CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Tuesday 7 May 1991
Conflict-of-interest guidelines
Anthony Perruzza
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitution: Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mr F. Wilson
Also taking part: Mammoliti, George (Yorkview NDP)
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1630 in room 228.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
Resuming consideration of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Chair: We would like to resume our hearings into the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Although Mr Harnick and Mr Carr are absent, the clerk states that Mr Harnick, the Tory whip, has communicated with her and indicated that we can proceed in their absence.
ANTHONY PERRUZZA
The Chair: We have with us Anthony Perruzza, who will be our first witness this afternoon, as the House proceedings took up the time of Mr Allen and Ms Ziemba. Mr Perruzza, do you have a prepared statement or would you simply like to go ahead with questions?
Mr Perruzza: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is very nice to be able to take the time to participate in the discourse with you here this afternoon. I am not quite sure why I am here. I suspect that will become clearer and clearer, hopefully, as your meeting proceeds and so on. I am basically at your disposal and hope I can participate fully in the discussions with you.
The Chair: In the absence of the representatives of the third party, which I hope is a temporary absence, I would suggest that perhaps we could start with you, Mr Sorbara, then go on to the government caucus and allow time for the third party, hoping they will return.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to thank Mr Perruzza for agreeing to testify before the committee. I want to begin by putting on the record what position he currently holds in the government of Ontario. What position do you hold, Mr Perruzza?
Mr Perruzza: I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue and I am the MPP for Downsview.
Mr Sorbara: I guess you were appointed parliamentary assistant on 1 October, shortly after you were elected, when cabinet ministers were appointed and sworn in, and I take it you took the appropriate steps to take up the office of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue. How soon after that did you become aware of the existence of an act affecting you in your role as parliamentary assistant, and specifically, how soon did you become aware of the Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council?
Mr Perruzza: I am not quite sure which act you are referring to.
Mr Sorbara: It is the conflict of interest act. That is what we generally call it around here. Are you aware of the act now?
Mr Perruzza: I do not think I have seen the full act or read the full act. I guess I was contacted, as every other member of the Legislature was contacted, by Judge Evans through a memorandum. I believe at the time it was a letter requesting certain kinds of information from us with respect to properties we owned, our household belongings and things like that. I filled out a very lengthy document for Judge Evans, but I have never fully read the provincial act. I suspect that the provincial conflict of interest act is considerably different from the municipal and school board acts and so on.
Mr Sorbara: So you do not know how this act affects your life as a member of this Parliament?
Mr Perruzza: I am familiar with the general parameters of the act.
Mr Sorbara: Which parameters are those?
Mr Perruzza: I guess, to sum it up it in a nutshell, that one should not use their public office or their public trust for their own personal gain. I am sure that there is a clause-by-clause, line-by-line act that is probably rather extensive, but to be upfront with you, I have not read the act, no.
Mr Sorbara: Now, in the disclosure statement that you submitted to Mr Justice Evans, Commissioner Evans, you disclosed that you owned property at 133 Phillip Avenue in Scarborough. Is that your home?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: That is where you live right now?
Mr Perruzza: I live there sometimes. It is currently under renovation.
Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. Where do you live?
Mr Perruzza: I share my time between my parents' home, which is at 46 Rowntree Mill Road, North York, and some of my time I stay at 133 Phillip Avenue.
Mr Sorbara: Did you disclose 133 Phillip Avenue as your place of principal residence?
Mr Perruzza: Yes. It is my home.
Mr Sorbara: Do you rent it out as well?
Mr Perruzza: No.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. And you also disclosed that you own farm land, part lots 19 and 20, concession 1, township of Vespra, county of Simcoe, being parts 1 and 2, plan 51R-18668, county of Simcoe, a 5% interest. Is that all one piece of land? I am not familiar with legal descriptions. Is that all one piece of land?
Mr Perruzza: To be quite honest with you, I believe it is a farm land. I do not know exactly where it is.
Mr Sorbara: How big is this piece of land?
Mr Perruzza: In terms of acreage, I am not──
Mr Sorbara: A rough guess.
Mr Perruzza: Eighty acres.
Mr Sorbara: And you have a 5% interest in that?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: Who has the other 95% interest?
Mr Fletcher: None of your business.
Mr Perruzza: To be quite frank with you, I am not sure who the other owners in the property -- I know who the owners are in the group that owns a portion of that property; I think the total amount is roughly 20%. I own, I guess, 20% of that 20%, which is 5% on the overall property.
Mr Sorbara: When did you receive a copy of the Premier's guidelines affecting cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, the guidelines dated Wednesday 12 December?
Mr Perruzza: I guess I received them along with every other member or parliamentary assistant or minister that received them. I did not note the date that I had received them. I guess if they are dated December, I probably received them around that time.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. And have you read the guidelines?
Mr Perruzza: I have read those guidelines, yes.
Mr Sorbara: Do you know what the guidelines say in respect of the divesting of assets?
Mr Perruzza: Verbatim, I cannot recite them.
Mr Sorbara: In your own words, what is your understanding of what the guidelines say in respect of the divesting of assets?
