that report and how it should be presented. First we have Mr Sorbara, who had a motion and I believe had the floor when last we spoke, and also, of course, we have the very tentative schedule for our hearings this summer.
Mr Sorbara: I hope to keep my remarks on this motion as brief as possible under the circumstances. But just for the sake of reminding the committee members what the substance of the motion was, it was a motion which would have this committee ask for the authority from the Legislature to call witnesses before it, including the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development, and to question them, and hopefully their officials, concerning the breaches of the conflict-of-interest guidelines that we have been discussing over the past several months.
Why would we want to do that? I do not suspect this motion is going to succeed; I think the government members have already made up their minds to vote against this motion. They do not want to have this matter discussed further in a public forum. I think that is terribly unfortunate. I think it is regrettable. It says to me that the standards of this government are even lower than the standards of the federal government in Ottawa, the government of Brian Mulroney.
You will recall, and I mentioned this in my remarks the last time we met, that faced with some question about the immigration of the former ambassador of the Republic of Iraq to Canada, Mohammed Mashat, Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of this country, did the right thing. He said, "Well, let's have a parliamentary committee look into it." Members of the government were called before that committee and ministers were called before that committee. The committee did not come to an agreement on a recommendation back to the federal House of Commons, but at least it had an opportunity to pursue some investigation.
Mr Fletcher: Go join Brian.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry? What did my friend from Guelph say? I think it is rather relevant what he said.
In any event, what we experienced in the Legislature -- I guess almost two weeks ago -- is two ministers publicly submitting their resignation to the Premier because of clear violations of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, not only the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines but, as the Premier acknowledged himself when he accepted those resignations, guidelines that have really guided the conduct of ministers in this Legislature for many, many years.
In my remarks the other day I mentioned that it would be of interest for this committee to know what investigations the Premier made during the time at around 1:30 in the afternoon, when he accepted at least the resignation of the minister responsible for women's issues, and at 5:15, when he decided that he would change his mind and decline to accept those resignations. I think it is terribly important to find out.
The last time we met, when I mentioned this matter, somebody interjected. I think it was Mrs Mathyssen and I think it was Mr Morrow as well who mentioned the name of Bob Nixon. "Well, Bob Nixon said it was all right," was the suggestion by way of interjection.
Let me tell you what I think the Premier should have done at 5:15 on that afternoon. I think what the Premier should have said, having reflected, as indeed he did, is as follows: "This afternoon in the Legislature I accepted publicly the resignation of the minister responsible for women's issues and I did that following her submission of a letter of resignation as a result of a letter she wrote to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in respect of a quasi-judicial matter before it. I reiterate to you now," he should have said to the press, "my determination to accept that resignation. I am also announcing that I accept the resignation of the Minister of Northern Development for the very same reasons which force me, unfortunately, to accept the letter of resignation of the minister responsible for women's issues."
Then he should have said, "I do this notwithstanding the very comforting interjection of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brant-Haldimand, who for a moment during question period set aside the politics of the matter and the justice of the matter and, in a moment of sheer compassion for two very competent ministers, suggested I change my mind. I understand that compassion," he should have said. "I too have that compassion." He should have praised the ministers for the good work they had done, for they are both very competent in their jobs. The justice of the matter, however, should have required the Premier to accept the resignation of both of these ministers, just as he was required to accept the resignation of the member for Ottawa Centre, the former Minister of Health in the government.
What is so very troubling, I tell you, Mr Vice-Chairman and members of this committee, is not only that the Premier changed his mind, did a classic flip-flop -- that was regrettable, unfortunate, but sometimes we do change our minds and sometimes a flip-flop is appropriate. That was regrettable, certainly, but what was more regrettable, and I think rather distasteful, was his reference to Bob Nixon when he did that, encouraging the notion that he had been given leave to change his mind by the authority vested in the Leader of the Opposition. That I found distasteful.
But what are troubling and of grave concern, not to those of us who are politicians but to anyone who is concerned about standards in our society, are the reasons he gave for changing his mind. I am supported in this view by a column written this very weekend by the Toronto Star Queen's Park columnist, Thomas Walkom. I invite any of you who are interested to have a look at the column Walkom wrote. I am not going to bother to quote from it, but he points out the three matters the Premier referred to when the Premier suggested that he was acting appropriately in changing his mind and getting involved in a flip-flop.
First of all he said, "The intentions of the two ministers were very good, and the cause that they were supporting was very good." The Bob Rae we all knew and loved as Leader of the Opposition before the election of 1990 would never have said that. In fact, he would have said the very opposite: that it does not matter whether or not the intentions were good. It does not matter if Joan Smith, for example, was going to the police station because of a clear, compassionate intention just to help the son of a neighbour. The first thing he said was that their intentions were good and it was a good cause.
"But the public interest," he said second, "was not harmed. There was no negative impact on the public interest. There was no breach of the public trust." One wonders about that, because it puts the Premier in the place of defining what is and is not in the public interest. He will not let us as a committee discuss that. You will vote against this motion which will establish conclusively that the orders of the Premier are to shut down all discussion of this. I invite you to do otherwise. I think you are probably going to vote against this motion. But the second thing he said was that the public interest was not harmed, in his view. To change the standards at the snap of a finger, at the flip of a flop -- does that not at least affect the public interest, and I say affect negatively the public interest, particularly when the flip-flop is at the instance and instigation of the very man who used to be the Canadian first-choice crusader on the issue of conflict of interest and ministerial accountability? Who is he to say that the public interest has not been impacted negatively? I say it has, and for that very reason he ought not to have changed his mind.
1600
Finally, the Premier said it was okay and he was not going to accept the resignations of the ministers, because after all, what they did did not further their private interests. They did not profit from it. Well, heavens, if we now need clear evidence of personal profit before a minister steps down, having tried to interfere with the administration of justice, we have really gone downhill in Ontario.
Did Jean Charest personally profit where, in humiliation, he had to step down? Sure, the Prime Minister of Canada said: "This is a great politician. I have a lot of faith in Jean Charest. I think some day he's going to be back in cabinet and he's going to do very well. Maybe even he'll be Prime Minister some day. He's a great politician, but he must step down. Our system demands it." Jean Charest did not personally profit. He did not personally benefit. Is that now the standard, that we have to show money in the pocket of the minister or some other personal, private gain on the part of the minister before there is ministerial accountability and responsibility?
We have had Tory ministers step down because they breached the rule about interfering with the administration of justice. They did not personally profit. I do not want to go over the names, but those of you who know anything about the history of this place know how many Tory ministers had to step down.
Certainly in the government that I was a part of we had ministers who, at the insistence of Bob Rae, now the Premier of this province, had to step down. Do you remember his words concerning Joan Smith? He said, "I want her out." Not because she personally profited. Let's go over what Joan Smith did. She got a phone call late at night. The person at the other end of the phone suggested that the son of a neighbour was being assaulted by police officers at the police station in Lucan. It was about 1 o'clock in the morning. She got dressed, she went down to the police station, she made an inquiry, she determined that no such thing was happening, she confirmed that and she went home.
