LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO
PEOPLE TO REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING EVERYWHERE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 6 February 1991
Agency review
Liquor Licence Board of Ontario
People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere
Appointments review
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitutions:
Coppen, Shirley, (Niagara South NDP) for Mr Hayes
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC) for Mr Stockwell
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Mr Frankford
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP) for Mr Wiseman
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP) for Mr Silipo
Clerk pro tem: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Pond, David Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 1.
AGENCY REVIEW
Resuming consideration of the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions.
LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Come to order, please. The Chair has been presented with a much larger gavel. I do not know if that is an indication of a lack of order yesterday or what. In any event, our first presenter this morning will be John Bates, the president of People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere.
Mr Grandmaître: Before we get going this morning, is it possible to find out what the total agenda for today is? I know people on the other side have commitments, and I have commitments.
The Chair: It looks like we are going to hear Mr Bates discuss the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, with questions from the committee. There is no time limit on Mr Bates's appearance. I am advised by the clerk that the discussion on process was delayed until today, so the remainder of the morning could be taken up with a discussion of process. I guess the afternoon, as I see it, is open. We can probably conclude this morning.
Mr Grandmaître: Will we break at 12 o'clock or will we go on from 12 until 2? We did not mention that possibility yesterday.
The Chair: We can make that decision when we approach 12 o'clock. If we feel there is still sufficient meat for discussion we can continue, if we have unanimous agreement.
Mr Waters: Yesterday we had said we would go through, but then some people from the other side had luncheon commitments with the chemical industry or something. It was my understanding that we had agreed to break at 12, that we had come to that consensus.
The Chair: That does not present any problem.
PEOPLE TO REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING EVERYWHERE
The Chair: Mr Bates, would you like to proceed?
Mr Bates: First, a background about what PRIDE is. We are a group of concerned citizens, which includes mostly victims of impaired driving. We were formed to further the conviction that impaired driving is criminally unacceptable and to promote appropriate policies, programs and personal responsibility. Our only interest in the consumption of alcohol is the effect it has on impaired driving. Consequently, PRIDE's interest in the activities of the LLBO is limited to the effect its policies play in increasing the incidence of impaired-driving crashes.
We came to the conclusion some years ago that impaired driving is simply a symptom of alcohol abuse; if there were no alcohol abuse, there would not be any impaired driving either. Consequently, we direct our activities at those policies that tend to either increase the availability of alcohol or tend to give young people a distorted view of it, which, of course, lifestyle does.
In our opinion, the LLBO, working under the directions from a cabinet of the previous government has instituted policies which run counter to the best interests of the people of this province. Clearly, if alcohol is easier to obtain then it stands to reason that alcohol abuse is more likely to occur and impaired driving is easier to accomplish.
Let's look at what we are really dealing with here. I think we think this is something like soda pop or something. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Alcohol is a drug. It is as much a drug as cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin or any other drug. It has been observed that if alcohol were newly discovered it would be a schedule S substance. In other words, you would have to go to your doctor to get a prescription to get it. It is listed in the pharmaceutical journals as an addictive, sedative depressant. This is not some harmless consumer product to be sold like a soft drink. Its social costs are 10 times more severe than that of all illicit drugs combined, and many of us do not know that. Just because it is the recreational drug of choice for most of us and it is legal does not in any way make its ravages on society acceptable. "Legal" does not mean harmless.
To take a look at this just by way of background, what does alcohol do? How does it work? Initial relaxation, loss of inhibition, impaired co-ordination, slowing down of reflexes and mental processes -- that is, reaction time -- attitude changes and increased risk-taking to the point of bad judgement in driving a car, flying a plane. Acute overdoses lead to death due to respiratory depression. Its effects are increased by sedative hypnotics.
Its long-term effects include that regular use can cause gastritis and pancreatitis, sclerosis of the liver, certain cancers of the gastro-intestinal tract, heart disease, brain and nerve damage. Upon withdrawal from regular or heavy use, convulsions and delirium tremens may occur.
When we talk about illicit drugs and stuff, we say, "Isn't that awful?" But this is what alcohol does; this is what our favourite beverage does. As we said, it is the recreational drug of choice: 83% of Ontario's adult population use alcohol. Some 9% of the adult population, some 650,000 people, report a serious drinking problem in this province.
Some 6,000 Ontarians died in 1988 from alcohol-related causes, or about 10% of all the deaths in the province were caused by alcohol. Alcohol-related sclerosis of the liver killed 850 Ontarians in 1988, close to 2,000 died from alcohol-related cancers, and 175 from alcohol-dependent syndromes. Adults with alcohol-related problems occur four to seven times more in hospital beds than can be expected in general.
In 1989, 61,000 Ontarians required treatment for drug and alcohol problems, more than double the figure of 1979. The number of treatment programs increased from 130 to 270, with a total cost to us that rose from $44.4 million to $77.1 million.
Alcohol problems result in absenteeism and reduced efficiency in the workplace, costing Ontarians an estimated $1.2 billion a year in reduced productivity. In 38% of all child abuse cases, the perpetrator drank prior to the offence, and 54% of all those convicted of assault, murder or attempted murder had been drinking before they committed the crime.
This is the sad one: Foetal alcohol syndrome is the third leading cause of mental retardation in the world. The third leading cause of mental retardation, and it is 100% preventable. Ridiculous, if we allow this to go on.
Alcohol is involved in 40% to 50% of all fatal traffic crashes, 40% of all boating deaths and 65% of all snowmobile fatalities. Impaired driving is the single largest killer of our youth. Still we let it go on.
There were 137,399 alcohol-related legal offences in Ontario in 1989. There are over 17,000 alcohol-related automobile crashes in Ontario annually. It just keeps on going on.
The average BAC, blood alcohol count, of the impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes is 0.165, or double the legal limit. That is why we say this is an alcohol abuse problem. Nationally, there are 2,500 people killed by impaired drivers every year and another 130,000 are seriously injured or permanently maimed. That means requiring in-hospital treatment.
While we hear a lot of rhetoric about the impact of illicit drugs, the fact is that alcohol is by far the most serious threat. Last year we had 250 deaths caused by illicit drugs. That includes dealers killing each other and overdoses and so forth. By comparison, 18,000 Canadians died from alcohol-related deaths. As we said before, that is about one out of every 10 deaths. The Addiction Research Foundation says it is even higher than that. Put another way, of the 25 million Canadians now living, 2.5 million of us will die an alcohol-related death. That is ghastly.
I could go on, but the question that society and this government now ask really is this: Should any substance which causes such a devastating degree of misery, mortality and morbidity be advertised at all, let alone as an essential part of the good life? Should it? Instead, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, which is supposed to be controlling this drug, has given this province the dubious distinction of having among the most relaxed advertising rules for alcohol in the western world. Just why this is in the best interests of the people in this province is beyond my comprehension.
How can we tell our young people one thing, that drinking and driving is wrong, when the beer companies spend close to $200 million telling them that just about every other glamorous activity is only possible if they have their case of beer with them? Our province is going the way most other jurisdictions are coming. Almost everybody else in the world has woken up; we have not yet.
In Europe, alcohol advertising will either be greatly restricted or forbidden altogether by 1993, when the European Community becomes the United States of Europe. During the 1990 soccer World Cup in Italy, alcohol sale was forbidden in the stands. In Ontario, however, we argue about what kind of alcohol should be sold in the stadia and just how much. The sale of alcohol is banned in football stadia in England, as you know. They tend to burn the stadium down when they get drinking. France has introduced a bill which would ban all television advertising. The USA has a 21-year-old drinking age and also mandatory labelling. For example, mandatory labelling may well prevent foetal alcohol syndrome; if the pregnant women just looked and thought, "Holy gee, it causes that," they just might not do it.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what the LLBO considers to be responsible advertising. The Ontario alcohol advertising guidelines, which were in effect until a few months ago, simply forbade the depiction of dangerous activities in beer commercials under section 3g; that was the dangerous activities section under the old rules. The new advertising rules, which were introduced after we questioned how the Molson Indy was allowed under that section, state that any activity can be shown as long as the drinking takes place after the activity is over. In other words, a race car driver must not be shown drinking while he is driving. Really great. However, the implication that race drivers are beer drinkers is just fine by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. They simply changed, after we raised a fuss all over the place, to make what was illegal legal. That is all they did, and brought down the new rules.
The previous guidelines were clear that alcohol advertising not be directed to the young. This, to me, is unconscionable. Beer companies, as we pointed out, are the largest owners and sponsors of rock concerts and by very definition do advertise to influence the young, given the fact that about 60% of the audience at some of these shows is under the legal drinking age, but they are still allowed to do it. So the LLBO rewrote the advertising rules and they now state -- get this -- their definition of advertising to the young is that fairy tales and nursery rhymes will not be allowed in beer commercials. Is that not really something, to say that with a straight face? We will never be able to see the seven dwarfs getting corked or Daddy Bear asking, "Who's been drinking my beer?" or Jack and Jill going up the hill to get a bucket of beer and falling down. Just wait for the next revision, if we keep on going the way we are.
Still, just a few weeks ago Molson Breweries sponsored a program on MuchMusic called The Big Ticket. The show featured New Kids on the Block, and the average age of their fans is about 11 years old or younger. In fact, the members of that band are all teenage themselves. Commercials for Molson's beer were aired at every commercial break. If that is not advertising to the under-aged, then nothing is. It is typical of the infractions allowed by the LLBO even under the present permissive regulations. I complained to both the CRTC and the LLBO about this clear infraction of their rules, without any result or even acknowledgement from either one of them to date.
1020
If the government really cares about impaired driving, why do we allow automobile races to be named after beer companies? What are we, nuts? These races are a clear and blatant attempt to link alcohol with the dangerous operation of automobiles. They help form an inexorable link between drinking and driving.
Let me quote from a publication called Beer and Fast Cars. It was a research report which points out that beer companies have accurately pinpointed the heavy beer drinkers and have identified the young risk-taking male as part of the car culture.
"The automobile is a symbol in America of freedom and coming of age. For those whose social mobility is limited, the car has an even greater significance. To youth in the car culture, street racing offers thrills based on daring and defiance. Through motor sports sponsorship, beer marketers condition the psyches of their young targets, reshaping their social environments to actively but unobtrusively associate beer, cars and speed.
"To sell more beer, the industry is actively strengthening the association between drinking and driving. Forging the link between fast cars and alcohol may be considered undesirable in general. Targeting a group at pre-existing risk for the intersection of dangerous driving and drinking can only be called irresponsible." I call it obscene.
The hypocrisy is that all this is going on in this province with the full endorsement and encouragement of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, which changed the rules to allow it. That was just plain wrong, but there is more. We now have commercials featuring dirt bikers. One of the most repugnant of these is the Molson commercial showing riders doing stupid things like falling down in a stream, front-wheel wheelies and at one point falling off a cliff, only to be saved by grabbing a branch and then riding back to get their beer, with the voice-over slogan saying, "Ex says it all." Boy, it sure does. Ex says about 50% of the traffic deaths in this country.
That commercial is nothing short of outrageous. It is clearly designed to show that Ex drinkers do stupid things on motorcycles. Just why the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario considers this kind of insanity to be in the best interests of the young people of this province completely escapes me.