Mr Perruzza: They basically suggest, I guess, that one should not hold properties where one could be seen, or perceived to be seen, as being in a conflict.
Mr Sorbara: Just to help you out, section 15 says that ministers are required to divest themselves of assets, and there is no qualification of --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Even though we are minus the third party here, I do believe that we are still, timewise, under five, five and five. Is that not correct?
The Chair: No, we have half an hour, so it will be 10, 10, 10.
Mr Morrow: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara would still have some four minutes left, minus five seconds. Mr Sorbara.
Mr Morrow: Thank you for clearing that up.
1640
Mr Sorbara: The guidelines suggest that ministers and parliamentary assistants are to sell these assets, sell assets that they have; not assets that might cause a conflict, but assets generally. Were you ever advised that you should consider selling your 5% interest in this land in the county of Simcoe?
Mr Perruzza: By whom?
Mr Sorbara: By anyone. Did anyone ever suggest to you that you would be required to sell those assets?
Mr Perruzza: Yes. You did in the House.
Mr Sorbara: Did anyone else from the Premier's office or anyone from the administration?
Mr Perruzza: No.
Mr Sorbara: Did you ever take any steps to sell your interest in that land?
Mr Perruzza: I fully disclosed it.
Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that.
Mr Perruzza: I sat down in an interview with Judge Evans and I went through everything with Judge Evans, I guess, as everyone else has had to go through, the parliamentary assistants and the ministers and so on. At that time, I indicated to Judge Evans exactly what my involvement in that property was and he did not tell me that there were any specific problems with it.
I subsequently spoke to people in the Premier's office. They suggested and indicated that there were not any problems with it. Nobody has ever contacted me, either from the Premier's office or from Judge Evans's office, and said there are any direct problems with that particular interest.
Mr Sorbara: You are saying no one from the Premier's office ever contacted you about the requirement in the Premier's guidelines that you should go about selling your interest in that land in the county of Simcoe?
Mr Perruzza: No. Maybe I am not making myself clear to you. Nobody has called me and has suggested or told me that there is a particular problem with a very small investment in a piece of property.
Mr Sorbara: Did anyone from the Premier's office ever advise you that the conflict-of-interest guidelines require you, as a parliamentary assistant, either to sell your interest in that land or get a specific exemption from the Premier?
Mr Perruzza: No one has ever called me and told me that, no.
Mr Sorbara: Did anyone from the Premier's office ever speak to you personally about your disclosure statement or the interest that you revealed in the disclosure statement?
Mr Perruzza: No. Because I guess, as all other members have done and as all other parliamentary assistants and ministers -- I suspect that ministers have done the same thing. I think that in large part they have taken it upon themselves, as I took it upon myself, to walk into the Premier's office and sit down with an individual --
Mr Sorbara: I just want to interrupt you. You said you did walk into the Premier's office?
Mr Perruzza: -- in that office to discuss this as it related to the guidelines.
Mr Sorbara: Who was that individual?
Mr Perruzza: David Agnew.
Mr Sorbara: You spoke with David Agnew?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: What did Mr Agnew say to you about your responsibilities under the Premier's guidelines?
Mr Perruzza: He seemed to feel there was not a problem with that particular small investment as it relates --
Mr Sorbara: Okay, and can I ask you --
Mr Perruzza: -- as it relates to --
Mr Sorbara: No, I understand.
Mr Perruzza: Do you want my answer or do you not want my answer, or do you just simply want to engage me in an answer and then interject?
Mr Sorbara: No, I am sorry.
Mr Perruzza: It is difficult.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you have time for only one more question.
Mr Sorbara: I have a two-part question.
The Chair: You have time for one part of that two-part question then, sir.
Mr Sorbara: You have not gotten any better, have you?
Mr Fletcher: Your time is running out, Greg. Just ask the question.
Mr Sorbara: When did this meeting with Mr Agnew take place?
Mr Perruzza: I guess I have talked to Mr Agnew a couple of times, and not just specifically about this, but I --
Mr Sorbara: I want to know when you spoke with him on this matter.
Mr Perruzza: I believe I spoke to him twice about this, and the first time I cannot -- it was quite some time ago.
Mr Sorbara: Give me a month, suggest to me a month.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Morrow.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak here. Anthony, thank you very much for coming. It is much appreciated. Should the conflict rules apply to all members or only ministers and PAs, in your opinion, please?
Mr Perruzza: I think parliamentary assistants and ministers who are either directly involved in making cabinet decisions and parliamentary assistants to some degree who cannot be involved in cabinet decisions -- there should be some clear rules that cover them in that. Again, I talk about what is real and what is a perceived conflict. I think you have to take certain steps to restore public confidence in public officials. That has been badly damaged. So for ministers and parliamentary assistants, I am quite comfortable with these rules.
I do not know whether they should be extended to MPPs, either government backbenchers or opposition backbenchers. Certainly there should be some clear rules of conduct for them as well, because they do interact with the civil service and so on and they can access certain government agencies and that kind of thing. So there should be some rules for them as well, but I suspect you do not have to go as far as some of these stipulations.