When Bob Rae said, "I want her out," he did not say, "because the public interest has been negatively impacted," or that Joan Smith received a private benefit by way of going to the police station or that somehow the cause was unjust. None of those standards did he apply. He said, "This is very tough stuff. I want her out," and she left and she never returned.
We had thought the appropriate thing was that the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues spend some time outside of cabinet. We would fully respect the right of the Premier to bring those two competent ministers into cabinet after a specific period of time, maybe even in September before the start of the next session of Parliament, maybe even back into the very portfolios they held before then. What is just so difficult to accept is that suddenly, in the case of two ministers, the guidelines are thrown out the door. The Premier says, "Well, there's nothing in the guidelines that says the ministers have to resign." I could never hear him saying that in opposition, but he said: "There's nothing that says they have to resign or that I have to accept their resignations. I can do whatever I want. They haven't benefited personally. There's no money in their pockets. Their intentions were good. The public trust, the public interest, has not been violated."
Why did he not apply those standards in the guidelines? Why do we not see those words in these very guidelines that you and I and the rest of us are considering? He does not say that. He does not say that ministerial responsibility will be determined based on these three criteria. Why is that not in the guidelines? Why were those criteria not applied to Evelyn Gigantes, the member for Ottawa Centre, or to poor Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold? We still have not figured out what he did wrong, except perhaps to disagree with the Premier and a majority in cabinet on automobile insurance. We suspect -- in fact, it is common knowledge -- that Mr Kormos was perhaps the only real crusader who wanted the New Democratic Party to keep its promise in respect of automobile insurance.
Why not those three guidelines about personally profiting and the public trust and the public interest and the bona fides of the minister? Why were those guidelines not applied to the ministers who have resigned? What about poor old Mike Farnan, the Solicitor General? Why in the world did Farnan not at least offer his resignation and allow the Premier to make a judgement? Why is it that in each case a completely different rule book is governing the matter? That, for us, is what makes the deliberations we have here in this committee so ludicrous. Here we are given a set of guidelines and asked to deliberate on it and make recommendations, and the Premier said that as soon as he tabled the guidelines they would govern his conduct, yet in each case we have a completely different rule book applying to the matters at hand.
I would like to know more about this. If we are really going to respond substantively to the Premier and the Legislature on what are useful guidelines, I would like to know more. I would like to hear from more witnesses. I would like to ask the Premier what inquiries he made between 1:30 on the day those resignations from those two ministers were submitted and 5:15 when he changed his mind and said that Bob Nixon said it was okay. I would like to know more from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and her political staff and the bureaucrats in the Ontario Women's Directorate about what advice was and was not given to the minister in respect of the writing of that letter.
As I said the other day, I have been there as a minister and I know that, in matters like that, the activities of the minister are known to the bureaucrats and the bureaucrats generally give advice on the advisability of writing letters. I would like to know whether or not the minister received any advice. I am just dumbfounded that the government members on this committee do not want to know that and do not want to share that with the public. I suspect the only reason why they do not want to know is because it will prove somewhat embarrassing to the minister and somewhat embarrassing to the Premier. But I would like to know whether the Premier at least talked to civil servants in the Ontario Women's Directorate before he changed his mind.
In regard to the Minister of Northern Development, the inquiries I would want to make are fewer, because the letter came from the constituency office. We all have constituency offices and we know that those inquiries and the determination to write or not to write arise differently. People generally come to your office and say, "Would you please support me in this?" Sometimes, in response to that, you just say to your assistant, "Yes, well, let's do that and here's a draft of a letter that I want to sign," and that is the end of it. I do not suspect the Minister of Northern Development consulted with her bureaucrats or her political assistants in the ministry, her political staffers, before she wrote that letter.
1610
My motion is all about finding out what happened and who advised whom on these matters. If the government members really want to be doing their jobs on a committee that purports to be concerned with the administration of justice, they will support this motion. I do not propose that we go into months and months of hearing. I propose that we simply set aside four or five days some time over the next while, and call these ministers and call their senior officials and their senior political staff to get to the bottom of this.
Everyone thinks that this is okay now, because there are no more questions being asked in the Legislature and because the Premier has had his say. I want to tell you that this is like a little dose of poison. For the Premier to change the guidelines, for the Premier to set out three new criteria to determine whether or not a resignation will be accepted or rejected, is simply unacceptable. It simply flies in the face of every standard that has governed ministerial conduct for years and years in this province, in this government, and in this Legislature.
I think that before we give our tacit support to that change we ought to do a little investigation here ourselves. Before we rubber-stamp the conduct of the Premier and his ministers in this matter we ought to make our own independent parliamentary investigations as independently elected MPPs responsible primarily to our constituents, not to our leaders and not to our whips.
So, sir, I ask you and the other members of this committee to support this motion, vote in favour of it, and give us an opportunity to make those inquiries.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour of Greg Sorbara's motion? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
Mr Sorbara: Surprise, surprise.
The Chair: We are now moving on to the finalization of the committee report on conflict of interest. Are there any comments on the report as presented to us?
Mr Morrow: I would just like to congratulate Susan on a job well done and thank her very much for presenting such a fine report. Thank you very much, Susan.
Mr Sorbara: In the same vein, I think Susan Swift has worked under very difficult circumstances in preparing the commentary on the report and of course the recommendations as well. Our view is that the commentary reflects in general terms the nature of the discussion. As you know, we are not supporting most of the substantive recommendations in the report and we will be submitting dissenting views on most of the substantive recommendations. Notwithstanding that, I am grateful and my colleagues are grateful for the work that has been done here on the report, and we appreciate that work, particularly under circumstances that I would describe as less than ideal.
Mr Harnick: I, too, would like to say that we should all be indebted to Susan Swift for the work she has done under difficult circumstances. I have read most of the report. I received it only a very short time ago. I wish to restate again that it is regrettable we never had the opportunity, because the committee did not want to proceed in this way, to review the letter of the Premier, which was really the basis and background for many of the items that found their way into the guidelines. We never had the opportunity, unfortunately again, because the majority on the committee did not want to review the amendment to the guidelines that the Premier released in February, not publicly, but which subsequently came to light in a public way.
Unfortunately, we never even opened the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. That, to me, makes this whole exercise very suspicious. We never opened that act. We never considered a single, solitary amendment as suggested by the conflict of interest commissioner, although he gave us his proposed amendments for discussion purposes, which this committee -- and I am talking about the majority members on it -- never permitted the opportunity --
Interjection.
Mr Harnick: I am going to talk about that in a minute, Ms Gigantes.
The committee never so much as opened the conflict-of-interest act. They never so much as commented on Justice Evans's proposed amendments to that act. In fact, when I read this report, I find things in it that I do not believe were ever discussed at this committee, and I paid close attention.
I refer members of the committee to page 6, where it states:
"Specific recommendations were made to the committee concerning the meaning of terms such as `undue hardship,' `the appearance of a conflict' and `business interests.' It was suggested that the section as a whole is vague and meaningless because these terms are too subjective.