Labatt's Budweiser has one just like it. When the action is over in that one, the Bud man strolls away, a beautiful girl on one arm, pushing his bike with the other, bragging, "I'm a Bud man." The Bud man is clearly a knuckle-dragging twit. Can you imagine somebody identifying themselves: "I'm a beer drinker. That's what I am, boy, not a doctor or a lawyer or something."
Then there are the Bud stock car races which, like the Molson Indy, are just another beer promotion. But this one descends to a new low of corporate irresponsibility. You see, children under 12 are admitted free. They are offering little children an incentive to attend a beer promotion that associates fast cars and beer. They are helping to create the next generation of drinking drivers with the full knowledge, consent and encouragement of the government of this province through its agency, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. I do not know if the new government will set some of these things right, but unless it does, it cannot say it is against drinking and driving.
When the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who was supposed to enforce the advertising rules forbidding the depiction of dangerous activities in commercials, sat on the planning board of the Molson Indy, allowing his own rules to be broken, and acted as race starter, and the minister in charge of the Ontario anti-drug secretariat, Ken Black, sat on the board of trustees of that race, is there any wonder we could never get a clear statement from the government about alcohol abuse?
When they allowed that rule to be broken, section 3g, the Minister of Transportation might just as well have gone to Molson to say, "It's okay. You ignore this size and weight thing for your trucks. That's okay," or the Attorney General saying, "Okay, 0.08% doesn't apply to you." Section 3g should have applied to Molson Breweries when the race was started. It did not, because the minister sat on the planning board. Is there any wonder we are getting to be cynics about government?
Is there any wonder why the provincial drug secretariat did not include the most dangerous drug of all, alcohol, in its mandate? Why did it not? We know it is the most dangerous drug. ARF or anybody would tell you that, but they did not include alcohol by direction from cabinet.
The drug secretariat was formed at the request of cabinet following the death of one boy because of the abuse of illicit drugs. That was the Benji Hayward death. However, in the six months after Benji Hayward died, 70 young kids died from alcohol abuse. Nobody said a thing. There was no task force, no screaming headlines, nothing. Those 70 kids are just as dead, but where is the task force? What the government did was cut back the drinking and driving under the Attorney General's thing, and put, I think it was, eight people on the drug secretariat. To accomplish what? Nothing the ARF and the Council on Drug Abuse and all the rest were not doing already. You say the drug secretariat really is not part of this, it is the Urban Transportation Development Corp of the drug world.
The hypocrisy of the previous government was nothing short of disgraceful. When the government officially endorses beer promotions which link fast cars and beer, it says volumes about its lack of commitment to this cause; that is, our drinking and driving cause.
We recommend that any relationship with the operation of automobiles be eliminated from all brewery advertising. While the Molson Indy may attract tourist dollars, it is the race itself, it is not Molson, that attracts the people. It could be Monroe shock absorbers, Ford, General Motors, all kinds of people could sponsor that race. Why a brewery, one that links fast cars and beer and kills people? It would be just as successful if sponsored by other manufacturers and called after the city or it could be the Ontario Indy, for example. Naming it for a beer company is nothing short of obscene. There is no rhyme, reason or necessity to use automobiles in beer advertising for alcohol at all.
When I asked the previous Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations why the Molson Indy was allowed, he said he feared Molson would sue them if the government intervened. I say there were probably more sheep in Queen's Park at that time than there are in New Zealand. They are afraid the beer company would sue them; therefore, they would not do anything about it. I will tell you who it is if you want to know.
Mr Perruzza: Who is it?
Mr Bates: Bill Wrye told me that.
Second, advertising or apparent advertising to our youth must be stopped. It is unconscionable that we are allowed to blatantly influence our young people.
The federal Department of National Health and Welfare has pointed out many times that some 60% to 70% of the audience at these rock concerts are under the age of 18. It does not matter if the beer companies deliberately target the underage; the fact remains that they do. By the time a child reaches the legal drinking age in this province he has seen over 100,000 beer commercials.
A study done in the US found the average 12-year-old could name five brands of beer -- and incidentally link all their slogans; "Look out for the silver bullet" is Coors and so forth -- but could not name the President of the United States. The same study showed that kids really thought that beer drinkers led the kind of life they see in commercials. Also it pointed out mainly young boys intend to start drinking when they become old enough because they were really turned on by the beer commercials.
Clearly, section 3g of the previous advertising guidelines must be reinstated and enforced. It said, "No aspect of any activity which calls for a high degree of skill will be permitted if imitation by the unskilled or underage viewer could be considered dangerous."
That move alone would eliminate many of the more undesirable aspects of brewery advertising which is now allowed under the new guidelines. I think we must realize that the operative mandate of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario is to develop policies for the sale and distribution of alcohol that are in the best interests of the people of this province. It should be realized that the interests of the brewing industry and the interests of the public are mutually exclusive. What is good for Molson is not necessarily good for the country.
Over the past few years, the LLBO has looked on itself as a liquor marketing board with a mandate to increase sales and consumption. The proliferation of agency stores, the rapid growth of home delivery services, the relaxed advertising rules and the lack of enforcement of these rules is evidence enough of that.
Clearly the previous government had a questionable relationship with the alcohol industry when looked at from the perspective of public health. We can only hope that the new provincial government, which has demonstrated a more caring social conscience, will institute new rules and regulations more in the interests of the people of this province.
Mr Jackson: Mr Bates, thank you for an insightful brief. I have had occasion to sit down with some students in my high schools who have apprised me of some of the concerns that you have raised, but yours is a little more in detail. There are a couple of areas I wanted to explore with you. There is the mandatory labelling. Some years ago I wrote Senator Proxmire a letter and asked him for his bill -- I guess that was about five years ago -- and he was very kind to send me all the material on foetal alcohol poisoning and its linkage to labelling. I would like you to expand a bit on that aspect of your presentation and your reference.
Second, I noticed your excessive reference to Molson. However, I guess in fairness, or let me just observe that I was very impressed with a recent commercial, albeit extremely late, which warned against -- personally I was very impressed with the understanding of it. I see it as a women's issue. I see your angle, but I am offended at certain aspects of beer advertising as they relate to women, which I find as offensive as you find glamorizing a lifestyle. But I thought that it was a rather sensitive piece of work and timely, and was shocked that it was actually Molson that did it. Could you comment in those two areas, please.
1030
Mr Bates: First, on alcohol labelling. For some reason that I cannot get to the bottom of, alcohol is the only packaged good, the only consumer product, that is exempt from the labelling laws that affect everything else you put in your mouth. It does not matter whether you take Aspirin tablets or Campbell's soup, there are labelling laws that govern what is in it and how much, and then a warning label, even on Aspirin tablets or cold tablets, about not using heavy machinery and not doing this if you have glaucoma and so forth. All those are on it. All that does not apply to alcohol. I do not know why. We have been to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa and said, "Why?" and we are not getting anywhere.
They have labelling in the states now. It is now mandatory, and they have things warning that pregnant women should not take alcohol at all. So they do have labelling in the United States, and as I say --
Mr Jackson: In some states? Pardon me for interrupting.
Mr Bates: All states.
Mr Jackson: All states. It was an omnibus bill, was it?
Mr Bates: Yes, I think it was. Because of the distribution system of alcohol, the effect is it is on everything you drink down there now, as I understand it. It is like 21, for example. It gradually went through until 21 is now a universal drinking age in the United States. We have been pushing that for a long time.
Why does it not just include on the label that excessive consumption of this product could dangerously affect your ability to operate heavy machinery, obviously, just like it says on Dristan tablets or something. It should say that. It should have the ingredients. The ingredients are not even on the label of an alcohol bottle. There are all sorts of sulphides and sulphates and everything else that some people are allergic to; they can have serious effects from it.
On top of that, alcohol is a toxin. Intoxicated means poisoned. That is what it means. You are poisoning yourself when you get drunk. None of that is on it. Would they not put on it that this is a dangerous drug? I was asking a forum of the alcohol industry just the other day, and there was a blank stare. They started saying that people are alcohol users rather than drinkers. People hate that. I am a drinker, incidentally. It is not like I am a raging temperance person; I am not. I make my own wine and everything else.
To get down to Molson's alternative advertising, its Take Care campaign, we have gone on record as saying we think the Take Care campaign, of all the attempts that the alcohol industry has made at undoing some of the damage it has done and is doing, is probably the best. I think the one you are referring to is the commercial showing the pregnant woman with the tag line on there, "Sometimes responsible drinking is not drinking at all." Nobody can argue with that one, but if the commercial said why they should not drink at all, I would be really impressed. Of course it does not.
Mr Jackson: If you are looking at a doctor conveying to a parent that the child is suffering from Down's syndrome, and it is actually discovered through the blood test at that point and there is no mystery or mistake that the mother was consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, this is not open to debate.
Mr Bates: Oddly enough, Molson got a lot of criticism from women's groups and so forth that it was a sexist ad because here is the guy, he can drink his beer okay, but she had to have her milk. It is a fairly lofty concept, but they got that all the time from that.
Nevertheless, we have said all along, even National Health and Welfare and a lot of people have said they would take 10% of their advertising budget and put it behind the Addiction Research Foundation, CODA, the drug education co-ordinating council, so counter-advertising could be done. There is a kind of censorship available. It is a financial censorship that we cannot get our message across except here. Who is listening? I mean, you are, yes, but the television station is certainly not listening, yet they run $200 million worth of saying you cannot really have a nice life unless you have your beer.
Mr Jackson: I realize there are other questioners, Mr Chairman, but I have a couple of areas I want to go into. Just in terms of alcohol being exclusive in terms of its treatment, I am also aware that certain other beverages, for example, Perrier water has quinine in it, and it is a little known fact and it is not reported.
Mr Bates: I did not know that.
Mr Jackson: Yes, we all know what quinine is.
Mr Bates: Oh, yes.
Mr Jackson: But it has such a small amount of it. I do believe that there are one or two other areas where there are deficiencies.
Can I ask you about dedicated revenues as they relate to health care? There is a lot of debate right now about the costs for treatment in the United States. There is also a debate growing with respect to people who self-inflict. First of all, I should say that I share the view that alcoholism is a disease and should be treated as such and is not necessarily self-inflicted abuse, but it has some psychosomatic bases.
With that understanding, some have argued that with the tax revenues from beer that we generally increase in every budget, more and more of those revenues should be dedicated to a health perspective, reducing demand in the US, the option to go to the United States, that we should be doing more proactive work with those, as opposed to just throwing them into general revenues and paying for schools and everything else out of those revenues. These are substantive revenues from alcohol in this province, probably some of the most substantive revenues per purchase on the continent.
Mr Bates: You are hitting another raw nerve, I guess.
Mr Jackson: I did not catch much in your presentation, but it is an area that is of interest to me and maybe the committee might be interested in some of your thoughts on that.
Mr Bates: That is a raw nerve for anybody battling drug abuse in this province. The province makes, I think, about $850 million to $900 million, something like that.
Ms Haslam: It is $640 million.