Mr Morrow: Thanks, Anthony. I just have one more quick question and then I will turn the floor over to my colleagues. Do you think the requirements for divestiture, with the exception of cases of hardship, would discourage good candidates from seeking office?
Mr Perruzza: I am sorry?
Mr Morrow: Divestiture.
Mr Sorbara: In other words, if you had to sell everything in order to serve, would that discourage people from running for Parliament?
Mr Morrow: Good candidates from running. Thanks, Greg. I appreciate that.
Mr Sorbara: Just trying to be helpful. I am very fond of you, Mark.
Mr Perruzza: I guess I could see both sides of that, but no, I think if someone is fully interested in serving the public and gaining and sustaining a certain level of trust with the public, he should not have a problem. You cannot serve two masters, really.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, can I ask a supplementary on Mr Morrow's question?
Mr Fletcher: Thanks for being here, Mr Perruzza. Just one or two questions and then perhaps you can --
Mr Sorbara: Why are you guys protecting him? We are supposed to be having an inquiry.
Mr Fletcher: You have had your turn and now it is our turn. We will come back to you. Do not worry.
Thank you, Mr Perruzza. Just a couple of things. Do you feel the Premier's guidelines are a little too tough, too hard on parliamentary assistants; divestiture and getting rid of everything?
Mr Perruzza: No. I think we can well live within the rules that are established, and again, I stress public confidence in the public representatives. It is very low and I think we have to do our best to bring that back up. You need some very tough, firm rules to do that.
Mr Fletcher: I think in the guidelines it does say that members should divest themselves of all properties and holdings, and you have not done this. Is it your view that disclosure is good enough, that disclosure is all that is needed, that we do not need divestiture of holdings?
Mr Perruzza: It seems to me that if you read these guidelines closely, there are some allowances in them, although divestment is a good thing. When I originally bought that small share in that piece of property, it was basically an investment in my future. I bought it at a time when the market was relatively good and sound in terms of prices. To simply have to get rid of it today, I suspect I would not fare very well, not only in that the market has bottomed out -- but I am not getting the gist of your question, though.
Mr Fletcher: I will get back to that. I would like to move a 20-minute adjournment.
The Chair: I think we have to recess at this point in any case. I am wondering, Mr Perruzza, if you would be available in a quarter of an hour to return.
Mr Sorbara: Mark, no signalling note to the chair. Let Mr Perruzza answer the question about whether he is going to be able to return.
Mr Fletcher: I agree with you.
Mr Perruzza: Am I going to be available?
The Chair: Would you be available in 20 minutes?
Mr Perruzza: I consented willingly to appear before your committee and discuss with you conflict-of-interest guidelines. I was not aware at the time when I gave my consent that I would be testifying or that it would be an inquisition of any sort. But, yes, I have availed myself. I have slotted time in my schedule for you and if you call me back in 20 minutes, then I will be back here in 20 minutes.
The Chair: Thank you. We are recessed for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1651.
1705
The Chair: We are resuming our hearings in regard to conflict of interest. Mr Perruzza has agreed to return for a further 10 minutes. We had still a few minutes left in the government caucus. I suggest that we then proceed to divide the remaining 10 minutes in half if the third party's representatives do not appear. Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Oh, I am sorry. Mr Fletcher, you did call for a recess, so you were not finished, sir?
Mr Fletcher: I had the floor, but I will defer.
Mr Winninger: Do you prefer to be called Anthony or Mr Perruzza?
Mr Perruzza: By you, Anthony is just fine.
Mr Winninger: Anthony, I understand you were a former city councillor, and you have indicated you had to abide by certain conflict-of-interest guidelines in that position. Did you?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And you knew what the general principles of those conflict guidelines were as a city councillor, did you not?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Winninger: Then, when you became elected and you became a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue, you were informed that there were certain conflict guidelines that bound you in that job as well, correct?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Mr Winninger: And you were invited to speak with Mr Agnew, I expect, were you not?
Mr Perruzza: No. I was not invited by anybody. I took it upon myself to go in and speak to Mr Agnew about this.
Mr Winninger: So you were interested in how these guidelines might impact on you and any property or business interest you might have.
Mr Perruzza: Exactly. Yes.
Mr Winninger: You were aware of the general thrust of these guidelines. You described the thrust quite well when you said that any personal interest you might have should not conflict with your public duties incumbent on you in the office you hold.
Mr Perruzza: Exactly.
Mr Winninger: So you spoke with Mr Agnew and you discussed some of the interests you might have that might pose a potential problem. Is that correct?
Mr Perruzza: No, I basically discussed what I had and I discussed with him how he saw them as relating to me in terms of what my interests were, and basically it got left at that. We had a discussion on it and it was felt that there was not a problem.
Mr Winninger: You mentioned earlier that 5% interest that you enjoy in that property in Simcoe, I believe it was. That did not pose a problem. Was it because of the size of the interest, or the use of the property? Do you recall what reason was given why that should be accepted?