"However, the committee believes these terms as used in the proposed guidelines will prove useful to the judgements to be made under the guidelines."
I cannot conceive of how those terms can prove to be useful if the suggestions were that we did not know what those terms meant. I think this section, under section 15 on page 6, is reflective of the quality of the work that was done by this committee. The quality, I would submit, is very poor and did not answer the questions that begged to be answered. We did not make any attempt to improve upon this legislation in anticipation of the difficulty it would cause.
On page 7 it states, "who should be the final arbiter of conflict-of-interest matters; whether the courts should be involved in these determinations; and whether citizens should have any role in the process" -- we never discussed any of this. These questions were just so obvious and a discussion of them was just begging to be had, but we never had that discussion. We never so much as discussed whether courts should or should not be involved.
I think it is interesting. When you take a look at page 8, the second-last paragraph states:
"The use of the court system in the determination of conflict-of-interest issues was suggested by one witness," -- I might add that although not named, that one witness was Premier Bob Rae -- "but rejected by another who argued that there is no expeditious way of having such issues resolved through the court system." That other witness was Mr Justice Evans.
What that paragraph points out is the dilemma about where the final arbitration, where the right of appeal, should go. Should there be a right of appeal? The Premier believed we should have access to the courts. The conflict of interest commissioner said that access to the courts would ruin the conflict-of-interest proceedings because it would take such a long time that issues involving human beings who were caught in conflict-of-interest matters could not be resolved expeditiously. People would be left in limbo.
This committee never found the time to discuss these very important issues. It is regrettable that we did not do that, because quite apart from our philosophical, political differences, these questions could be answered without resort to political beliefs. They are questions and concepts that, once the committee decided that the guidelines should become law, we should have been going ahead and trying to wrestle with. But the committee found it did not have the time. Even now the committee is really not very interested in any meaningful discussion about this matter.
1620
I would not hesitate to make the statement that of all the members on this committee, I would bet not a person on the government side has really read this final report. Certainly if they have read it, they have read it in a cursory manner, without regard to any of the issues which we were asked by the Premier to discuss but never got around to. That is the reason my party will be preparing a dissenting report, because we believe some of these matters are fundamental to the issue of conflict of interest. They should be discussed. They should have been discussed by the committee, but the committee was too busy. All they were prepared to do was make motions to speed this process along and invoke closure and make further motions: "Just dealing with section 15, we are for it, we are against it, all in favour." That was the extent of the discussion we had.
I appreciate that the remarks I am making are not going to win any favours from anybody, but we had a mandate to do a job and we have not done that job. Because of that, the majority members on this committee are giving to the Legislature a report that is superficial. It takes a cursory look at the conflict-of-interest guidelines, and interestingly enough, it identifies all of the issues that are important. It then refuses to take the time to discuss them and analyse them and put them into some perspective, and it does not try to make them better.
These guidelines were given to us as guidelines, with a mandate to review them and to make them better. We have not made a single attempt to make these guidelines better. We have merely gone through the guidelines and said, "All in favour," and six or seven government members would put up their hands and that section would be passed and we would move on to the next section. I applaud the government members because they took their orders from whoever was giving the orders and they put not a single iota of work, of commitment and imagination, into making these guidelines better than what was given to us.
I think the Premier will be disappointed when he sees that all he receives back is a rubber stamp of guidelines that he himself knows are far from perfect and that he himself knows should have been discussed at length, with attempts made to make these guidelines better so that if they are ever enacted they will work. But the committee decided it did not want to do that. They just decided to ram these guidelines through as they were presented. You can all be satisfied that you get an A for your effort. You did exactly as you were told by someone, I gather, and you just rammed these things through holus-bolus, without a single change suggested in one single section of guidelines, which I think were some 25 sections in all.
It is interesting in appendix A that we have the commissioner's proposed amendments to sections 12 and 13 of the members' conflict-of-interest guidelines. We never discussed sections 12 or 13. I do not know why they found their way into appendix A, but we never so much as opened the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in the whole time this committee met.
I might add as well that we had all kinds of consternation on the government side about how long we had spent on these guidelines. Up until 7 May, which was approximately the time that the bells in this place started to ring for budget purposes, we had met exactly five times to hear witnesses; five times we sat down and listened to witnesses. Then the government members tried to tell us how many days we had spent deliberating on a section-by-section basis. The fact is that we never deliberated on a section-by-section basis. So if there is an attempt here by the government members to say that time was being wasted, it was not. We met five times, we heard evidence from people on those five occasions, and then we did not meet for one month. We then spoke for a couple of weeks about this matter and rammed the sections through as they were written.
Certainly I do not take any satisfaction in the job that was done here. The job was a poor job. You have not answered the mandate of your Premier in providing him with any meaningful analysis and critical examination of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Mr Carr: I was just going to say how the mood of this committee changed. Back when the Premier came in and the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board and the minister responsible for native affairs, during that period of time there was the --
The Chair: I am having difficulty hearing Mr Carr with the other conversations.
Mr Sorbara: Are we allowed to turn that television off? Those who want to attend the House should attend the House. Those who want to attend this committee should attend this committee.
Mr Harnick: I note for the record that four out of six members of the government are sitting here watching television rather than --
The Chair: Mr Harnick, you do not have the floor. Mr Carr has the floor.
Mr Harnick: Go ahead, Gary, you can say that. Say that four out of six are watching television, because that is indicative of the way they have approached the whole --
The Chair: Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: I was going to be insulted, but I noticed they had started before I started talking, so it is okay, but I see they have brought some attention back.
Mr Sorbara: If you just turn your back on the guy and watch television, why are you here?
The Chair: Could we allow Mr Carr to speak, please?
Mr Carr: As I was saying, the mood when we started this was much different for those who were here during that time.
Mr Sorbara: This government has become arrogant.
The Chair: Mr Carr, would you please speak, and Mr Sorbara, would you please allow Mr Carr to speak?
Mr Sorbara: Sorry, Gary.
Mr Carr: No, that is fine, go ahead.
During that period of time we had all the cabinet ministers coming in and at that time there had been no problems. None of the scandals had happened at that time.
I was one of the new members who actually believed the Premier when he said he wanted to work in a non-partisan way to improve it. Even as late as a week or so ago when he said, "I want to hear from the justice committee," anybody who had not been here, if you just had been watching question period, you would have said: "This guy is genuine. He really wants to get the input from the justice committee."
As a new member what I find a little bit -- and I guess the word is insulting -- is that you have a Premier who stands up and says that, yet I come into a committee meeting where I watch the government of the day trying to ram things through. So in question period he stands up in answer to a question saying: "I want to hear from the justice committee. They are looking at it and I want to hear and have good input." Anybody who would turn that on would say: "Isn't this terrific? We are having the first input. This is great." Not more than two hours later, I come to a committee where closure is invoked and they are saying: "Whip it through. No input from anybody. We're not going to do this. We just want to get it all behind us. There are too many scandals. When we talk about conflict of interest there are too many opportunities for the opposition to bring up all the people who have left and all the controversy. So we want to get it swept behind us."