Mr Bates: It is $640 million? Is that what it was last year? It has been going down a bit. But it costs $4.5 billion to treat. That is in excess health care costs to this country. I forget what the Ontario figure is, but it would be about a third of that; it would be over $1 billion in excess. That, for some reason, has been lost on the previous Treasurer, Mr Nixon. He could not see that. He had to build up this, and so that is the Health department's budget, but for something that kills 1 out of every 10 of us, that is a pretty deadly expense, especially the loss to our youth.
Good heavens, when a child dies, it is overwhelming that it is going to be in a car crash and 50% of those are going to be at least alcohol-related. Young people under the age of 21 have, I think, about 4% of all the driving licences in this province. They get into 17% of all the impaired crashes and 18% of the deaths. You move that up to 25 and 40% of all the people killed on our highways are under the age of 25. What are we going to do about it? Nothing. What we are going to do is put in more lifestyle advertising and have the Molson Indy. We are going to glamorize booze and cars -- dumb.
Mr G. Wilson: I, too, am very impressed with your submission, Mr Bates. I think it would have helped in places if you had put down the references. For instance, this Beer and Fast Cars, perhaps you could send us that.
Mr Bates: Yes, I have that.
Mr G. Wilson: It is just so we can follow some of these things up. I would be interested to know what your experience in lobbying the companies involved is. Have you done that in the past?
Mr Bates: We have, oddly enough, a very close relationship with the beer companies and with the distillers' institute and so forth and we are after them all the time on this kind of thing. We were awfully close to getting Molson to put a leaflet in every case of beer saying, "Don't drink and drive," or something like that.
We are always sort of on a knife edge wondering whether or not a group like ours, which does not have two cents to rub together ever -- if we asked the beer companies they would probably send a truck up with money. Then we say, "Are we taking money from the bad guys?" The other half of the board says, "If they're causing the trouble, they should pay for it." It is one of those things we are up against. We are in constant contact with them.
About the Molson Indy, by the way, we talked to them about that and at our behest the Molson Indy last year had its Take Care things all around, all sorts of precautions to make sure there was no drunkenness and so forth on the grounds. They do run a good race. Nobody can complain about that, but it does not have to be a beer company doing that. It could be almost anybody else.
1040
When Monroe shock absorbers likes to associate fast cars with Monroe shock absorbers or something or with gasoline from Esso or somebody, that makes a lot of sense. I can understand that. I happen to be a working journalist and I am also on the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada, so I have absolutely nothing against automobile races. Many of the safety features we have in our cars now, disc brakes and radial tires and so on came from the racing circuit. I have nothing against that at all. It has probably increased the safety of cars, but when a beer company sponsors them and directs its advertising at young kids, that is very bad.
Ms Haslam: Your organization is People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. Am I correct in understanding that you are not against alcohol or alcohol consumption, that what you are against is the alcohol consumption and the driving, and your main concern here is dealing with the LCBO and the advertising it puts out?
Mr Bates: The advertising guidelines are published by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. The LCBO is sort of the distribution arm of the LLBO.
Ms Haslam: That is correct, yes.
Mr Bates: There is nothing much we can do to the LCBO. We did a couple of years ago, with a lot of lobbying and yelling, get it to take the home delivery services from under LCBO and put them under the LLBO because previously they were not licensed. The LCBO cannot license anybody. Now at least those home delivery services are licensed, but still in debates I have had with the heads of some of those things on radio and so forth they freely admit that they deliver to the underage and the already impaired.
Our problem is that we know the person who is likely to kill you will have a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.165 or more. That is our focus. We have come to the conclusion that if we can stop alcohol abuse or reduce alcohol abuse we can reduce impaired-driving crashes. We do not care if people drive cars as long as we do not kill each other. Somebody with a 0.165 BAC or better is the one who is going to kill.
I can sort of put this in perspective. There is the so-called young male risk-taker who also happens to be the target audience for the beer companies. This is a person who carries a lot of bad baggage in his life. It makes him very aggressive. Normally he is very aggressive, the way he drives. Put a beer in him or a bunch of beers and he becomes the killer. The beer companies know that is the person. He is also our target market. He is the one we are trying to get at too. They are trying to convince him that the Molson Indy is a great thing and we are trying to say, "Hey, you shouldn't even be on the road at all."
We have already been to both the Minister of Transportation, Ed Philip, and to the new Attorney General to get an administrative licence suspension put in and a graduated licence put in. We know that it takes three years to create a driver, for example, and a graduated licence would simply start inserting more and more responsibility on a licence as a person gained experience without getting any more points and infractions and so forth. But if he started to get those things, you would keep him at that level. We think we would help find that aggressive young risk-taker at that point and get him off the road. If we can get that group off the road somehow, we will have come a long way.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Bates, do you think all beer advertising, all liquor advertising should be banned?
Mr Bates: I think that is going to happen in Europe. We have been in contact with people in the European Community. It is not because they are moralistic about the thing but because when the United States of Europe is formed they will all go to the lowest common denominator in tariffs and everything else, so they will probably adopt something like the Swedish model or something like that.
The betting is that in Europe alcohol advertising will be greatly restricted or banned altogether, probably banned altogether, and there is no reason to advertise. Why do they advertise the stuff? We know what it does. It is killing people on a daily basis. Why do we advertise it? I cannot say that is our position because we feel it is unrealistic.
We do take a stand, however, that if we cannot get it off television, at least let them advertise brand advertising like they are supposed to. Can anybody in this whole committee tell me the difference between, say, Labatt's Blue and Molson's Ex based on the advertising? Has one got different malt or hops or water or something in it? Of course not. Can you tell by the advertising? No. All you can tell from Molson's Ex is it sponsors race cars and all you can tell about Labatt's Blue is that it at present has a campaign going or a contest going among kids to write beer ads. How does that tell us anything about brand? Yet the regulations clearly state they are only supposed to do brand advertising. They do not. They are advertising down to kids. What is it, 400,000-odd kids turn 19 in this country every year? That is their target. That is a substantial market and that is what they are after. They cannot get me or you, but they can get them.
Mr Grandmaître: I am sure, Mr Bates, you will recall that ski Team Canada turned down, or I think the federal government turned down, the sponsorship of RJR Macdonald tobacco six or seven years ago. Even du Maurier cigarettes, the sponsors of the Canadian Open, are still advertising. You do not see cigarettes, but the word "du Maurier" is there. Right off the bat it implies du Maurier cigarettes.
Mr Bates: Of course.
Mr Grandmaître: But you do not see a cigarette. You do not see anybody walking around smoking on a golf course today.
Mr Bates: The warning labels on cigarettes, we feel, had quite an effect in the reduction in cigarette sales.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. What I am trying to get at is, if we prevent these people from advertising on TV, for instance, they will find another way of promoting their products, even if we do not see a cigarette or a beer. They will find another way to advertise; this is what I am trying to get at.
Mr Bates: That is right.
Mr Grandmaître: I am not saying that you are wasting your time, because you are not. You are doing Ontario a great favour, I think, by trying to prevent these people from ruining the lives of our upcoming generation. I think you are absolutely right. My concern is that these people do have the money.
Mr Bates: They are very clever.
Mr Grandmaître: They are very clever people and they will spend all kinds of money contravening the law or getting around the law. It is very difficult to pinpoint these.
Mr Bates: They will. In France, for example, when they forbade the advertising of cigarettes, they started to advertise matches with the same brand names and called them that, until they stopped their doing that. They do not do that, either.
The trouble with television advertising is it is all-pervasive. That is the one that gets the kids. The kids are watching an average of six or seven hours a day of television and the average number of beer commercials is 2.5 every hour. Another thing is, the thing you are most likely to see on television in any given hour is a beer commercial. You see beer commercials on television more often than you see Barbara Frum and Knowlton Nash combined, which may be a good thing.
The Chair: Some people may not think that is so bad.
Mr Bates: Anyhow, that is how pervasive it is. The point is, it is the kind of advertising they have, which simply shows these people having a wonderful time. I do not know anybody who has as much fun as they do in beer commercials. I would love to have that much fun, but I probably never will. That is what the kids see and that is what the kids believe. They see 100,000 of those things by the time they get to be drinking age. So they say they do not advertise to the young, but they do.
The intent to advertise to the young is irrelevant. The bald fact of the matter is that they do. They advertise around New Kids on the Block. We know the average age of their fans is 11 years old or less. The band itself is composed of teenagers and it comes on at 8 o'clock, right at prime time for young people. They are advertising to the young deliberately. Why has not the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario or the CRTC even answered it?
Mr Grandmaître: I see you are a charitable organization. Where do you get your funds?
Mr Bates: The Department of National Health and Welfare gave us a grant that runs out next month, and membership fees account for some, and corporate donations like the Insurance Bureau of Canada, insurance companies and so forth. We run a red ribbon campaign in conjunction with the police RIDE program. It is pretty diverse. The Ministry of the Attorney General drinking and driving countermeasures office gives us a grant for some project. Probably our summer campaign will be funded by the ministry, that type of thing. I am strictly a volunteer. I retired from Maclean Hunter some seven years ago to do this on a full-time volunteer basis. You get so caught up in this thing, you cannot let go.
1050
Mr Grandmaître: Have you ever approached the beer companies to provide you with an annual grant?
Mr Bates: As I say, I think I mentioned before, that is one of the difficult things we face all the time. If we allowed ourselves to be promoted or to be supported by the beer companies, we certainly could get money from them.
For example, Bacchus, which is the university alcohol education group, is totally funded by Molson, just by asking for it. I am sure we could be too, if we just simply went and said, "We need all this money." But it is not a matter of money, really. You need money to keep the office open and things like that, but then we could go all the way back to people around a kitchen table, where we started nearly a decade ago, six or seven of us with a police officer sitting around a kitchen table, "Let's start doing this thing," and we did. It has grown now into a province-wide organization around a whole bunch of kitchen tables all across the province. We have about 3,000 members now, something like that. Unfortunately, most of them are members because a family member was killed or injured.
Mr Grandmaître: You seem to be going after Molson this morning. Do you prefer Labatt's?
Mr Bates: As a matter of fact, I drink Molson's Light, I guess it is. But Labatt's started all this -- Budweiser is Labatt's. I have been going after Budweiser with the "Bud Man," its commercials and so forth. There was a great big battle on who is going to have the Indy in Toronto. Was it going to be Molson's or Labatt's? One is as bad as the other.
The Budweiser motorcycle ad -- kids get killed on motorcycles all the time when they drink. As a matter of fact, the death of the young lad that started this organization off was on a motorcycle. That was Casey Frayne, June Callwood and Trent Frayne's son. He was returning on his motorcycle to write his final exams at Queen's at the age of 20, a brilliant kid. He got hit by a drunk going the wrong way. The lady who killed Casey got a 90-day licence suspension and a $500 fine -- wow. That is really what got us going. He was a friend of my daughter at Burnhamthorpe Collegiate. That is how the organization got going, when Casey died.
Mr Waters: We have talked about the banning of advertisements. Do you have any recommendations for the LLBO beyond the banning of advertising? Do you have any other recommendations, primarily with young drivers drinking?
Mr Bates: Certainly. The proliferation of agency stores, we feel, is simply a disgrace. There is an example that was given to us by the union, where there is an agency store in Ontario where a chap went in and bought a shotgun, ammunition, gasoline and alcohol all on the same Visa slip. We feel there is something dreadfully wrong with that. That simply could not happen in a regular LCBO store. We have agency stores selling booze that are also gas stations and marinas and things like that. That is simply madness and it should not be allowed. Surely to heaven, it does not take that much to have an LCBO store in various locations.