Mr Perruzza: I think it was a --
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am trying to follow this testimony, but do I take it that the testimony is that Mr Agnew said that the 5% interest did not pose a problem? Is that the testimony here?
Mr Winninger: Maybe we could clarify that for the sake of Mr Sorbara. Do you recall whether you were advised that this particular interest you enjoy did not pose a problem in terms of the conflict guidelines?
Mr Perruzza: I went in, I explained exactly what my interests were, I guess how they were structured, we had a discussion and he asked me about the property. I explained to him that it is basically in trust and I have no real decision-making abilities on it in any way and it is a very small investment. It was a small investment made several years ago. After a discussion around that, he basically felt that it was not a problem as it related to the guidelines, because I complied with them to a substantial degree in that it was an arm's-length person holding it and there was no controlling and no decision-making abilities on that property on my part and so on.
Mr Winninger: And perhaps because it was not inconsistent with the public interest that you continue to hold that 5% title.
Mr Perruzza: Exactly. That was my view when I read the guidelines and that is why I went in, to make sure that they did not have a problem with that as well, in so far as it was seen.
Mr Winninger: Was it also agreed that it might cause you undue hardship were you ordered to divest yourself of that small property interest you held?
Mr Perruzza: I think it would pose a bit of a difficult problem in disposing of it, yes.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Winninger.
Mr Winninger: Yes, certainly, Mr Chair.
In fact, you did receive a letter on or about 12 February 1991 which indicated that certain exceptions might be made where there is an owner-occupied property or recreational property. Is that correct?
Mr Perruzza: I received that letter, if it is the letter that was circulated to all parliamentary assistants and ministers, wherein it explains in layman's terms what we should be complying with in terms of our holdings and that kind of thing. I understand there is an exemption part in there, but I guess it was felt that I did not require a specific exemption because I explained fully, I disclosed fully, it was arm's length, no decision-making abilities on it. So I guess I complied with that document.
Of course, you can read that many ways and I suspect that some people have read it basically to include the world. You can include your suits. You own a suit; divest your suit, get rid of it, you should not have one. I would not go that far. I suspect if we all started walking naked, there would be a bit of a problem in that.
Mr Harnick: So you would agree, Anthony -- just carrying on with that -- that these guidelines of divestiture really go too far; they put you in an awkward position.
Mr Perruzza: I guess they can be interpreted and read by different people differently. The way I read them, I really do not see a problem for either parliamentary assistants or ministers of the crown in complying with them, but I guess if and when you read them -- and I have heard you speak on them in the House, as I have heard Mr Sorbara --
Mr Harnick: My time is very limited in the amount of time I have to ask you questions, so I would insist that you provide me with direct answers. What I am saying is, those guidelines, based on what you have told Mr Winninger, have been onerous to the point where it has made your life difficult. Correct? Yes or no?
Mr Perruzza: Well, I think there are many --
Mr Harnick: Yes or no?
Mr Perruzza: There are many things in public life which make your life difficult. Phone calls at midnight can make your life difficult.
Mr Harnick: All right, tell me this. Would the idea of merely disclosing these assets that you had or you have, in your opinion, by making them public and disclosing them, been enough?
Mr Perruzza: The kinds of conflict-of-interest guidelines that I have been used to seeing at other levels -- and I have sat on school boards and municipal --
Mr Harnick: No, I did not ask you about that. Would disclosure of your interests --
Mr Perruzza: Well, I am answering your question, if you will permit me. I do not know how to answer it in any other way.
Mr Harnick: Say yes or no.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think it is painfully clear here that Mr Harnick is badgering the witness, and I think the witness should be allowed to answer his question without being interrupted.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, Mr Winninger. However, Mr Winninger does have a point that one should observe some respect for the witnesses.
Mr Harnick: Seeing as we are not getting anywhere with that question -- you were a North York councillor, is that correct?
Mr Perruzza: And a trustee before that, yes.
Mr Harnick: Ah, a trustee as well. At that time I understand you ran into a problem with the North York council in terms of some stationery that you purchased.
Mr Perruzza: Well, depending on how you see that. I do not have any --
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order: This has nothing to do with the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the Premier has put forward, and that is what we are discussing.
Mr Harnick: I have a point of privilege here.
The Chair: That is not a point of order; however --
Mr Perruzza: I will answer his question. I have no problem with that.
Mr Harnick: I have been given 10 minutes, and Mr Fletcher has indicated that this has nothing to do with it. I advise Mr Fletcher to read guideline 4, and --
The Chair: You still have that 10 minutes.
Mr Harnick: I would like some time given back to me if I need it.
The Chair: That time will not be deducted.
Mr Harnick Thank you. I gather you purchased some stationery that was the cause of some conflict between you and the mayor and other members of the council. Was that correct?
Mr Perruzza: I believe it was May before the election call --
Mr Winninger: On a point of order: Mr Harnick has directed our attention to paragraph 4 of the guidelines, which states, "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny." The time period which Mr Harnick is referring to was long before the election, long before the guidelines were promulgated, and therefore totally irrelevant.