I would just like to go on the record as saying that, as you are aware, we will be submitting a report from our caucus on what we believe needs to be done. Of course, it will not matter to the government of the day. As the Premier said, he is the one who is ultimately going to be judged, and believes that to be the way it should be.
I say to the people out there, the worst part is that you hear the Premier saying one thing in question period at 2 o'clock, and then see another thing happen less than two hours later, at 4 o'clock, in reply to questions, and I believe it was from Mr Sorbara --
1630
Mr Mills: Charles is watching TV now.
Mr Harnick: I was looking right at Gary's face.
Mr Carr: -- saying: "I want input. I want to hear from the justice committee." The fact of the matter is, they did not. They wanted to push this through to avoid the controversies, not to do a good job with the conflict, but for one reason and one reason only -- to avoid the political heat that discussing this would represent. Not to get in the best conflict guidelines for the people of Ontario; just to avoid the political heat.
As we sit here today, there is a tremendous amount of political heat, listening to some of the opposition talk about some of the scandals. The government is not going to fall as a result of it, but instead of trying to get the best possible conflict-of-interest guidelines, they try to push things through. The motions that were presented were done to speed things up. As my colleague Mr Harnick said, we did not spend a lot of time on this. We heard submissions from the various cabinet people, and in terms of dates, yes, it started a long time ago, but during that time we had other business come up, and we did not do justice to this important issue.
The Premier of this province said in the throne speech that he wanted to bring integrity back. Quite frankly, I think if he had not said that and then this had happened, there would not be too much of a problem out there. But he tried to trumpet out these guidelines when he thought it was politically correct to do so. As soon as he got burned -- and I guess it was not only once that he got burned; he was getting burned two and three and four and five times. What is it now?
Mr Harnick: We are up to 10.
Mr Carr: Ten. We have had more scandals in this government than we have had bills passed under the first government. We have had more scandals and resignations and conflicts than we have had bills passed. We have had more times when we have dealt with scandals than times when we have had the Lieutenant Governor come in and pass bills.
We have a Premier of the day who will say one thing to try to get political mileage, and then when the public is not looking, when the press is not around, all of a sudden the backroom people, the people on this committee, are going to attempt to push things through. I guess I was one of the naïve people who believed that what you do on these committees counts. Well, it doesn't.
This was done for political reasons, not to try to improve guidelines for the people of Ontario, to bring integrity back. It was done for one reason: to avoid political heat, to sweep it under, to get this passed, to get this through so that we do not have to take any more heat. Let us get the word "conflict" out of the public's mind over the next little while. That is the only reason this was done.
I guess a lot of people originally said that one of the things about the Premier was that he was going to try to change things, but I will tell you, nothing has changed. These types of tactics are probably what has gone on in the past. I was not here during that time, but I was one of the people who honestly and truly thought one of the differences -- in spite of the fact that we differ on ideology and in which direction we are going to take the province -- was that he really meant it when he said he was going to attempt to be different and have more involvement in committees.
The fact is, there is no change. Quite frankly, to sit here and have to go through this and then have the Premier of the province stand up and say, "I want input," and to know that that is not the case just makes me a little more cynical about this whole process.
I wanted to go on record with that, Mr Chair, and say that we will be bringing in a report that hopefully will attempt to do justice. More than anything else, I resent the fact that we are trying to sweep this under the rug for no other reason than political purposes.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this motion?
Seeing no indication, shall the report be presented to the House for adoption of its recommendations?
Mr Sorbara: When the dissent is ready.
The Chair: We have that agreement already. Agreed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: It seems to be the will of the committee that it be presented -- with additional reports, yes.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, just before we leave this matter, if I could, on a point of personal privilege, draw to the attention of members opposite the fact that the resignation from my job as Minister of Health had nothing to do with conflict of interest whatsoever. It was the failure to responsibly carry out my ministerial duties.
Further, I know some of the members opposite are young, but in fact there is a difference between a scandal and a question of conflict of interest, which I believe most people in Ontario can judge to be serious or not serious, in the cases, for example, of the Minister of Northern Affairs and the House leader, and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. For those terms to be used as loosely as they have been here, and in particular in connection with my own case, I would like to be on the record on that matter.
Mr Sorbara: On the point of privilege --
The Chair: It is not strictly speaking a point of privilege, so I do not think it is debatable.
Can we move on to the next point. Shall the committee ask for a comprehensive response from the Premier's office in regard to our submission?
Mr Harnick: No, our submissions.
The Chair: When it is presented to the House pursuant to standing order 36(d).
Mr Sorbara: I would like to speak to that, if I could for a moment, please. In speaking to the question of whether we should ask for a comprehensive reply from the Premier, I guess my own vote would be that we do not do that. I would like to basically end this charade on conflict-of-interest guidelines. This is one case in which I hope the report, along with the dissents, are submitted and then for ever forgotten, because we have not furthered the wellbeing of the province through this discussion.
I am reminded of that most recently in the point of personal privilege raised by my friend the member for Ottawa Centre, where she took offence at something or other.
The Chair: However, it was not a point of privilege.
Mr Sorbara: I am speaking on your motion, sir. I am speaking on the issue that you raised.
The Chair: Please do.
Mr Sorbara: In doing so, I want to say to my friend the member for Ottawa Centre that I thought she, as a minister, was doing a very competent job as Minister of Health. In fact, to the extent that she was responsible for the negotiations with --
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, this is totally out of order, if I may. There is no reason for him to be going on. I raised a point that related personally to me and I pointed out to members opposite it had nothing to do with conflict of interest. Now for him to engage in debate of this nature is ludicrous.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, please return to the question.
Mr Sorbara: Each of the other ministers who has been the subject of some sort of inquiry has basically performed competently, and what we are questioning here is not the -- I would never use the word "scandal," because I do not think they are scandals. I think the issue is the conduct of the Premier on these matters. We are basically reporting back to the Premier.
I have the highest of regard, for example, for the minister responsible for women's issues. In 1987 she ran in the riding right next door to my own, and she was a very competent candidate.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, does this have anything to do with the question which you raised?
Mr Sorbara: To answer that, I am just using this information as a basis for my reasoning that we not ask for a comprehensive response.
We use the phrase "conflict of interest" now not simply to refer to a conflict of interest narrowly defined but to generally refer to standards that apply to ministers and their behaviour, their mistakes, their faults, their shortcomings and how the public deals with those, and now how the government deals with those.
I am not interested in a comprehensive response from the Premier. I think all of us make our mistakes and we pay the penalty. The Premier has shown, I think, particularly over the past couple of weeks, that he does not give a darn about what is in the guidelines, about what this committee thinks, about what the province thinks. He will set his standards as the moment dictates. Someone referred to situational ethics, and I think that is what we are getting from the Premier.