We have these home delivery services and that made a lot of sense in Moosonee or something like that, where they would say, okay, one person can go down to the LCBO store, be licensed to pick up a certain amount of alcohol and bring that back for distribution, rather than everybody going 30 or 40 miles to do it. That made sense in that kind of area, but in Toronto a home delivery service makes no sense at all. Why have we got them? There is an LCBO store in virtually every shopping centre I can think of and all the major malls downtown. There is no need for a home delivery service in this city. Yet we have them. Why? We have been arguing about those. The agency stores should be closed up and the home delivery services in the metropolitan area should be closed up.
There is a direct relationship between the availability of alcohol and the incidence of impaired-driving crashes. It is direct. You do not need a PhD to work it out. If alcohol is easier to obtain, then impaired driving is easier to accomplish. It is as simple as that. It is a direct relationship. And there is a direct relationship between distribution and consumption. If we are after abuse, then clearly if we can cut down on distribution, availability, we cut down on abuse as well.
The Chair: You mentioned the political masters. Has your organization ever done anything in respect to the board of the LLBO? Have you approached them at any point in your history and made your case before the board, or have you made any efforts?
Mr Bates: Yes. They should probably send that down to this committee. I have made several presentations to the LLBO and had a number of short, sharp debates with Andromache, and lost every one of them.
The Chair: One of the new responsibilities of this committee is to oversee the order in council appointments process. At some point in the future we will have the opportunity to possibly review appointments to the LLBO. I am just wondering if you have taken a look at the appointees in the past and if you have had any concerns about their backgrounds or biases. Have you taken a look at that sort of thing in the past at all?
Mr Bates: We felt that over the past four years the LLBO was so controlled by cabinet. I have had sort of debates with people like Ian Scott and so forth about the effect that the cabinet has had on the policies of the LLBO. They tend not to blame the LLBO itself, but rather the previous cabinet, which seemed to think that it would not be happy until this whole province was awash with booze. For some reason they felt it was somehow more mature or something to increase consumption when all the other jurisdictions in the world are decreasing it. Impaired driving in Muslim countries is not a very serious thing at all.
The Chair: Have you had any analysis of what the experience has been in the United States of raising the drinking age?
Mr Bates: Yes, dramatic. There are two major things that have happened in the United States which have had a dramatic effect. Of course, one is raising the drinking age to 21. There is something like a 17% reduction, and all this is available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If I could just briefly go through that one, then I have a thing this thick on why the drinking age ought to be raised.
In 1972, in response to the Vietnam war, the drinking age was lowered because, "If a kid is old enough to go in the army, he is old enough to drink." I do not know who said that, but they did. The Insurance Bureau of Canada measured what happened here. The impaired-driving crashes went up 300-odd per cent in the affected age groups. They noticed the same thing in the United States. So what they did was, state after state, raise the drinking age to 21. Without exception, the incidence of impaired-driving death in crashes among teenagers went down dramatically 17% to 25%. All this was fed into the computer of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They then convinced Congress to introduce Bill HR-4616, which came out the other end as the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. That was passed unanimously by both houses in the United States to 21.
It went to the Supreme Court of the United States and it said: "We know all this. It might not be fair," and on and on, "but it is in the best interests of the people of the United States. Therefore, it is constitutional," and it came in in state after state. As you know, they used the highway funds stick to enforce it. Anyhow, it is now in and the result has been dramatic.
The other one is that there is now, in 29 states, administrative licence suspension where a police officer has the right to suspend the licence for 90 days the minute someone blows over 0.10 -- in the United States that is their limit -- on a regularly administered breathalyser test. They have had a dramatic reduction in impaired-driving crashes with just doing that. People really fear losing their licence.
Manitoba has now introduced not only an administrative suspension. It had a 50% drop in the first six months when it introduced the thing. Then they also introduced impounding cars of people who drove under suspension. That just finished going through the Supreme Court too, and that too has been upheld as being constitutional. We are very, very backward in this battle in this province. We are probably the most backward. Next to Quebec, we have the worst record of them all.
Mr Jackson: Nationally? Are you saying we have the worst of the provinces?
Mr Bates: Oh, yes, by far. That is, in introducing this kind of legislation we are way behind. Look at the stop-check things in Alberta, BC and so forth.
The Chair: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr Bates. We appreciate your appearance here this morning.
Mr Bates: Thank you. I am most appreciative of the opportunity. I will get the Beer and Fast Cars down to you.
1100
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
The Chair: We will move on to the discussion of process. I gather there was some disagreement yesterday about how wide-ranging the discussion should be. I guess Mr Perruzza took one view and some other members of the committee took another; I am not sure. You thought it should be rather confined?
Mr McLean: We did not really get into a real broad range of discussion. I thought it was appropriate that you should be here to have the discussion. We had a fair bit of discussion on the process. I thought we left it open that it would take place today and as broad as they wanted it. I did not think it mattered. Let's have some input into it.
Mr Waters: I was just going to make a recommendation. I think one of the things we have discovered on our side is that yes, there are some problems with the process. I think one of the things that I would like to see happen is -- and I talked to Mr McLean actually this morning about it for a second; he was the only person I could buttonhole in the corridor -- for us to agree to set aside some time near the end of April to sit down and review the changes in process, different things that we have tried, and come up with some formal recommendations to take back.
I think sitting down and changing the rules every week is not going to work. I think we have to come up with some idea so we can take it back. Two weeks is not going to give us enough time to change the process to a permanent thing. We have to come up somewhere down the line with some recommendations to go back, that these are the things we recommend, the procedure or the process, for this new committee.
The Chair: I think that is a good point. As we know, the standing order we are operating under is a temporary standing order and we are to report back to the House in May, I believe it is.
Mr Grandmaître: It is 27 June.
The Chair: No.
Mr Grandmaître: It is 16 May.
The Chair: We are supposed to report in May. The temporary standing order lasts until 27 June. We can, I guess, by unanimous consent, make some changes apparently that might help us along in the process in the interim. I know that there was some discussion. I guess it was Mrs Marland, as a matter of fact, who had mentioned the question of whether we should be reviewing the recommended appointees and making a decision on them the same day that we have had them appear before us. We had a difference of opinion on that. Some people felt we should be waiting, and that a 24-hour period was appropriate; it gave them time to reflect and perhaps to give careful consideration to what the witnesses had to say or did not say as they appeared before us.
I know Mr McGuinty had some concerns in respect to the letter of support, if you will, that was provided by Mr Ellis in respect to the vice-chair's appointment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Something that we should be discussing, I suppose -- not especially that, because the Chair has made a ruling on that particular document -- is the whole question of the kinds of submissions that we might want to see allowed during the next period of time prior to making our report to the House. I will just open it up for general discussion. Ms Haslam and then Mr Waters.
Ms Haslam: As a matter of fact, I took that particular issue about the letter because I appreciated having it and I asked why it was included. Apparently, because the application had been in earlier, it was in the files and therefore it was just included because it was in the files. This was not a new letter that had come forth; it was just part of the original file and that is why it had been sent to us.
I appreciate having the time to look over applicants. To make a decision so quickly I think is not conducive to doing a good job in making your decisions. I also point out that during the House sitting time we would be meeting on a weekly basis and therefore it would be under the standing orders. We would be meeting to discuss the appointments on the next meeting and that would be a week. Maybe that is the problem with the standing orders, that the standing orders were prepared to give us a week's time to look at that, whereas we are operating now in an off session and we meet every 24 hours. So that is something we could look at, but I appreciate having the time to go over them.
Mr Waters: There are a couple of things I wanted to ask about and one of the things is, do you want to do this as we are now, or do you want to go in camera so we can have just an open and frank discussion? I think we all realize there have been some problems, so maybe we could deal with them a lot more easily in camera. That was one of the first things I wanted to talk about. There are some various other ones. Even in the two days that I have been the whip on our side, I have seen some problems and I think we could deal with them and I think we have to sit down and discuss them.
The Chair: If you wish to make a motion to go in camera, we will see what happens.
Mr Waters: I move that we go in camera for this.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on that?
Mr Grandmaître: I do not know how the rest of the members feel, but personally I would like to remain in the open for a number of reasons. This is supposed to be an open process and we will be talking about the process or the lack of it and I think we should remain in the open, Mr Chairman. I do not think we would accomplish much by going in camera and I do not see the need for going in camera. I do not think we will be talking specifically about individuals, so I do not see why we should be going in camera.
Mr Jackson: I certainly am loath to go into committee of the whole under these circumstances. I do not think the issues are conducive to it on a sensitive personnel matter, but I think the concerns can be expressed without being specific to an individual. I am really not anxious to go behind closed doors in discussions, especially in a process which, by the government's own invitation, is for us to be more open with. I frankly am surprised it is the government which is suggesting it. If there are difficulties, perhaps this can be discussed at the subcommittee level and the Chair's good counsel and advice can be shared with Mr Waters.
The Chair: In all honesty, there was an issue raised at the last subcommittee meeting which apparently had been raised by a government member of the committee. Mr Silipo brought it to the attention of the subcommittee, and if it is the intention of government members at some point to discuss that matter, it should be done in camera, I believe. It is a research matter.
Mr Jackson: If it is that specific area, I strongly agree that that be done in the open since it potentially flows from a member's rights.
The Chair: I wanted to bring that to your attention. At some point, that matter, in my own view and I think in the view of the subcommittee, should be dealt with in camera because it does deal with personalities.
Mr McGuinty: I want to concur with the comments made by Mr Jackson and Mr Grandmaître. I would be, as a general rule, reluctant and loath at any stage in the evolution of the approach we are bringing to the government appointments process to go in camera. The overriding objective is one of openness, to strip away the mystique, to use the Premier's words. Unless we have exceptional circumstances, we are discussing something delicate or of a personal nature, I do not think we should be going in camera.
1110
Mr Waters: My concern was if we were going to talk about what you had mentioned, Mr Chair, if we were going to get into that, I figured we would just have the whole discussion that way. But I have no problem. I firmly believe it should be more open, so if we are going to deal with that at subcommittee, then fine.
The Chair: If you want to withdraw your motion --
Mr Waters: Sure, I will withdraw it.
The Chair: I thought Mr Silipo was going to talk to his colleagues with respect to whether you felt it was appropriate to discuss this at a full committee meeting. If indeed if was, if there was a consensus, then we should do it in camera because it deals with personalities. Perhaps if you want to deal with that issue at full committee, when we get to that point, we can have the general discussion. If you feel that is the way you want to go, then we can have a motion to go in camera to deal with that one specific matter.
Mr Waters: I think what I will do is, first off, I will track down Mr Silipo. He is somewhere around the province. Unfortunately, due to my timing last week, we did not have a lot of time to talk and we were hoping to get some time this week, but he has been on the road and I have been here.
The Chair: He may feel that what was done in subcommittee was sufficient. I do not know. He conveyed the concerns that were expressed by members of the committee.
Mr Waters: I will withdraw the motion at this point then.