Mr Harnick: I beg to differ, for the simple reason that the North York council still has not received reimbursement for the stationery or for the business cards that were purchased. As long as that cloud is hanging over this gentleman's head, he is in breach of the guidelines.
The Chair: Are we arguing the point of order, Mr Harnick?
Mr Perruzza: Roughly two and a half years into the Liberal government's mandate, as a North York councillor I went ahead and ordered some stationery as I had done the year before. I got a good deal on the paper because it was left over from a fire department mailing, and I believe I got roughly the same quantity of letterhead for about $700, which was considerably lower in terms of the yearly expenditure than the North York council average. The following year --
Mr Harnick: How much stationery did you buy?
Mr Perruzza: It was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 sheets. The following year --
Mr Harnick: When did you order the stationery?
Mr Perruzza: It was about -- well, I am going through the history of it, if you want to listen to it.
Mr Harnick: I do not want the history of it. I want you to answer my question.
Mr Perruzza: I am answering your question.
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order: This is more of a badger than it is anything else. Mr Perruzza did answer the question. He was asked a specific question. He gave a specific answer to the question. Now he is being badgered. I do not think that is the purpose of this committee.
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Mr Perruzza: If you will permit me I will answer your question fully. I bought the stationery, and the cost at that time was about $700. There were about 20,000 sheets, and that is the way I conducted my business. I would run it through the computer, there would be no more costs incurred and I would call all my public meetings and notices and my information notices to the ratepayers with that letterhead.
The following year I ran out in May, two and a half years into the Liberal mandate. Because I suspected I would be there for at least my full mandate, I suspected the Liberals would not -- at that time it was my feeling that they would not call an election until at least their fourth anniversary in office.
Mr Harnick: When did you order your stationery in 1990? In May?
Mr Perruzza: In May, two and a half years into the Liberal mandate.
Mr Harnick: Do you have a date that you ordered it?
Mr Perruzza: Not with me.
Mr Harnick: All right, and when you ordered it had you run for the nomination in Downsview at that time?
Mr Perruzza: Well --
Mr Harnick: Had you run for the nomination in Downsview? The answer is yes or no.
Mr Perruzza: The answer is not yes or no, Mr Harnick, because --
Mr Harnick: Well, is it maybe?
Mr Perruzza: -- you are not familiar with the way the North York print department works.
Mr Harnick: When you ordered the stationery, had you at that time run for the nomination and obtained the nomination as the NDP candidate in Downsview? It is very simple.
Mr Perruzza: In a phone call to the North York print department -- the fellow's name is Wayne --
Mr Harnick: I did not ask you whom you ordered it from. I just wanted to know whether you were nominated. Are you thick?
Mr Perruzza: If you want to get to the bottom of it -- if you want to know what happened --
Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, would you tell him to answer the question?
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, would you answer the question?
Mr Perruzza: I believe that the paperwork on the stationery --
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, will you allow him to answer the question?
Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: In this case it is a valid point of order. Interjections on a committee like this are always out of order. I see the member for Yorkview sitting in the audience. He knows that as a member --
The Chair: The member for Yorkview is free to join us at the table if he wishes.
Mr Sorbara: -- he is free to come up and make inappropriate interjections as a member of the committee, but certainly he is not permitted to interject from the audience. I can see now that he is coming to the table. I will ask him not to interject in the way in which he was interjecting while he was in the audience of this committee. Can we just add some time to Mr Harnick's --
Mr Perruzza: I understand what Mr Harnick is saying. He does not want a full explanation. He just basically wants answers -- and I will answer it -- that fill his own particular agenda.
The Chair: The question, please, Mr Perruzza.
Mr Perruzza: The answer to his question is that the paperwork on the stationery I believe went in the same day, I guess in the day, and I got the nomination to run as an NDP candidate in the provincial election that night.
Mr Harnick: So you knew you were running for the nomination before you ordered the stationery. Is that correct?
Mr Perruzza: When I ordered my stationery, there was another year and a half left in my term of office at North York and we were two and a half years into the Liberal mandate. I figured the Liberals would go at least into their fourth year, or the anniversary of their fourth year, by which time I would have lived out my mandate as a municipal councillor in the city of North York. I probably would have sent you a notice in the meantime as well, because you live in the city of North York and sooner or later you would have ended up on my list and I would have provided you with some valuable information about city functions and city business. If I did not get an opportunity to do that, I regret it.
Mr Harnick: That would mean that you were probably the only NDP member who did not have any inkling that they might be calling an early election. Is that correct?
Mr Perruzza: I think if you have been in public life for some time and if you have been following --
Interjections.
Mr Morrow: Come on. Do not be silly.
Mr Perruzza: If you have been involved in public life for some time, those things are fuelled all the time.
Mr Harnick: You want me to call him "thick" again?
Mr Mammoliti: Call him "thick" again.
Mr Harnick: Mr Mammoliti has asked me to call you "thick" and I am going to call you "thick" again to satisfy Mr Mammoliti. Now, if I can ask you the next question --
Mr Perruzza: Can I ask you what that means?