So I hope he does not respond. I hope the report is submitted and it gets chucked in the garbage, because the Premier will do what he wants to do. People will raise questions about the conduct of ministers. It happens in every government and it is a regular part of life at Queen's Park or any other provincial or national government. It is a reality. But what we have here is a Premier who said: "I don't care about precedence, I don't care about standards, I don't care about history. I will make up my own mind as to when ministers have to obey guidelines and when they don't." So my vote is going to be not to ask the Premier for a comprehensive response; in fact, not to ask him for anything other than that the Legislature accept the report and not act on it further.
1640
Mr Harnick: I have to take issue with Mr Sorbara. I, in fact, would like a comprehensive response. Mr Sorbara predicates his not wanting a comprehensive response on the fact that he hopes the report and the dissents will be chucked in the garbage and the issue forgotten. I hope that would happen too. I am not as optimistic as Mr Sorbara that it will happen. I suspect the Premier will go ahead and do whatever he wants, and he has made his intentions quite clear that he wants guidelines, he favours their becoming legislation, and I would be very interested in hearing his comprehensive response only because, as I said before, I believe he wanted more from us than we have given him in the report that is presently before us dated 20 June 1991.
In that I am not optimistic that he is going to throw this material in the garbage and in that he is going to proceed with conflict guidelines and in all likelihood make them law, I would like his comprehensive response, because I would like to have something in writing to hold him to what his beliefs really are. These guidelines were put out by the Premier and they have caused him no amount of consternation so far. Every time he elaborates, it becomes easier to determine what standards he is not going to uphold. So frankly I would like to see what his response is. I would like to see if he wanted something better than what we have given him and I would like to see how he intends, if he intends at all, to make these guidelines better than they were in light of the experience he has had with their usage. He certainly did not get any guidance in terms of altering those guidelines from this committee, and I would hope that he has obtained some guidance in the use of these guidelines in terms of the events over the last nine months, when several cabinet ministers have breached these guidelines and been caught in breach, yet there has been no enforcement.
I must differ with my friend Mr Sorbara. I think it would be useful to see what that comprehensive response is, only because I am not optimistic that this material will be thrown in the garbage.
Mr Morrow: Mr Chair, I am really inquisitive as to some matter. I sat with the members opposite last Thursday and this motion did not come forward. Could you possibly tell me where this motion came from?
Mr Harnick: It came from the Chairman.
Mr Morrow: I am not asking you, Mr Harnick. I am asking the Chair.
The Chair: The motion, Mr Morrow, is compulsory under 36(d), I believe it is, of the standing orders. It is a procedural issue and the clerk can clarify.
Clerk of the Committee: Just to clarify, section 36(d) says, "Within 120 calendar days of the presentation of the committee report...the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response." We are just trying to determine whether the committee is requesting that the government table a comprehensive response.
Ms Gigantes: I do not see any point in asking for a comprehensive response. I think that at this stage the government will decide what form the legislation will take and when it will be brought in and we will just proceed on that basis. I do not see any point in asking for a response.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this question? All in favour of the request being made for the government, in this case the Premier's office, to prepare a comprehensive report within 120 days? All those opposed?
Motion negatived.
Mr Sorbara: You guys are opposed as well? At least ask for it, Evelyn.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: We now have in front of us the report from the subcommittee, which I will read into the record.
"Your subcommittee met on -- "
Mr Sorbara: Dispense.
The Chair: No, we cannot.
"Your subcommittee met on Thursday 20 June 1991 and agreed to the following:
"1. As per the schedule agreed upon by the House leaders and the whips, the committee will hold public hearings on Bill 115 during the weeks of 29 July, 6 August, 12 August and 26 August.
"2. The committee will conduct clause-by-clause examination of Bill 115 during the week of 16 September 1991.
"3. Assuming proper accommodation and travel arrangements can be arranged, the committee will travel to the following locations: Thunder Bay, Sudbury, North Bay, Collingwood, Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Windsor, London, Hamilton.
"4. Groups and individuals who request shall have their expenses paid to enable them to attend hearings in the closest centre."
"5. The committee will attempt to meet Mondays through Thursdays during the daytime only. Should it be necessary to schedule additional meetings, these meetings will be scheduled in the evenings before they will be scheduled on Fridays.
"6. An advertisement will run in every English daily and French weekly newspaper during the first week of July.
"7. Groups will be afforded one half hour for their presentations, and individuals, 15 minutes.
"8. Committee hearings will begin exactly at the time scheduled, whether or not there is representation from all three parties.
"9. The committee will commence consideration of Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 following Bill 115. The committee will advertise for the above-mentioned bills early in July to afford groups substantive notice."
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I would strike out the word "exactly" in 8 if I were you. Does the committee hearing not happen if for some reason we are two minutes late? Is it a nullity? Is it void for want of that precision? If you just say "will begin at the time scheduled," then you avoid that question. If it is two minutes over, some weirdo like the member for Willowdale may say, "My God, it is two minutes beyond so these committee hearings can't take place."
The Chair: With the committee's agreement, we can strike out the word "exactly."
Agreed to.
The Chair: However, the intent is that the committee will start on time, ie 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock or whatever, and not drift on until 10 minutes past awaiting the attendance of one of the other parties who may not be present.
1650
Mr Harnick: Dealing with paragraph 3, the list of places that the committee intends to be travelling to, it strikes me that only one of those places is really a border city, and that is the city of Windsor.
Ms Gigantes: What about Ottawa?
Mr Harnick: Ottawa is a border city but not in the sense that it is on the Canada-US border. I suspect we should be going to places like Sault Ste Marie, like Cornwall, like St Catharines, because those places are relevant.
Mr Sorbara: Niagara Falls.
Mr Harnick: Niagara Falls as well. Those places are being racked with unemployment. One of the reasons that they are being racked with unemployment is alleged to be the laws on Sunday shopping that presently exist. Is there some reason that the government, which prevails in these things, has not seen fit to include some of the other relevant cities?
I can appreciate that it is very nice to go to Kingston in the summertime when all the boats are out sailing, and we can go to Collingwood because it is a lovely summer resort and people are up there at their cottages, but these other places are crying out to be heard. I cannot believe, if this is going to be a meaningful exercise, you can avoid going to these places. It is obvious that Collingwood will be a tourist attraction and it will fall under the exemption. Those places will have the opportunity to be open. But what about some of the other places? What about Sault Ste Marie, where there are businesses that cannot compete?
On a person's leisure day, which is Sunday, when people are not at work -- if they have a job -- they decide to go across the border to do their shopping. Surely those places should have the opportunity to have the committee come and hear representations if this is going to be a meaningful exercise. I am sure there are many other places that should be heard as well.
St Catharines is not on here. One day I was sitting in line on my way to the United States and I rolled my window down and spoke to the driver beside me, who said he was from St Catharines. He indicated to me -- and this was at a time when no grocery stores or gas stations were allowed to be open in St Catharines -- that he would go down to Buffalo every single weekend because it was cheaper to fill up his tank and it was cheaper to buy his groceries, and all of his stores were closed at any rate. If that is what is happening and Sunday shopping is impacting on that particular aspect of a community's life, surely we should be going to those communities and speaking to those people.