The Chair: Okay, carry on. We want to get back to the general discussion. I know Ms Haslam raised the Ellis letter and I think we should look at this in a broader way than that letter because, as I said, I have ruled on that particular matter. But if we want to talk about submissions to this committee in respect to recommended appointees, perhaps we can broaden it to that point and open up the discussion.
Mr McGuinty: I want to express my personal agreement with Mr Waters's suggestion that we deal with the procedural matters prior to the expiry of the time frame within which we are operating at the present. But I also think it is important that we let each other know how our thinking is evolving between now and then so that we do not spring anything on each other in our meeting some time at the end of April.
I feel, and again here I am going to speak personally, that in many ways my hands are tied in my efforts to achieve the objective set out by the Premier to strip away the mystique which has been associated in the past with the government appointments process and to achieve openness. We have an objective, on the one hand, which is noble and worth while and, on the other hand, we have to look at the tools we have to attain that objective.
Sometimes I feel the Premier has in some way said, "We're going to the moon and in order to get there, here is an airplane." It may very well be that, at some point, when the airplane disappears from sight, people will conclude that we have in fact gone to the moon. But we are not going to the moon, given the tools that we have here.
Mr Bradley: But there is an illusion of going to the moon. That is what is important.
Mr McGuinty: The terms of reference, of course, outline the procedure, and that is something that we are to talk about now. I am of the opinion that they are sorely lacking with respect to the procedure or the tools that we have in order to achieve our objective of openness in the government appointments process.
I have said these before, but they bear repeating, to my mind in any event. We do not have a power of veto. We have unequal representation on the committee. We have no right to call witnesses. We have no information -- and this is extremely crucial -- regarding the antecedent screening process. We do not know how these people are arriving before us, except to say in a general way.
The time constraints within which we are operating are also very severe and they prevent us from properly dealing not only with the individuals who appear before us but with a great number of appointments that are being made during the course of any given year.
I think it is important to recognize the significance of what we are doing, and sometimes, I may be mistaken in this regard, I feel the government members of the committee do not realize that. I think we would realize it if something went wrong. It has been known in the past for political appointments to turn sour and to cause embarrassment to the government. At that point the eyes of the media and of the population in general will focus on the process, and in particular on the function of this committee.
When we are looking a constituent in the eyes, a voter who asks us what part we played in the system, for instance, if he even just says, "Why didn't the best person get that job?" I think we would have to answer honestly, "We're not here to ensure that the best person is to get the job." But I can hardly imagine the Premier saying that we are not out to get the best person for the job. I guess we would have to respond as well, "The system doesn't allow us to know what takes place in the past, before people appear before us." I do not think that is a good answer to deliver to one of our constituents, "We don't know."
If I was in government, I think I would even feel more sensitive to that, because the next question is: "You're in the government. You concurred in the appointment of that person. I looked at the record. You were on the committee, you concurred in the appointment, you expressed no reservations. What about all this information that has now come out around this person when you concurred in his appointment?" You would have to answer, "Jeez, I did not know about that other information." The next question obviously would be, "How could you intelligently concur in an appointment if you didn't have all the information before you?"
To come back to my starting point, I feel that my hands are tied. For us to say, "We're not out to ensure that the best person gets the job. Our frame of reference here is really beyond the screening process. Somebody appears before us, and based on our limited questioning and the limited evidence that is submitted to us, we are supposed to give an opinion," I think does a disservice to the noble objective set out by the Premier.
I think perhaps the only answer we should ever be giving here is that if we cannot concur in an appointment, we should say no, with particular reasons. But if we say yes, it should always be subject to reservations. We do not know what has occurred in the past.
Take Mrs Radigan's case, for instance. She got a phone call out of the blue. That is quite a screening process. She got a phone call out of the blue and then the next thing she heard, she was to appear before us. If we take Mr McCombie's appointment or Mr Martin's appointment -- intended appointments -- in Mr Martin's case, he got a phone call out of the blue. He submitted an application approximately a year ago and the next thing he heard, he got a call from Mr Arnott to appear before us. In the case of Mr McCombie, he was handpicked by the chair. I am not saying they are not the best people for the job, but is that the process we want to endorse? I do not think it is, from my own perspective.
I will move along now to a more specific matter. With respect to the letter that was submitted by Mr Ellis, I disagree with the Chair's ruling, but that is not subject to debate, so I accept it. But I think what we are going to have to do is ensure that we take whatever steps we feel are appropriate to maintain a balance, so that whenever we have supporting letters on the one hand, we should be entitled to ask for or to determine whether there are any knowledgeable people who can lend some insight into a prospective appointment who may disagree with the supporting letter.
Again, if we go back to Mr McCombie's case, this gentleman appeared before us as a result of being selected by the chairman. So we have here before us, if you look at the process and the lack of objectivity, a gentleman, an intended appointee, who had been chosen to fill a position by the chair and the only information we have before us is the chair's supporting letter of reference. To give Mr Ellis great credit for his candour, he did indicate in his letter that the other vice-chairs and the members on WCAT, as I recall, did not support this appointment. It would have been nice to hear from them so we would have an idea of what it was we were getting into if we were going to concur in this appointment.
1120
With respect to one other matter -- I am not sure, Mr Chair, whether you consider this a procedural matter or not -- we have not addressed Ms Phillips's response to the letter that was sent to her by this committee. Essentially, she indicated, as I understand it, that the task was overwhelming, and to accumulate a list of the positions which were not going to be subject to our review was simply beyond the realm of the reasonable. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but in any event, the answer was no, she was not going to do it.
I think that is unacceptable. Again, if this government is giving out 5,000 jobs or so and it is paying for those jobs with money acquired from taxpayers, should the taxpayers who have a right to apply for those jobs not be entitled to see a list of those jobs? And should this committee not be entitled to see a list of those jobs which we are not entitled to review?
Having said all of that, I do not want to detract from the nobility of the objectives set out by the Premier. I cannot even recall if I said this at the outset, but Stanley Knowles, a man for whom I have a great deal of time, said, "No man is a ready critic of his own measures." We should bear that in mind. The process is severely lacking, to my mind, and the sooner we can straighten it out, the better.
Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, fellow members, for your patience.
The Chair: Just for your clarification, Mr McGuinty, in respect to Ms Phillips's memo to the clerk of the committee regarding our request, which was an informal request -- we did not have a motion but there were no objectors to the request at the time -- I will remind the members of what she said:
"There are many other orders in council passed in a year that appoint persons to positions which will not be referred to the committee. These include appointments to the staff of the civil service, judges, crown attorneys, agents general, referees and deputy referees (Line Fences Act), livestock inspectors," etc. "This is by no means an exhaustive list. It would take us several weeks to look up all these types of appointments that were, for example, passed in 1990."
I just wanted to point out to the committee that if it is the committee's wish that that information be provided, we can make that request by motion, and Ms Phillips is obligated, through her office, to provide us with that information. So if the committee feels that is going to be of assistance, we have the wherewithal to obtain that information.
Mr Bradley: Speaking on the process again, I believe the illusion that is created is much more significant than the reality of what this committee is doing. The step along the evolutionary process that has taken place is in fact a step where more information is available to the general public on a wider basis of which appointments are available to the public.
Much of that information was available previously. I think it has been made more extensive, at least as to where that information can be found. But to suggest that this committee is doing anything that is significantly different from what has existed previous to this government is, I think, not accurate, and it can be changed only if the mandate of the committee were changed, only if the government would permit the committee to have any real and significant power.
It has been appropriately pointed out that the time constraints will prohibit this committee from dealing with all of the appointments that are made to the various agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario. But the illusion out there that is created, the editorial you will see immediately, or the young reporter who is eager to see the new government translating its pronouncements into action comes to the conclusion that somehow we have a wide-open process where all members of the Legislature have significant input into it and that the end of patronage has come in Ontario.
Of course, those of us who sit on this committee who have observed for a number of years what has happened know that this is simply not true. Not that it cannot be the case that we cannot make significant changes, but I suggest to this committee that I am not optimistic that the government is prepared to make the changes that would really make this a genuine process. So the time constraints are one.
The most obvious deficiency I hope the government would address when these pronouncements are made is the ability of the committee to veto appointments. If, for instance, it had to be that any of the appointments made would have to receive the unanimous consent of the committee, of course that would be significant. That would be, as some might say, true democracy in action.
I am not going to hold my breath till that happens. I doubt it is going to happen. I know that the government committee members ultimately, although they do not think so, will be told what to do and how to do it. You will have people who will sit in the back of the room watching you carefully all the time, whips and so on, who will tell you when the crunch comes what you are going to do. I am not overly critical of that happening, I must say, as long as you do not pretend that there is something different happening.
You are the government. You won the election -- albeit with some 37% of the votes; I remember the letters to the editor about how proportional representation was the way to go. That is fine. I do not mind. That is the system, that is what exists, so you have the right to do a lot of these things. If people are critical of you, perhaps they would be unfairly critical if you are doing it.
What I would be critical of is if you pretend you are doing something that is substantially different. You are not doing something substantially different unless your government is prepared to allow this committee to veto appointments the government makes rather than simply go through the procedure of reviewing them. I think the committee would have to seek that ability to veto appointments.
There is the fact that the committee cannot deal with all possible choices, but only with the final name that cabinet puts forward. Perhaps if the committee had the opportunity, in ones the committee might select, to deal with all of the potential appointees to that agency, board or commission, again, that would be a significant and substantial change, for the committee would then ultimately make the choice. My guess is that the government will not allow it. The government says it is elected to make its decisions and it will not do so. If it decides to do that, it decides to do that. Again, let's not pretend it is doing something different.
I look at the fact that the committee itself, although there is a roundabout way of doing it, is not in a position to propose appointments to these agencies, boards and commissions. I suppose everyone can send a letter to the person everyone sends a letter to -- the Premier or the chair of cabinet or to Ms Phillips -- suggesting a name, and that might happen. There will be certain people who might get appointed by that process. That can happen, but the committee itself is not in a position to propose appointments.
So we have here a request, designed to demonstrate that this committee is not dealing with all these appointments, that Ms Phillips produce a list. Of course, one of the classic replies coming from a government -- government with a generic "g" on that -- is that it would take too much time to produce that. That means, "I don't want to give it to you, therefore, `It takes too much time to produce.'" That is a classic answer that is given. Under freedom of information, you see that happen all the time. It takes too long or something of that nature.
The process is somewhat interesting to people who sit here, because in fairness we do get to see some of the people. They are not just a name on a paper; we get to see them and perhaps chat a bit with them or ask them some questions. But it is not a significant change. Let's not pretend to the people of this province. You have been able to get away with it so far. As a politician, I admire that to a certain extent. You have been able to create the illusion out there that there is a significant change. People who, frankly, should know better have bought that. They should come in and sit on this committee. They should carefully read the rules to see whether a substantial change is taking place or whether it is simply new faces saying the same thing again, which often is the case.
In addition to the proposals made by the member for Ottawa South, I certainly would like to see the changes I have suggested -- that we have the veto, that we have the opportunity to look at several of the proposed people for appointments and that we have the lists of those whom we are not going to be able to deal with -- as three particular items before us. If we do not have that, it will be interesting but certainly not very compelling.
1130
Ms Haslam: I have stated time and time again that I feel they misconstrue what our mandate is. Our mandate is to review the qualifications of the applicant to understand if he has the experience necessary for the job. Is that different? Yes, it is.