Mr Harnick: No. You can ask him. He seems to know all the answers.
Mr Perruzza: But you are calling me the name. What does that mean?
Mr Harnick: The next question I want to ask you is whether you used any of that stationery or those business cards in the election campaign or in the period between the time you were nominated and the time you were elected.
Mr Morrow: Point of order.
The Chair: Mr Morrow on a point of order.
Mr Morrow: Can I ask that we recess to walk back into the House to vote, please?
The Chair: I would suggest that we do recess for 10 minutes, at the end of which time, if Mr Perruzza would be willing, Mr Harnick still has a couple of minutes and Mr Rizzo, if he wishes, can pose questions.
Mr Harnick: May I go on the record for just a moment? I am finished with my time and I will give the balance of it to Mr Sorbara.
The Chair: Okay. We are recessed for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1724.
1736
The Chair: I would like to resume if we can. Mr Perruzza, in the absence of Mr Rizzo, it seems we have no further questions, and I believe all three caucuses have used their respective times. Thank you very much for coming to join us and for being so generous as to return. Hopefully we will see you soon in the House again.
Mr Mills: I would like to say, Mr Chairman, that when people have nothing to hide they readily appear before the committee. I think that was very evident in your appearance here, Mr Mammoliti.
The Chair: Before you leave, though, there is one point which one of my colleagues brings to my attention. I am not sure where it derived from, but abusive language to other members or to witnesses is totally out of order and inappropriate.
Mr Carr: I missed it. Who called who what?
The Chair: You were not here, sir.
Mr Carr: What did they call him?
The Chair: I will not repeat it; that only gives it more credence. I am not sure where it derived from; however, it was repeated, and I would advise people not to debase themselves to that point of using such language. Thank you, Mr Perruzza.
Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. That comment, coming from Mr Harnick, and seeing how he is from North York, I have had considerable experience of some individuals who are far better than he who have called me a lot worse, so I take it with a grain of salt.
The Chair: Regardless, it should not happen here.
Mr Perruzza: I recognize there is a line and we should not step over that. Thank you very much. I hope I was of help.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Perruzza.
Interjection.
The Chair: You had more than your time initially, sir.
Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. You are not leaving, are you?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, just as we recessed --
The Chair: We were out of time. We had used more than half an hour.
Mr Sorbara: Can we ask the witness if he is willing to stay for a few more minutes? I just have a few more questions.
The Chair: We have some important instructions to the researcher at this point and I have to do that.
Mr Sorbara: I have three more minutes of questions. I just ask the witness if he would be willing to stay for three more minutes of questions.
The Chair I would defer to the committee, but I believe we have spent more than half an hour with Mr Perruzza, who has been more than --
Mr Sorbara: I ask you once again to ask the witness whether --
The Chair: I am not sure I want to leave that determination to the witness alone. I would open that question to the committee. We have an important piece of business in Parliament. Mr Perruzza was scheduled for half an hour.
Mr Sorbara: Then I put it to the committee. Is there some reason why the members of the committee do not wish Mr Perruzza to testify for three more minutes?
Mr Mammoliti: Time is up.
Mrs Mathyssen: I believe we had some instructions to give to the researcher.
Mr Sorbara: I would be willing to forgo instructions. I do not know what you are hiding, but, believe me, I am not going to reveal something in my --
Mrs Mathyssen: These kinds of tactics are simply not going to work. You know we have nothing to hide. That has been made very clear by virtue of the fact that Mr Perruzza has come here and stayed overtime. The point is that we have come to that point in the day where we have to give instructions to the researcher. Case closed.
Mr Sorbara: Can I ask you once again if you will invite the witness to join us for three more minutes?
The Chair: I have invited the witness to return on two occasions. The witness has spent more than the allotted half-hour. I think it would require the agreement of the committee as a whole if we were wishing to extend that time. We have other business in front of us. It does not seem as if we have that agreement.
Mr Carr: The only thing is that Mr Harnick thought there was some time left.
The Chair: Mr Harnick was not here at the outset, though.
Mr Carr: He thought there was some time left for the questions, so if we are going to go into instructions I would just like to see if I could get hold of him to come back too.
Mr Sorbara: Once again, Mr Chairman, before we adjourn, you suggested that you were going to provide some time for Mr Rizzo. Mr Rizzo is not here. Mr Perruzza has been a very co-operative witness. I assure you that I have no intention of embarrassing him. If you do not invite him to stay --
The Chair: Should we recess for a few minutes so that Mr Harnick can be alerted?
Mr Sorbara: No, I think we should just carry on with instructions.
The Chair: Okay. How shall we proceed? Ms Swift.
Ms Swift: I have provided the committee with a revised summary of recommendations which includes the commissioner's recommendations to the committee on his last appearance; that was last week. I also provided the committee with a range of alternative recommendations that have been proposed by the witnesses during the course of hearings. You will notice that in this most recent document I have given you I have used the issues and concerns that surfaced from the discussions and testimony of the witnesses and have added to them in an abbreviated form the recommendations I have made.