I do not know how you came up with this list. There is nothing wrong with this list, but there should be additional places added that are places of great importance in the Sunday shopping debate. I think this committee should reconsider where it wishes to be going.
The Chair: I think the issue you bring up, Mr Harnick, is a very valid one. However, I think you also are aware that on the subcommittee, every party is equally represented.
Mr Morrow: I am sure, with Mr Harnick's indulgence -- had he been at the subcommittee meeting last Thursday, most of these were agreed to. Also, if you look at the situation, Bill 115 is not a cross-border shopping bill; it is a Sunday shopping bill. They are two distinct and separate issues.
Mr Sorbara: Keep telling them that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Morrow has the floor.
Mr Morrow: We are also going, as I see reported here, to three border towns to actually hear what is being said. I reiterate that Bill 115 is Sunday shopping legislation and amendments to such. Nothing is over cross-border shopping.
Mr Sorbara: In effect, I agree with what Mr Harnick has said about the absence of important communities like Cornwall, Sault Ste Marie, Niagara Falls --
Mr Fletcher: Send it back to the subcommittee.
Mr Sorbara: I say to my friend from Guelph who says --
Ms Gigantes: Send it back.
Mr Fletcher: I am willing to send it back.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: The member for Ottawa Centre says, "Don't bitch; do something positive."
Ms Gigantes: Don't just bitch.
Mr Sorbara: Oh, she corrects me. She says, "You just bitch."
Ms Gigantes: No, I said, "Don't just bitch."
Mr Sorbara: Oh, I see: "Don't just bitch; do something positive." My difficulty with doing that -- I have accepted this list of cities because the Vice-Chairman of this committee has told me in no uncertain terms, just before this meeting, that the government will under no circumstances accept that this committee goes to another border town like Sault Ste Marie or Niagara Falls, so there would be no purpose in sending it back to the subcommittee.
The government members have the majority. If they refuse to go to Niagara Falls or to Sault Ste Marie, so be it. Look, you won the election. You have the majority. You can make those sorts of decisions. I think, in the end, you will regret it.
Mr Morrow: Did you not agree to this just before?
Mr Sorbara: Yes, and I agreed to it --
Mr Morrow: So what is the problem now?
Mr Sorbara: Look, Mark. Do not mess around like that.
Mr Morrow: I am not messing around. You agreed to this just before.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, that is right, and I still agree --
Interjection: You agreed to it, Greg. Now what are you doing?
Mr Sorbara: I agreed to it. I agreed to it on the basis that you said to me, over in those chairs, that under no terms will the government allow this committee to go to another border town. So I agreed. I agreed that if that is what you are saying, then that is what you get.
Mr Morrow: You said this is fine.
Mr Sorbara: That is right. This is fine, and I accept this, and we will live with this, only because you have said -- if you want to move a motion that we go back into the subcommittee or change this, move a motion to amend this to add Niagara Falls or Sault Ste Marie, I tell you, I will support that.
Mr Harnick: Can I make such a motion?
The Chair: No, Mr Sorbara has the floor.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: No, I have the floor, Irene, if you will just --
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: My friend Mr Harnick says while I have the floor, I should make the motion. I am not going to do that, but I invite him to do that, and I would support it.
I support this motion. We have negotiated it. It was negotiated on the basis that the government would not agree to go to any more border cities. You cannot hide that. You cannot pretend that we did not go to Niagara Falls because somehow the subcommittee did not want to. My God, we are going out into the community. When they write you from Niagara Falls and say, "Why aren't you coming here?" you cannot say, "Oh, well, the subcommittee, you know, and Sorbara, they agreed to it, so we didn't want to do it." Look, at least accept the decisions you make.
Interjection: The committee of the whole still has the opportunity --
The Chair: The committee of the whole does not speak; Mr Sorbara does. Mr Sorbara, you still have the floor. You can exercise your right to speak, please.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: I want to make the point, as clearly as I can, that you live with the decisions you make. Now, Mark, I say to you as Vice-Chairman, please do not try to pretend, as we avoid Sault Ste Marie and Cornwall and Niagara Falls, that somehow it was Liberal members or the Conservative members who did not want to go there. Those are the very places we want to go, and I said to our clerk --
Mr Morrow: Windsor, Kingston, Thunder Bay.
The Chair: Well, my friend, if you want to substitute Kingston for Niagara Falls and Sault Ste Marie for, I do not know, Collingwood or North Bay, that is great. Listen, please do not try to get involved in a charade now. Accept the fact that you do not want to bring this committee to Niagara Falls. I think we are going to have a motion here to add Niagara Falls and Sault Ste Marie and Cornwall to the list. And you know what? You are going to vote against it.
Mr Chiarelli: Open government.
Mr Sorbara: Or if you just get the floor and make remarks that the government has decided, in its wisdom, not to go to those communities, I accept that. Yes, Mark, you are right. I accept this list, because I can count, and I count over here five members who would like to go to those cities, and seven members who are going to prohibit it. Do not give me that nonsense that we are not going to Niagara Falls and we are not going to Cornwall and we are not going to Sault Ste Marie because somehow we agreed to it. That is scandalous; it is outrageous to suggest that in this committee. That is the very thing that has poisoned the atmosphere of this committee. Look, you make a motion, my friend, substituting or including Niagara Falls, and you have my support.
1700
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: And you still do have my support, but I will give you even more support if you amend it.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chair, and I think it is an important point of order: What has been said here is that there is an agreement on the table to go to these places. That agreement is an agreement of the subcommittee. The subcommittee brings that agreement to this whole committee and it is the whole committee that then has the opportunity to decide whether we do or do not accept what the subcommittee says.
I object to the fact that people are pointing the finger at me and saying I have agreed to these places. I was not at that subcommittee meeting. My colleague Mr Carr was. He did not agree to those cities. He was outvoted, and now one who was on that subcommittee, namely, the Vice-Chairman of this committee, is trying to tell us that because that was a decision made by the subcommittee that therefore the decision --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: I am not finished. I am speaking to a point of order and it is a valid point of order, and you as Chairman have no right to cut me off until I am finished.
The Chair: Yes I do, sir.
Mr Harnick: No, you do not. Not if my point of order is a valid point of order, which it is.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, you have made your point.
Mr Harnick: You have no right to interrupt me the way you have. If you want to throw me out, take your sword and throw me out.
The Chair: You have a right to put a point of order, and you did. It is acceptable. Your point of order is taken, sir. What we have is a subcommittee report which is fully debatable and amendable, as you suggested. The issue of whether you were there or not is inappropriate --
Mr Harnick: But as Chairman of this committee and as the person who makes the decisions, I would like you to put it on the record that --
Mr Fletcher: A five-minute recess, Mr Chair.
Mr Harnick: We are not having any recess. I would like you to put it on the record that we have no agreement of this committee as a whole. All we have is a recommendation from a subcommittee, not, as the Vice-Chairman states, that we have an agreement among everybody here and now we are trying to renege on it. That is not the case.