You are right, we never used to see who was getting the jobs. We never used to be able to ask them questions. We never used to be able to say: "What party do you belong to? Do you make political contributions?" I find it extremely interesting that we have not come across a New Democrat once; not once in the last few weeks you have been asking that question have we come across a New Democrat.
Interjections.
Ms Haslam: Even Andy Brandt --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. This is going to degenerate. Let Ms Haslam continue.
Ms Haslam: Thank you. So there is a difference. It is a new process, and we are going to iron out the bugs. That is what we are supposed to be doing. I find it extremely interesting that we are not giving the process a chance after a couple of weeks. There are things we would like to change, yes. I can see that we are all going to be bringing suggestions for change, and I have a few myself.
As Mr Bradley has often told me, he believes it is the right of the Premier to appoint people to positions of added responsibility or to positions on boards and agencies. But at least we get a chance to question that person. That is what is new. That is what is different. That, and the fact that it is more available out there to the public. They can now apply more readily, and there is more input for those people out there. It is not just the big people we should be looking at. It is the small people. We have had a lot of people come forward here.
I think the process is working to some extent and needs some fixing, but I think that is what we are here to do, look at that process.
The other thing I wanted to mention was about the veto. Even Mr Holtmann, whom we had come from Ottawa, said: "I do not think you really want to go to that extent." That is the past chair of the similar committee in Ottawa. It is not our place to do a veto, as Mr Bradley so often likes to remind me. It is the right of the Premier to appoint. A veto power is not what we want in this committee. What we are getting is a chance to question and a chance to review and a chance to be sure that they have the qualifications, the education and the experience to do the position.
Interjection.
Ms Haslam: Oh, I know, job search. Mr McGuinty says we do not know how this search process is. Every time we get one of these information packets about the Planning and Implementation Commission, it says "search process." When we get it for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, it says "candidate search process." There is a process in place, and it is always written and it is always in front of us when we have the candidate in front of us.
Mr Klopp: With regard to some of these discussions we have had, especially Mr Bradley's, on laying out the big illusion, it has not been my political party that has laid out the big illusion that this is something it is not. It is you who have stood up many times in the House and tried to make it look like the big illusion. It is an interesting committee here, that we seem to mix our political party in trying to make a speech. When you brought out the young press reporter, what about the old press reporter who maybe wants to see some changes? It is not us saying this is fantastically new. It is a start. It is the opposition that is trying to create that.
On the area of unanimous consent, maybe how your party works is that you can talk all you want but the Premier is the Premier, and you have some political hacks who sit behind you and tell you what button to push and you just look like you are doing something. I can assure you that we cannot even get unanimous consent in our caucus, because we all think for ourselves. But the majority rules. Maybe that is different in your party. It is the same thing in this committee, if it works at all: If there is someone sitting in that chair and all the so-called opposition members decide they are not voting for that person, I am sure that is going to register in somebody's office somewhere, or even if one of us does not vote for it.
Unanimous consent is ridiculous. There is a chance that someone could come in here and I may think, "Well, I don't know if he should get it or not." I do not really look at it as a political decision, whether I am going to vote for it or not. Cam Jackson might say, "Well, I think this person is all right," and we put our hands up and we find out that maybe three over there vote and two over here vote against it, but they should still go ahead.
So the unanimous thing, you know that is more political than anything. The veto thing, well, that is just a joke and you know that. But that is fine.
With regard to the 5,000, as in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and all the commissions and boards that are on that thing, from fenceline sitters to heaven knows what, it almost verges on the ridiculous. At the same time, it makes government work better, having more people involved in a lot of these commissions. You are not interested in that; neither is Allan McLean or neither is Paul Klopp, quite frankly. We all send names in and we try to get people involved.
It is basically the big fish we want to seem to talk about. I think that is the reality, but we are getting a little bit of political speeches involved in this thing. Certainly, in the little bit I have been here for, five minutes, Mr Chair, you have quite a job. I think we for sure agree that we can get more things and make this better, but get the politics out of it.
One thing that you brought up is that we have more names to look at. My colleague here said that we have an opportunity. I think that is one area where it would be kind of nice, if maybe for the head of the liquor board we have four names come in, or the head of whatever, CRTC or whatever we all do around here. I do not see a big problem with that. I would agree to make that part of a recommendation, that we see a few more names. At the same time, we are here today and let's get on with it.
Mr Grandmaître: I will try to be very brief. I do concur with Mr Bradley and my colleague Mr McGuinty. I am not going to repeat what has just been said.
I do not want to appear to be stubborn or difficult, but I think we are making progress. I realize that we are making progress this morning. We all agree that the process is flawed. I am pleased to hear this. Everybody wants to look at the process. I thought I was wasting my time, but finally I think we are accomplishing something. I go home in the evening and I ask myself: "What the hell have I done today? Not very much." But I will take this back. I think we are all on the same frequency now. We are all saying that the system is flawed, that we are simply rubber-stamping the Premier's appointments.
But to think that this committee can provide the Premier or his people with some insight, I think we are dreaming. Ms Haslam referred to Mr Brandt, and I have to go back, because Mr Brandt is a personal friend of mine. I even introduced his wife to him.
Ms Haslam: He was a personal friend of everybody here when he came in.
1140
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. I want to remind the members of this committee that Mr Brandt appeared before us three weeks after everyone in this room read that he was appointed. In fact, the Premier had a press conference and appointed Mr Brandt as chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I could see in Mr Brandt's grin, "No, Ben, I am only the intended candidate."
This is what I find to be so foolish about this committee. Not that I am looking for a veto. I do not think it would be right. I agree with you that the Premier has a right to appoint these people, and I think it is his responsibility to do this and he should keep on doing it.
But I do not think it is very responsible on the part of the Premier to slough off his responsibility on to this committee and say, "Rubber-stamp what I have to say or what I just did." I do not think it is very fair for a Premier or for anybody else to ask us to rubber-stamp somebody else's work.
I see people sitting in front of us with a surprised look. You are talking about a search process. I have seen people being surprised sitting there: "I just got a phone call from so-and-so." They are surprised. "What am I doing here?" And you call this a search committee, that looked for these people? Do not try to kid us. These people are more surprised than all of us. They do not even know why they are appointed. They say: "Well, look, I just got back from holidays and I got this phone call to rush to Queen's Park. Provide me with a CV. Do you know anything about this commission?" "No." "You will be a great candidate, go ahead. Go before the committee, because they do not have any other choice than approve that one candidate."
It has been suggested that maybe we should be allowed to review two or three people applying for the one appointment.
I do not think it is worth while carrying on. I know we have to work with the process until April or maybe May, until we get together and try to rehash the process, try to improve it. Last night, I did not have much to do. That is why I was questioning myself: "What the hell have I done this week? Not a hell of a lot," so I read Hansard, 20 December.
I was surprised to read some great remarks from the House leader, saying: "Hey, this is not the best, but what the hell, work with it. Do the best you can. There is a sunset clause and we will take a second look at it." We know the system is flawed, in other words.
I find our assembling is refreshing, because they do serve fresh coffee every morning, but that is the only refreshing thing I get from this committee, a fresh cup of coffee every morning. Maybe we should have doughnuts or something, we should have a picnic in this place every day, because it is a farce. We should not have beer advertising, but I think we should enjoy ourselves. Even the media are taking us with some scepticism.
Mr Bradley: You mean this room has not been full of press every day? I am surprised.
Mr Grandmaître: Some people from the Globe and Mail and the Star have been phoning me. They find it very surprising. They say, "Ben, any news?" I say, "No, it is the same damned thing."
Ms Haslam: They do not call me.
Mr Grandmaître: They know that you are being pushed, you are being told, you are a puppet on this committee. You have to do what you have been told. I hear these people saying, "Hey, there is a difference in the system." You did not even know what was going on before. You did not know there was a process that was in place before. You think that by being a member of this committee now you have your share of responsibility and you are going to do great things.
I think we should carry on with this great process that is flawed. I am glad to see that most members are agreeing that we should look at the system and report back to the government. I repeat the same thing that has been said around this table for a number of weeks now, that we do not have much else to do, so lets spend the government's money and waste time and be a member of the government agencies committee.
Mr Jackson: To think that I was disappointed that I was not going to be a permanent member of this committee. I just want to share a couple of observations from someone who has in the last six years been off and on this committee. I have worked closely with both the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Simcoe East. We have seen a slow evolution in the processes for this committee. I want to share a couple of points. One, I guess the longer I am here, the more I realize the more the changes, the more things stay the same. Political parties act predictably and consistently in any one of the three, and only three, positions they find themselves in, government, opposition or minority. I have had an opportunity to serve in all three environments and I am struck by this notion.
A couple of illustrations: A document which I review quite frequently is the accord document which allowed the third party to elect the second party to become the government of the day in 1985. As I recall that document, on page 3 there is a reference to reforms to the appointment process. It was called for and I also recall the articulate, bright leader of the third party of the day indicating that the veto process was an important component. This has all been lost on a lot of people. I distinctly remember it because for 21 days I was in a position as the government to make appointments. I did. I recommended two individuals. They are both women. I am pleased to say that they were extremely well qualified and well received and to this day are still holding those positions of responsibility because I believe they were good appointments and obviously they have sustained there.
I think we have to be careful that we do not all get caught up. When we are in government, we become arrogant. When we are in opposition, we become self-righteous. Really we should take one step back from the process and simply suggest that we have identified a process which is flawed, which requires further scrutiny. I concur generally with the statements that are being made on this side of the room, if I can say that. That the process being discussed as an objective is working effectively, I do not agree with. I do not think a year from now or two years from now, following the same track, we are going to prove that more time added is going to be more helpful.
Really, what is it we can do to suggest to this committee be done in order to alleviate some of the concerns raised by the government of the day, which when in opposition had those views and has tempered them immensely? Perhaps the solution lies in being rather specific on some commissions and boards. Because of the issues of equity, the representation of various citizens in this province, whether they be disabled, whether they be women, whether they be an identified minority group, native applicants, in my view there are serious deficiencies in the appointments process.
Nowhere am I satisfied that there is really a concerted effort to ensure that those candidates are brought forward with any degree of priority on the part of the government. I very much see a role for this committee in ensuring that this becomes an objective, and yet I am not getting a sense of that.
1150
We have seen social issues, such as the whole presentation with PRIDE. I thought it was excellent. He came to this committee with advice, as we have heard in the past, that we can be effective. He actually was suffering under the notion that somehow his presentation would manifest itself in our ability to select members to that board who might be more sensitive to the issues he has raised. I felt badly that he somehow felt that he was helping to change the process of selection. He is essentially talking to the wrong people. He should be talking to the ministry people. Yet his whole presentation was that the very people who were bringing forward the nominees to us are in fact the very people where there is a problem.
So I see problems. I am prepared to work with the system. Heck, that is easy; I am a substitute member of the committee. But I do expect to participate actively in something I believe in and that is to make the process work better. I would hope that the committee would be sensitive to the issues I have raised about issues of equity and representation, and not simply qualifications. I feel very strongly about that and have made those statements publicly. Those are my observations. I certainly know that over the next four years we would be better served to try and improve the process beyond what is being suggested is going to happen.