I suppose one way of proceeding is to follow the outline of that range of alternatives and simply go through and have the committee discuss and provide recommendations under those various headings. If that meets with the approval of the committee, then that is fine; we can proceed that way. If you want to deal with the issues in a different order, that is fine. I leave it to you.
The Chair: Okay. Any discussion?
Mr Sorbara: In the absence of any direction from the government members, I would recommend, based on the evidence we have heard, that the report concentrate on the lack of independent evidence, that is, evidence from non-politicians, that the guidelines as proposed by the Premier are reasonable and, as the report set out that there was very little evidence of a political nature supporting the guidelines as proposed by the committee, that the report conclude with the recommendations that the Premier not implement his guidelines and that no further work be undertaken with a view to putting the guidelines into some sort of legislated form.
Is there any other business? I would move adjournment if there is no other business.
The Chair: Did you just move adjournment?
Mr Sorbara: Well, there are no other instructions.
The Chair: You came up with the suggestion. Mr Carr was going to get Mr Harnick for instructions.
Mr Sorbara: No, that was on the Perruzza matter. Mr Harnick agrees with me on this matter.
The Chair: I could be corrected, but I believe that was in regard to the guidelines.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, we do not have to adjourn. I will not move adjournment. I have given instructions to our competent researcher and I take it that they are not so terribly offensive, so let's get out of here. Let's go home. We have a vote before we go home.
Mr Mills: They are not necessarily the instructions of the committee.
Mr Sorbara: I am inviting other members of the committee to give instructions if these are not acceptable.
The Chair: I am sure that you as committee members have the right to offer debate or suggestions in regard to those suggestions or offer your own suggestions or directions.
Mrs Mathyssen: We have the list of issues and concerns and basically the chronological progression through the guidelines. I suggest we begin at the beginning and go through in that logical, chronological way.
The Chair: What are you are suggesting?
Mrs Mathyssen: That we have the list of issues and concerns and that we begin there and simply go through that list of concerns in a logical progression.
The Chair: And the list is as the researcher has already presented to you?
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, as the researcher has recommended.
The Chair: Does that agenda meet with the approval of other committee members? Mr Sorbara? Mr Carr?
Mr Sorbara: So long as the directions I have just put forward are incorporated into that in one way or another, that is fine. I agree with Mrs Mathyssen. We could do that and then the conclusions I have suggested.
The Chair: Mr Carr, Mrs Mathyssen suggests that we use the guidelines for discussing this as the researcher has already provided us, that is, the guidelines for reviewing the guidelines. That is this document you were just handed.
Mr Carr: Yes.
The Chair: Should we start now? Having only 12 minutes, we would have to recess.
Mrs Mathyssen: Would you like to start now?
Interjection: Where do we start?
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, let's begin. Let's get something done today. We will begin with the purpose, shall we not? All right. The underlying purpose of the guidelines: I believe if you would go back to the original document, you will see that the purpose is:
"To increase public confidence in the integrity of government, the following guidelines impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants more stringent standards of conduct than those imposed by existing conflict-of-interest legislation and policies."
I would suggest that that is the purpose that the government side would support.
Mr Sorbara: Do I take it then, Mr Chairman, we are going to go through each of these headings and subheadings and have a debate as to what the report ought to say? Is that what the members of the committee are contemplating?
The Chair: What you have agreed to, yes.
Mr Sorbara: Is that what you want to do, Irene? We had offered instructions to --
Mrs Mathyssen: At least I think we should go through them, and if they are not contentious, that is fine.
Mr Sorbara: I am perfectly willing to do that. I am perfectly willing to consider each of these subheadings. I would want, though, the main emphasis of our report under the purpose of the guidelines to stress certainly the penultimate point, "The guidelines will do little to change public perception," and the final point as well, that "Public perception will never be satisfied either by the existing act or the guidelines."
If I could embellish my point somewhat, it was I guess several months after the first publication of the guidelines, presentation of the guidelines in the House to us as legislators, along with an announcement by the Premier that he wanted to restore integrity to the process and the profession of public service, that a number of government ministers started to run into trouble. It was clear, at least in my experience of the past few months, that there has not been an increase in the sense among the general public that there has been any restoration of the integrity of politicians. If politicians behave with integrity, my sense is that the public in a democracy will see that they are behaving with integrity.
If, for example, you take the case of Mike Farnan, as just as one example, it is a case that virtually every editorial writer in the province agreed should result in Mr Farnan not losing his integrity, but just stepping aside for a while, while a police investigation by the RCMP is conducted. There is no shame in that. The shame is in insisting that you can, under any circumstances that a Premier or that a minister determines, stick around as a minister.
My respect for Mike Farnan has been reduced. I will tell you the truth. Mike Farnan used to be my critic when I was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and we had a very good relationship and I find him to be a very honourable man. I cannot understand why he will not step aside in the midst of this investigation -- same with the Minister of Community and Social Services.
When you add on to that the fact that for some reason Kormos is thrown out of cabinet, and we cannot quite yet figure out what he did or did not do, and you compare that with the others, it is stuff like that that gives rise to some question about the integrity of ministers.