The Chair: That is exactly what a subcommittee report is. It is a recommendation from the subcommittee to the committee as a whole.
Mr Harnick: Maybe you better put it on the record so your Vice-Chairman understands what is going on, because it is clear that he does not.
The Chair: The procedural issue is very clear. You made it, sir. Thank you.
Are we still debating the acceptance of the report? I am sorry, Mr Sorbara, you actually have the floor. You were interrupted on a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: I do have the floor. I think probably --
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to try and bring a bit of reasonableness to this discussion, although my first instinct is to simply allow this thing to degenerate in the same way in which our discussions on conflict of interest degenerated.
If we can just get the government members, through either the whip or the Vice-Chair, to acknowledge that this is the list of cities they are willing to go to, that is fine.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: Derek, you are playing a dangerous game. You are trying to suggest that somehow this is our agenda. It is not our agenda. Just acknowledge that it is --
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: My friend, you are going to get motions to go to Sault Ste Marie and you are going to get 20-minute votes. What you are going to get as well are press releases sent out to Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay saying the government members have refused to allow the Sunday shopping committee to go to those towns. That is what you are asking for. On the other hand, you can forgo all that and simply acknowledge to us that you do not want to go to any more border towns.
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Fletcher says it is the first he saw of this. I would love to hear him say that he is anxious to support a motion to go to Sault Ste Marie and go to Niagara Falls.
Mr Poirier: And Cornwall.
Mr Sorbara: And Cornwall, although I do not think we have to go to every border community. I would substitute Cornwall over Kingston.
If the government members come in here and say, "Look, this is all new. We're just talking here. This is our agenda," then we have to prove their mettle by way of votes.
If I could just know what the speakers' list is, I suspect --
The Chair: You are definitely on it, sir. You are speaking now. Mr Carr, Mrs Mathyssen.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Carr is next. I expect Mr Carr will be moving a motion to substitute some cities for other cities.
I want to tell my friend the Vice-Chairman of the committee that I am prepared to support this subcommittee recommendation. I had a part in this subcommittee recommendation and I am willing to support it, but only on the basis that you not create the charade that the government would have been willing to go to Sault Ste Marie and Niagara Falls but for the will of the committee. Just admit that. Admit in this committee what you said to me over there, which is, "No other border towns."
Mr Morrow: What I said to you, Mr Sorbara --
Mr Sorbara: Look, you do not want to co-operate on this committee and call it like it is. That is too bad, because you are just going to get into more and more trouble. I will say that I will support this and I will consider any motions to amend this that are put before the committee. I am going to want time to consider it if amendments arise.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Niagara Falls and whatever other border towns Mr Sorbara has named --
Mr Harnick: On a point of order: This has nothing to do with --
The Chair: Excuse me. I have not had an opportunity to hear his point of order.
Mr Morrow: People can come from these areas to where we are having the hearings.
Mr Harnick: This is an argument of substance.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, Mr Morrow had the floor. He has an opportunity to speak and for me to rule on that point of order, just as you had, sir. Mr Morrow, did you make your point?
Mr Morrow: I was making the point that people across this province in other areas do have a right to come to where we are having the hearings.
Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I want to apologize for being late. Would the Chairman please indicate to me the exact item that is on the floor now for discussion?
The Chair: The exact item is the subcommittee report.
Mr Chiarelli: Could you give me the wording that is on the floor? Is it a motion? Is it a discussion? What exactly is it we are debating?
The Chair: We actually have not a motion. You are quite right. There should be a motion to accept the subcommittee report. We are discussing the subcommittee report but there is no motion on the floor. You are procedurally quite right. There should be.
Mr Chiarelli: I was going to put an amendment to the motion, but there is no motion on the floor.
The Chair: Is it agreeable to the committee that we have a motion to accept the report, which could then be amended or whatever? Mr Carr, would you like to make that motion so we could properly discuss the report?
Mr Carr: I was just going to speak to what transpired. When the subcommittee met, we were going to go right from Ottawa to Peterborough, and it was myself who asked: "What about Cornwall? Wouldn't it be nice to go to Cornwall?" As part of a compromise, Kingston came into play.
In the subcommittee, they did not want Cornwall, the border town, all the things we heard about, so in the art of compromise, I said, "We'll make it Kingston to get regional representation so people could come in." When we went farther along, we hit Niagara Falls. I said, "What about Niagara Falls?" Border town. "No, we don't want that." Again, in the interest of compromise I said, "Why not St Catharines?"
There may be logistical reasons the clerk has done this, but North Bay got included. We talked about Sault Ste Marie, and that depended on whether we could fly into Thunder Bay and get out. There were a lot of things that were changed.
When I left, however, we were going to have, as a compromise because they did not want to go to Niagara Falls, at least St Catharines in the Niagara region. We joked about the fact that we were going to be able to go to Mark's house for dinner. As I left, St Catharines was going to be in there to take in that region. We could not get down to Niagara Falls, the border community, so in the art of compromise we would get something in the St Catharines area.
That was on the table for everyone to know, that we did want to go to border towns, but for some reason, because of logistics -- going to Thunder Bay would not allow us to go into Sault Ste Marie -- going to Cornwall was suggested. We did get into that region with Kingston.
I wanted to clarify it, because the assumption was made that none of these spots were brought up. They were. Cornwall was brought up, Niagara Falls was brought up, Sault Ste Marie was brought up, and we ended up with this list. St Catharines got left off. I thought that was going to be in there. I understand there is some reason St Catharines was left off, maybe for logistics or whatever, but I did want to have something down in that area just to cover it.
Those were the understandings in the subcommittee. We were attempting to compromise, knowing the government did not want to go to border towns, but we did want to try to be fair so that if people in Niagara Falls did want to present, they would not have to go all the way to Toronto; they could make a compromise and go to St Catharines. I did want to get that on the record and lay out what transpired.
The Chair: For clarification of this issue, there were some changes from the discussion we had on Thursday. I am wondering if those parts could be clarified by the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee: The discussion we had included places that were subject to hotel accommodation and availability. There were some changes after the meeting. I spoke to one member of the subcommittee, left a message for another member of the subcommittee this morning and did not hear back, and spoke to another member of the subcommittee prior to the meeting. Generally, when there are changes I get all the members to sign off on the changes. That was not done, agreed upon, but that was part of the meeting and subsequent phone calls to subcommittee members after the meeting resulted in this schedule.
Mr Sorbara: Might I put a motion that we adjourn for 15 minutes to try and work this thing out without the shouting and screaming across the floor. Perhaps 10 minutes.
The Chair: Mr Carr can make that motion if he wishes to.
Mr Carr: I make the motion to adjourn for 15 minutes to discuss.
Motion agreed to.
The committee recessed at 1713.
1732
Mr Morrow: I would like to report back. Although the subcommittee tried desperately to come to an agreement, we could not come to an agreement. I would ask that section 3 stand because we feel -- well, not we -- some of us feel Hamilton is close enough for the people of the Niagara region to appear in Hamilton. I would move acceptance of the whole report, Mr Chair.