Mr Perruzza: I guess I will go back to something I stated the other day. I felt that it was too early in the process for us to be stopping and having this discussion. I realize that this particular issue was raised by one of our members, and suggested that we needed to have some discussion tailored around a process. I felt at that time that the discussion would veer off some positive, procedural, technical changes to the way we interview and process recommendations to what has happened here today, and that is just a round of bashing towards government intentions and government rights.
A number of suggestions have been made by some of the opposition members, and I will go through some of them. The idea was raised that we should have a veto power, that there should be equal representation here on the committee and so on, and that we are really talking about creating an illusion for the people of the province of Ontario. There is no illusion for me when I come here. The subcommittee chooses some candidates to interview, we interview them intelligently, we garner a lot of information and then we vote on whether or not that particular individual moves on from this process.
To date, I noted one of the Conservative members left the room when dealing with a particular member. He shuffled off, kicking the mud off his boots and so on. Other than that, I have not noted any of the opposition members voting against any of the candidates who have appeared before us -- or perhaps one -- and the suggestion there is that they have concurred continually with the people who have come before us based on their merit, based on their qualifications, based on their experience and so on and so forth.
The only thing I can infer from Mr Bradley's suggestion is that he really wants the Premier's powers here. You say: "Give us the veto. Give us equal representation." The fact of the matter is that it has never happened. This process never happened or was available to previous government backbenchers as well as opposition backbenchers before the NDP came to power in this province. You are right. We were elected to do a job and this is part of the government's mandate, to appoint people to government agencies, boards and commissions, and that is precisely what we are doing. If Mr Bradley wants the prerogatives and powers, then he should look to getting those at election time in seeking the leadership of --
Mr Bradley: You are burying yourself.
Mr Perruzza: -- his party and taking his message to the people of the province and to be elected-
Mr Jackson: Having the powers that Bob Rae has.
Mr Perruzza: Exactly. He will have exactly those powers and he will make exactly the same kinds of recommendations and so on.
There is something implicit in some of the comments that were made by the opposition members, and that is they are questioning the integrity of the process right at its origin in the Premier's office, and I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong for us to start levelling those kinds of accusations this early in the process -- two weeks into the process, may I add -- that someone at the source is not screening or recommending people to us who are either appropriate or well qualified.
That is simply is not the case. All those people have been supported and endorsed by the opposition. If the opposition has any serious reservations about any of them, it has the press at its disposal to voice its opposition and to get its message out to the people of the province. That has not happened to date, and it has not happened because the people who have come before us have been well-qualified, well-intentioned, well-meaning people, and they have supported all of those appointments.
There is also another implied undercurrent in some of the comments that were made, and that is that this particular side of this room is going to simply vote in favour or unanimously appoint all the people who come before this particular committee. That is simply not going to be the case, because nobody is going to pull the string on my vote and if I feel strongly about a particular candidate, and feel that particular person is not qualified to do a particular job, then I will vote against that person, and when it proceeds from here and if the recommendation does not carry in the affirmative when it moves from here, that will be dealt with accordingly by the appropriate person in the Premier's office.
We will deal with that particular issue when it arises. I do not want veto power. I do not want veto power here at this committee. I do not feel that is what this committee is --
Mr Jackson: I hope you have a second committee picked out.
Mr Perruzza: I guess I will conclude. I understand that some of my colleagues want some time to make some comments as well. I will conclude again by saying something that I said the other day: I think we should stop playing politics. I think we should give this process an opportunity to work. I think we should continue to do the kinds of things we have been doing. I think things have been proceeding relatively well. It is not perfect, but I think we are doing well.
Mr Waters: Now that we have spent approximately an hour talking about changing the terms of reference and not anything about process, it is interesting --
Mr Jackson: Was that on your note that the staff gave you?
Mr Waters: No, that was not on my note. I just looked at the clock
Interjection.
Mr Waters: That is why I thought maybe we would go in camera, because I knew what was going to happen if we did not, and I am a little bit perturbed about that because we are not going to change the terms of reference. That is why I mentioned the fact that we should set some time aside near the end of this and make some recommendations back.
As to the terms of reference that are there, I think we should start working with and working within them, one of them being that there should be seven calendar days from the time that we select a name to the time that he comes before us, so that not only do we have the time to do our homework but so too do those people have the time to prepare, because that was embarrassing for that lady the other day, I think, coming in here. She was probably a very credible candidate for that job, but the process let her down and unless we start talking about the process under these terms of reference and dealing with trying to make that process work, we are not going to gain anything.
1200
Someone said that we just rubber-stamped the Premier's appointments. I never said that and I do not believe anybody from this side said that. I truly believe we should give it a chance. Let's see what happens if we send back a negative recommendation. Give us a chance to work these things out. That is what this is about. I would like to see that we start following some of these guidelines. I would also like to see that the interview, and I ask your indulgence in listening to this, we give them one week, so that if we have some concerns as a committee, we can take those concerns back and get further information before we make that decision. I think that is important.
One of the other things I have seen is that on all sides there has been a lot of subbing. That is a problem with this committee, because what you have is people being interviewed and other people saying yes or no to whether they get the appointment or the recommendation of the committee. I would like to know if there is not some way that we could maybe even look at so that if you had a sub when you were interviewing, that at least for determining whether you are going to support that person, the recommendation is that that person be there that day. I do not know how that works procedurally within most committees, but that person would have to come back and be there that day.
There are some things I think we should have been talking about, the procedures within these. We could have done something this morning instead of sitting here and trying to make political gain that we can use in Hansard down the road. I am upset about it.
Mr Bradley: It has happened for the last four years. How can you lecture members of this committee? The New Democratic Party was --
The Chair: Order, please. I am not going to allow that kind of harangue across the floor to continue. I think that essentially this has not been harmful, even though we have had different opinions on both sides of the floor. I think it has probably been healthy to have the concerns reinforced and Mr. Waters's views expressed on the terms of reference.
We are somewhat constrained in what we can do by the standing orders. There is some flexibility within those standing orders, but it is limited. I think Ms Haslam correctly pointed out that when the standing orders were drafted, I have to assume they were drafted for our sitting when the House was in session and did not recognize the situation we are going to be faced with during a recess.
I do not think it is going to help us to get into an across-the-floor battle here, a political battle at this point, because we have to work together in the coming weeks and months. I think Mr. Waters's suggestion is certainly one we all agree upon in terms of some time having to be set aside, whether it is in April -- I suspect it will be in April if we are going to have some considerable time and I would suggest that we are not -- maybe this is not appropriate for the Chair to make this suggestion, but I suggest that we are not going to see a unanimous report coming out with respect to the terms of reference. It would be ideal if that did occur, but I suspect the feelings are obviously quite strong on both sides of the room, and we may see one or two minority reports also tabled in respect to the permanent standing order.
I am not sure we can do much to change the process we are now engaged in. We are going to be back in session in March and we are really not going to be -- I do not believe, and I stand to be corrected -- dealing with any more appointees before then, are we?
Clerk pro tem: None, at least at the moment.
The Chair: We are going to be back into the regular session and dealing with it in that process as envisioned by the standing orders. We will have that experience to fall back on when we deliberate the temporary standing order and what we would like to see appear in the permanent order.
Ms Haslam: Does this mean we will not be talking process every time we come again? This seems to be a natural topic that arises every time we come, and I think the point of this is that we were talking process and now that we know we have a time in April to talk process, perhaps it is time to get back into what we are supposed to be doing.
The Chair: I think the point is -- and you have a position; other members have perhaps a different position -- when we are talking about process when we are dealing with appointees, for example, there is a time allocation. We all agreed to that. How members wish to use that time allocation is their decision. If they want to talk about what they see as the failings of the process, they can use their time for that purpose.
I say we will spend perhaps two weeks or three weeks in March and April while the House is in session and have some experience under our belts before we start to deliberate on what we want to recommend to the House in May. But I do not see there is much more of an effective thing that we can do in terms of the changes to the process. Actually, we are not going to be experiencing any more interviews, if you will, until the House is back in March.
Mr McLean: On a point of order: It was my understanding that we were here to discuss how the process has gone so far dealing with people who have come before us. I think most members have expressed what they feel and how they feel the process has gone; whether anybody agreed with one another or not is beside the point. But the fact was that people have expressed it and I think that is what this morning was all about. I have not said much, because I certainly have not expressed my total facts.
Mr Perruzza: Where is the point of order? That is what I do not understand.
The Chair: I am being generous because Mr McLean has not spoken much.
Mr McLean: You will learn some day.
The Chair: I will concede there is no point of order there. If you wish to have the floor, though, I will give you the floor.
Mr McLean: No.
The Chair: Okay. I appreciate your explaining your position.
Mr McLean: Mr Waters is still on the agenda.
Mr McGuinty: If we can do something a bit more concrete this morning, I wanted to put forward a motion relating to Ms Phillips's response to the request. I guess it was an informal request that had been advanced by the clerk of the committee. I wanted to move that our committee formally request Ms Phillips or whoever the appropriate person might be -- I am not sure if that is the appropriate person -- in any event, that that person provide us with a list of all positions filled by orders in council and a list of all the positions from among the foregoing list of positions which are not subject to review by our committee.
Mr Perruzza: That is not within the purview of this particular committee.
The Chair: The committee has the right. I already indicated we have the right to send for papers and things.
Mr Perruzza: I want a recorded vote on this.
Mr Bradley: Oh, yes.
Mr Waters: Can we have that read back? I would like to have that motion read back to be clear on what is being said here.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. The clerk will read the motion.
Clerk pro tem: Mr McGuinty moved that the committee formally request from Ms Phillips that she provide us with a list of all positions filled by order in council and that she provide us with a list of all positions from the foregoing list which are not subject to review by the committee.
Mr Perruzza: I would like to challenge the Chair on his ruling. I think that is an inappropriate motion to be brought forward to this committee. I think that it is not within the purview of this committee and I challenge the Chair on that.
The Chair: All right. I put the question: Shall the Chair's ruling be sustained? My ruling is in essence that it is an appropriate request for this committee to make. Mr Perruzza has challenged it. It is not open to debate. I am putting the question.
Mr Jackson: On a point of clarification, if I may, Mr Chairman: I thought I witnessed that your prior ruling was not challenged and I am not comfortable, nor do I understand how our rules deal with subsequent challenges. Okay, I will not speak to it; I cannot speak to it. I thought I had witnessed that you had given a ruling and it was not challenged.
The Chair: As I understand it, Mr Perruzza is challenging my ruling on Mr McGuinty's motion being in order.
1210
Mr Jackson: I understand that. Has he specifically challenged your ruling on the motion? I thought I heard Mr Perruzza challenge the Chair's ruling with your authority to ask the question. That is what I thought. I do not have Hansard in front of me.
The Chair: We will get clarification from Mr Perruzza. My understanding was he was challenging my ruling in respect to Mr McGuinty's motion. Do you want to clarify your intent?
Mr Perruzza: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, say that again.
Mr McGuinty: What is your challenge?
The Chair: Your challenge is based on what? You are challenging what?
Mr Perruzza: I do not think that type of motion or the motion he intends to introduce after we vote on this is within the purview of this particular committee. I think our terms of reference have been fairly clearly defined. I think some of those appointments etc are being --
The Chair: You are challenging the motion. We do not have to go on with this. You are challenging the motion, and I have said the motion is in order.