We are talking about the purpose of these guidelines. I do not care what you put into the purpose of the guidelines, although I think it would be erroneous to suggest that as a result of these guidelines the public will have greater confidence in the ministers and the parliamentary assistants that are in charge of the government of Ontario.
I would like to get our final recommendation to our researcher as quickly as possible. I would like to do that today. If we will agree that the conclusions that I proposed are acceptable ones, I think the rest is something that could be left to the researcher. On that basis I will complete my arguments on the first issue, which is purpose.
1750
Mr Carr: One of the concerns I have is what Judge Evans raised in this very chair last week when we were discussing public perceptions. I do not know what the exact wording was, but he said: "What is public perception? How can we judge that?" He said that, as a former judge, it is very difficult to do that.
The concern I have is that we put those lines in to increase public confidence and the integrity of government, and I think they are just there for show because they really do not mean much. I like the wording that is there; that the public perception can never be satisfied, but the purpose ought to be to set out ways of dealing with the impropriety, should it occur, instead of trying to create a system to prevent it from occurring. That is the major thrust of what the judge was saying when he appeared before us.
The other line that I think -- words to the effect of what he said -- is the only purpose is to serve to create false expectations, that it might be meaningful. I think we should listen to Judge Evans and some of his recommendations and try to take out all the wording that is really only there to try to make us politicians feel better. When you look at what the purpose would be, points 1, 2, 3 and 4 ought to set out ways of dealing with any of the problems, should they occur, instead of trying to create a system to prevent them. That is the only thing I would add, Mr Chair.
Mr Winninger: Just by way of instructions, certainly the purpose in the guidelines is very felicitously set forth and in fact expanded on by a number of the ministers and our Premier who spoke and whose comments have been distilled by the research staff. Certainly we need to encourage public confidence in the integrity of government, and in the past we have had a conflict of interest act. On the other hand, we have had ministers in the past -- not in this government, but perhaps in other governments -- who while they have held cabinet portfolios have had an interest in property where there was actually a lease to the government. Now, what kind of perception would that create in the public mind where you have a cabinet minister who has an interest in property that is dealing with the government? It is exactly this kind of interest that these guidelines go so far towards addressing.
It is one thing to have a conflict of interest act, but it is quite another to ensure that conflicts did not exist, even in the public perception. What these guidelines go towards is removing the potential for conflict of interest and, moreover, the potential for the public perception that there is a conflict of interest. I do not think we need to meddle with the wording of the purpose of the act here because it was very thoughtfully and creatively set down, and I think it reflects a very pressing need.
Mr Sorbara: It is just the very comments like the ones from my friend Mr Winninger that bring disrespect upon the work that we do. His suggestion is that a member cannot serve in the executive council and have an interest in property where there is a lease between the owners of that property and the government of Ontario. That is a direct slander and criticism of my time in the executive council of the Legislature of Ontario. I want to tell --
Interjections.
Mr Winninger: On a point of personal privilege --
Mr Sorbara: Why do you folks not just shut up for a second while I finish, okay?
Mr Winninger: I think I am entitled to make a point of personal privilege.
The Chair: He raised a point of privilege and I do not think that line was necessary.
Interjections.
Mr Winninger: You are the one who raves about democracy, let's talk about democracy. I did not mention the name of any cabinet minister and therefore I think it is stretching it, it is overreaching for Mr Sorbara to suggest that I was slandering him.
Mr Sorbara: That is not a point of privilege. I just want to tell my friend the member for London South that the circumstances he describes apply only to me in the last executive council of the province of Ontario. I want to tell him two things.
First of all, I am very proud of the time I spent in the executive council and the standards which governed my activity. I was routinely shocked by the kinds of allegations that the now Premier used to try and make about me, about my family, about my interests and about my conduct. They were not motivated by fact; they were motivated by an attempt to slander an individual member for crass political gain. The fact is that I --
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I am not sure why you are recognizing Mrs Mathyssen right now. I am in the middle of comments.
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen.
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chairman, I do not really understand Mr Sorbara's point here. I heard nothing from the member for London South that would indicate any kind of slander.
The Chair: I thought it was a point of order you were raising. My apologies. I should not have acknowledged you when you did not raise your hand and say it was a point of order. My apologies. Mr Carr next and Mr Poirier.
Mr Carr: The only point that I was going to make with regard to that is that you can put all the wording in that you want to increase the public confidence, but really what does it, what increases the public confidence is not a lot of wording that is written by politicians. What really affects the public perception is actions. I think what the public is looking for from this group of politicians is not a lot of words, which quite frankly most people do not believe anyway, but rather action. By action, I mean in terms of -- do we have to go for the vote now?
The Chair: I was going to suggest that we adjourn in about two minutes' time, at which time it will be 6 o'clock in any case, so we would not have to worry about the bells. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: I will defer to that then.
The Chair: So you are suggesting we resume on Monday?
Mr Carr: Yes.
The Chair: We are adjourned until Monday after routine proceedings.
The committee adjourned at 1757.