Mr Chiarelli: I would like to move an amendment. I move that the report of the subcommittee be amended to include as one of the municipalities in section 3 the city of Cornwall.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli moves the inclusion of the city of Cornwall.
Ms Gigantes: Clearly, the committee cannot go everywhere. The drive from Cornwall to Ottawa is not a long one. I am sure there will be enough interest in the Cornwall region to lead witnesses to come to Ottawa, so I do not think it is necessary.
Mr Mills: When this trip was organized, was there not some consideration given to the difficulty of hotel accommodation, flights, buses, etc, which played a major part in this agenda, rather than, as is being suggested, that the government members -- I certainly never saw this until it was put in front of me this afternoon -- had some peculiar input in this? I would just like the comment of the clerk --
Interjection.
Mr Mills: I did not see this until I came in here. I want to know the considerations that were given to this regarding accommodation, travel and meshing in all over.
The Chair: The clerk has already commented, and we have already gone into deliberations about the exigencies of travel. I do not think it is fair to ask her to become involved in what is essentially a committee debate.
Mr Mills: I am just asking if that was part of it.
Mr Poirier: I am personally quite knowledgeable of the situation in Cornwall. Being a geographer, I know the distance between Cornwall and Ottawa is not the distance between Thunder Bay and Ottawa, but I honestly believe, and I want to support Mr Chiarelli's motion, that Cornwall must be included because of the extremely difficult situation there, with the massive number of people going over to Massena. There is more than enough interest in Cornwall in discussing this issue to make a day in Cornwall, as opposed to asking the people from Cornwall to come to Ottawa. This is much too important a dossier to pass Cornwall over.
Mr Harnick: In response to what Mr Mills was saying, I was not at the subcommittee meeting; Mr Carr represented our party at the meeting. But I do know, for instance, that there is some misconception that you cannot get from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie. Well, you can get from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie. You can go on Bearskin Air; you can get a charter that will take you there. Allegedly, and I understand this from the clerk --
Ms Gigantes: You are supposed to be speaking to the motion.
Mr Harnick: I am not speaking directly to the motion. I am responding to what Mr Mills, your member, said. It is indirectly related to the motion, in response to what Mr Mills said.
Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The motion before us deals with the question of whether we add Cornwall to the hearing list.
Mr Harnick: I am getting to that. I am talking about the logistics of travel. The fact is that there is a flight that goes from Thunder Bay right to Sault Ste Marie, just as that flight goes from Thunder Bay to Sudbury. It is the same airline. I point out that all those problems can be avoided with a little planning. Because a place may be difficult to get to or because it may be somewhat difficult to find accommodation on a given day is no reason to avoid areas that are being very hard hit by the Sunday shopping legislation. One of those places is obviously Cornwall; one of those places is Sault Ste Marie. The fact that it may be difficult, and I think Mr Mills can appreciate what I am saying, is not a reason to ignore the citizens who live in those particular towns and cities.
Mr Chiarelli: We are speaking to my amendment, which is to include Cornwall on the itinerary. I have just looked through the very tentative agenda and it indicates four hearing days in Toronto before clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. This issue affects the whole province very significantly. I believe eastern Ontario should be better represented in terms of the travel time of this committee. That is one reason I am suggesting the border community of Cornwall.
Second, I did have the opportunity to speak to the member for Cornwall, Mr Cleary. He is tied up in another committee, but he did want to express his wish very strongly that this committee go to Cornwall, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Cornwall is being absolutely ravaged by this recession, free trade and cross-border shopping. This particular community could not be in more economic dire straits, Elliot Lake included. It is just dying on its feet. If for no other reason than to give these people an opportunity to participate in a matter of important concern to their economy, the issue of Sunday shopping, which is a significant component of the cross-border issue, out of fairness and equity to that community I would think we would consider the committee going to it, rather than suggesting that these people, who are economically strapped, travel all the way to Ottawa to participate in a hearing.
Those are the main reasons I have moved my amendment, and I hope the members on the government side would give this particular motion some due consideration.
1740
Mr Carr: As I mentioned originally in the subcommittee, I wanted to include that particular area. The feeling, as you know, was that we were going to bypass that complete area and go from Ottawa through to Peterborough, which would have left that entire region out. I think it would be easy to do from a logistics standpoint.
But rather than expense to those who wish to appear, I think we are talking about the time involved. As you know, we will not be sitting during the evening, so we are asking anybody who does have a job to take time off work. With the travelling as well, basically an individual is going to have to take the entire day off. If we go directly into some of the communities like Cornwall, they might have to take off only the time to make their submissions.
So I think, as I originally wanted, we need to include that. With the concerns down there, I suspect we are going to get a lot of inquiries from people wanting to come in and I think that is an area that should be included.
Mr Sorbara: I regret we could not work this out during our recess. I am going to support the motion to amend the list of cities to which we are going to travel to include Cornwall -- I think it would be a good idea -- although if that motion is defeated I am going to support the motion if it just includes the cities that are here.
I had thought we could come to a compromise which would have us spend half a day in St Catharines. That could fit into the day we are in Hamilton or the following day, when we are scheduled to be in Toronto all day. I think that would have worked and that kind of compromise still can work, but it may well be that we are going to have to consider this motion on its merits and perhaps hold the vote when we come back tomorrow and see if over the evening we could not, with some judicious phone calls -- I have yet to receive a phone call from anyone on this committee other than the Tory members trying to work things out, but I am still hoping. Or tomorrow during the day we could maybe have a chat before we get down to see if we can work out an arrangement.
I for one would like to go to one or two more border communities, because for those communities, although cross-border shopping is not Sunday shopping, the issue of Sunday shopping is particularly relevant.
If the government does not want to do that, I can understand. I accept that. I regret it, but I accept it. It is part of the authority you have as a result of winning the election. You have the ability to say, "No, we're not going to go to any more border communities." Let's not hide, though, behind logistics, hotel arrangements, airplane arrangements or any of that stuff. If you want to go to more border communities, you can and we can. If you do not want to go to more border communities, you do not have to because you ultimately get to call the shot. There is a deal here, and I think the deal is for the government to yield in one, perhaps even two, circumstances.
Mr Morrow: I asked you to deal. You said no.
Mr Sorbara: He wants to interject, does the Vice-Chairman. He says he wants to deal, for some reason, by ditching North Bay and including Timmins. There was no reason given to me for that. I do not understand why that change is requested, so I do not accept it. I understand why the request for St Catharines has been made, and I would support it. If that request fails, I support this deal I have already signed on to, but I want to tell the members of the government on this committee that they can satisfy our Conservative friends here by one or two more concessions to get not right to the border -- we are not going to have hearings at the Customs gate -- but communities for whom Sunday shopping is a particular problem.
Derek Fletcher says no more concessions. Maybe there are no more concessions. Let's have a 20-minute bell on this thing and think about it overnight.
The Chair: We have a vote tomorrow afternoon. We are adjourned until tomorrow after routine proceedings.
The committee adjourned at 1746.