Mr Perruzza: -- excluded from the terms of reference of this committee and that is why I feel if the motion were within the terms of reference --
The Chair: That is fine. There is no debate allowed on this. You have made your request.
Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
We were asked for a recorded vote. Mr Perruzza asked -- no, he did not. We did not have a recorded vote.
Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? Opposed?
We are going to have to call for a formal division on this.
Is the ruling of the Chair sustained?
All those in favour?
Mr Klopp: What are you voting on, Mr Perruzza's challenge?
The Chair: Mr Perruzza is challenging the ruling of the Chair that this motion is in order.
Mr Klopp: I thought you just make straight decisions, Mr Chairman, yes or no.
Mr McGuinty: A point of clarification, Mr Chair: Perhaps you or the clerk could explain to me, technically what does a challenge mean? I thought it meant that the challenger would have to appear and make argument before the Speaker of the House.
The Chair: I am not going to allow that sort of debate to occur. I think it would be inappropriate. We will have the ruling on the motion and then I will indicate what the procedure is.
The committee divided on the Chair's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:
Ayes -- 5
Bradley, Jackson, McGuinty, McLean, Runciman.
Nays -- 4
Haslam, Perruzza, Waters, Wilson, G.
The Chair: Drawing on the best advice I can, since we do have a tie vote, I am simply going to say that the motion is in order and we will proceed from there.
Mr Jackson: Now we vote on the motion.
The Chair: We now have the motion before us and hopefully everyone understands the intent of the motion. It is a follow-up to a request. We made a verbal, informal request of Ms Phillips several weeks ago for a list of OIC appointees who were not going to be subject to review. Mr McGuinty's motion now asks for a complete list and also distinguishing from that list those appointees who will not be subject to review by this committee. Any discussion?
Mr Waters: I would like to make an amendment to that motion, that rather than we ask for that to be supplied right now, because I believe it would be -- wait a minute, I cannot say that, can I? I would like it amended to say that as these come up, they be forwarded to the committee, instead of forwarded at this point in time in its entirety.
The Chair: I do not think that would be in order. Yes, it is not going to be in order as an amendment because it is inconsistent with the motion.
Mr Jackson: The request was for a complete list, not as they emerge. That was his ruling.
Mr Bradley: Speaking in favour of the motion, I believe that this kind of information would be very useful to both the committee and ultimately, through the committee, to members of the public. We want to view the process to see just how much power the committee has, just how much difference has been made. I think it would be very useful for the public of Ontario, as well, through the auspices of this committee, to be aware of that. By having this information available, it would certainly assist in that regard.
I cannot believe that people who say they are in favour of openness in government and who have long advocated openness in government would now want to prevent this kind of information from coming before this committee and ultimately before the people of Ontario. Surely this is once again a test of whether the rhetoric is going to be matched by the action, and to provide this. I would certainly be complimentary if we see the government members supporting this motion, which I think would be very useful to see where this committee stands in the appointments process. So I would strongly urge members from all parties to support it.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I think for the record it should be noted that Mr Perruzza requested a recorded vote. I will support the motion. I think it passing strange that this list was available to us from the previous governments, but may not, it would appear, be available with the new government. I am most fascinated, but it is clear that we certainly will be voting in favour of it.
Mr Perruzza: If I can shed some light on this, I think what I would urge my colleagues to do -- and I understand what Mr Waters's intent is. I particularly have no objections to these lists being made available. I do not feel and I did not feel that it is within the terms of reference of this committee to ask for that kind of information, but I have no objection to making that available.
I think what I would urge my colleagues to do is to vote against this particular motion. Then, because of the massive amount of work that would be involved in publishing such an extensive list at this particular time, I would propose to introduce a motion whereby we access this information as it comes available from the Prime Minister's office -- from the Premier's office, and he is the Prime Minister of the province of Ontario -- as the appointments are made to this committee. So I would urge the committee to vote against this motion. Mr Waters can introduce a subsequent motion that will do exactly what he intends to do without making amendments to Mr McGuinty's motion.
The Chair: We have the motion on the floor before us. Any further questions or comments on the motion? All in support of Mr McGuinty's motion? Recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr McGuinty's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 4
Bradley, Jackson, McGuinty, McLean.
Nays -- 5
Haslam, Klopp, Perruzza, Waters, Wilson, G.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I move that this committee be supplied with that information as it is made available through the Premier's office on a continual basis.
The Chair: Any discussion on Mr Perruzza's motion?
Mr McLean: Is that motion in order?
The Chair: I see no problem with that motion.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I did not introduce a concept which is of great concern to me, in that the current labour government of this province -- already there has been some discussions about the vestiges of a labour-vetting process at the cabinet level. I think it is rather dangerous, and I am on public record as saying I think it is rather dangerous, that certain policy decisions of the government of the day are having undue influence by this group and I am concerned with the potential for their involvement in the selection-appointment process.
I think that what is important, in the spirit of having this list available for the public to see, is that all candidates would approach the government expressing their interest, as opposed to certain groups that are certainly enjoying -- I think the throne speech made reference to these groups that previously have not had access to the corridors of power, and now that they do have access or control, depending on how you read it, that this does not manifest itself in the appointment process. I think it is a healthy process that we get the complete list.
Therefore, the way the motion is, I see it very much as a tool for various labour groups that have influence with this government to use the appointments process to their advantage, and I for one would not abide that. I think we mitigate that process by ensuring that the public sees the whole list and not when it is convenient to the government to let people see it.
1220
Mr Bradley: There is no doubt in my mind that the original motion was the legitimate one, which was going to provide the information in a timely fashion, in the kind of fashion which would be valuable to both this committee and the public. What we have just seen is in fact an attempt to sidetrack that through this motion. The value of it is being able to see the clear picture, the total picture. I can see the unease with which the member who proposed the motion viewed this particular motion on behalf of the member for Ottawa South.
Once again, I implore those who have been great advocates, in opposition and in other places, of openness and of a new look to the government of Ontario to sustain that rhetoric with the kind of action that would have been provided by the motion from the member for Ottawa South and not simply this motion to sidetrack. This motion clearly, if members were to vote for it, would change very little in terms of the process at the present time. Support of it would simply indicate that we are prepared to allow the government, in its own piecemeal fashion, to do as it sees fit, instead of allowing a legislative committee to have this information available.
Mr Waters: As a member of the NDP caucus, I have some concerns about Mr Jackson's statement about it being a labour government, because it is not a labour government. We are the New Democratic Party of Ontario. I would like to straighten that out, Mr Chair, through you.
Mr Jackson: Then be new and be democratic.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Jackson: Sorry, I apologize.
Mr Waters: All we are saying is that in the interim, because of the time and the amount of effort that it would take to get that information, give us a chance to do it in an orderly fashion. We are not saying we do not want to give you the information. What we are saying is that as they come up, we will get them to you as soon as possible. That is all that is in this motion. It is not a motion to limit the amount of knowledge that the committee has on any given topic as to who is being appointed to what. All it is saying is, there is a rational way to do it and we are proposing that.
Mr McGuinty: I want to express my disappointment at the turn of events, Mr Chair, with respect to the defeat of my motion and the subsequent introduction of this new one. I think more than anything it speaks to the commitment that the members opposite have with respect to fulfilling the objective set out by the Premier. That was something I have called in the past and I have no hesitation calling again a noble and worthwhile objective.
I would implore them to look to their own consciences in this matter and to remember their constituents when they knocked on doors, rather than the gentleman in the grey suit who approaches them from time to time and gives advice. It is unacceptable for you to respond that you simply cannot prepare this list. I think our obligation, and I speak to you as rookies, like myself, is to ask what could be and ask why not, rather than to look at what is and say, "Maybe there's not much we can do to change that."
I think it does not matter how much time it takes to prepare that list. The government of Ontario, this particular government in its capacity as a fiscally responsible employer, has an obligation to prepare that list, and we have an obligation, as members of the committee, to obtain it and to use it to our best advantage in fulfilling the obligations imposed upon us by the Premier in creating this committee.
Ms Haslam: I just point out that there are three complete binders in the library of order-in-council appointments. They are available in the library. You also want to know staff appointments. This committee does not deal with staff appointments, this committee deals with public appointments; therefore we are saying, as these public appointments come forward, that information is there for you. The other is already available to you in the library.
Mr Jackson: I apologize for commenting a second time, Mr Chairman, but I feel one of our problems is that several members of this committee do not accept the truth of the statements contained in the memo that this is such an awkward and difficult piece of information to obtain. Those who have been in government know that the documentation is available. Some have even seen it. Therefore some of us reject out of hand the efficacy of the suggested advice as contained in that memo.
I would like to ask, just as a point of personal understanding, if the person who has been advising the NDP caucus can be identified to us. I feel most uncomfortable not knowing who this individual is. I know that this has been called upon in the past committees. There has been an excessive amount of sidebar discussion and notes passed and motions apparently written. I for one would feel a lot more comfortable if the individual who has been so helpful to the NDP were identified for us. I just make that as a member's privilege request.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, the motion that I introduced, I introduced on my own -- Hansard has it for the record -- without coaxing or people whispering in my ear. There has been no extraneous outside influence. I think this side of this committee has conducted itself in a very responsible manner today. If there is an implication from Mr Jackson that that is not the case, then Mr Jackson should come out and clearly say that.
Mr Jackson: I did not make an accusation. I observed an event and asked if the Chair would assist by identifying someone in the room. This is quite a common request in committees if you are not familiar with that.
Mr Bradley: You are in trouble now. The real whip is here.
Mr Jackson: I just specifically would like the individual who is in the room to be identified and that is all, for the record. That is a simple request.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask that all the individuals in the room be identified at the same time, please. Thank you.
Ms Haslam: Thank you. I agree.
The Chair: I will take Mr Jackson's request under consideration and advise him when we break who the gentleman is. That may resolve the situation, perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction. In any event, we have the motion. Do you want it re-read?
Mr McGuinty: Yes, please.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza moves that, as order-in-council appointments are made that are not within the purview or terms of reference of this committee, that information be forwarded to this committee concerning the positions that have been filled as they are made available.
Mr Jackson: -- appointees that are dealt with by the committee. It is not those who are and those who are not; it is just those who are not.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the motion? I am calling the vote if there is no further discussion. All in favour of the motion?
Mr Perruzza: It is recorded.
The Chair: You are making that request now? You did not earlier.
Mr Perruzza: I thought they all were.
Clerk pro tem: No.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion carries. Anything further before we break for the day?
Just for Mr Perruzza's information and perhaps the other members of the committee, if you read the statement I made the other day, I will not get into debate on the challenge to the Chair, but the standing orders give standing and select committees the "power to send for persons, papers and things," except when the House otherwise orders. This committee has that full authorization under the standing orders of the House.
Mr Perruzza: Even when it is not within its jurisdiction and terms of reference?
The Chair: It is within the standing orders of the House, in any event.
Mr McLean: On a point of clarification, Mr Chairman: Are all the members who voted on this motion subbed in or members of the committee?
The Chair: They are all correctly subbed, I am advised.
Mr McLean: They all have sub slips? Thank you.
The Chair: Nothing further? The meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1230.