DRAFT REPORT ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL BOARD
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 May 1994
Subcommittee report
Draft report: Ontario Food Terminal Board
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Malkowski
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel:
Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I call to order the meeting of the standing committee on government agencies.
The first order of business this morning is the report of the subcommittee dated Wednesday, May 11. I think you all have a copy of that report, which confirms that there were no selections from the certificate of May 5, 1994, for interviews of appointees; and the second matter being that the selection of the government party for agency review is the Ontario Securities Commission. That's all that is included in that report.
Would someone like to move adoption of that report? Moved by Mr Waters.
Is there any discussion of that report? All in favour? That is carried.
DRAFT REPORT ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL BOARD
The Chair: Now we are going to take what I hope will be a very fast confirmation of the report on the Ontario Food Terminal Board, and then we will get into a very important discussion for the future direction and work of this committee. Unless there are any questions, we will proceed with Mr Richmond showing us what it was in this report that last week the committee directed be changed.
Mr Jerry Richmond: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. You've got the report in front of you. Following the committee's instructions, what I've done with the computer is that we've either struck out -- put a line through -- or used shading to show the additions. If you glance at the table of contents, you'll see some of the changes.
Turning to page 8, I reviewed the text quite thoroughly to reflect the committee's new position, particularly your stronger position against the perpetual leases. On page 8, there's a sentence that has been deleted, and that was done to reflect, you'll see a bit later, your stronger new position against the perpetual leases.
If there are any questions, by all means, otherwise I'm just going to run through this quite quickly.
If you turn to page 9 and just flick over the page, you'll see on page 10 the adjustments that were made in the recommendation relating to the updating and review of the Ontario Food Terminal Act and the regulations. You see the deletions on page 10 to reflect the preferred option of the committee. That should be relatively straightforward, and it reflects our discussion of last week.
Moving to page 11, you see those deletions continued, and you have the second recommendation on the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Moving right along to the corporate plan, there are no changes there. That merely reflects the debate.
On page 12, on the business of restricting non-Canadian or non-Ontario fruits and vegetables, you see that the preferred option is now included and option B on page 13 has been deleted. That merely reflects our discussion of last week. And you see the continuation of the deletions on page 14 to reflect, once again, the committee's preferred position.
The section on the perpetual leases begins on page 14, and this section generated the most substantial changes.
On page 15, I took the liberty of deleting a number of sentences that I felt didn't flow when you consider the position the committee took against the perpetual leases. I took the liberty of removing those sentences because it seemed strange that you were making various arguments in defence of the leases and then suddenly, bang, you get recommendations against them. Those sentences, with respect, I've taken out, and I don't think it changes the overall meaning.
On page 16, you see the modified recommendations 6, 7 and 8. The previous 6 was deleted. Mrs Marland referred to it as a "Santa Claus" recommendation, with respect, Madam Chair, so that one has been deleted. The current number 6 has been adjusted slightly to improve the wording, and 7 and 8 are new ones which reflect the committee's discussion of last week. Should I read 7 and 8, Madam Chair?
The Chair: No, I think everybody's got it in front of them.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): You're moving a bit fast for us to read the stuff, though.
The Chair: Well, go ahead and read it.
Mr Richmond: Maybe I'll read 6 too so we get the sense of it. These are the recommendations reflecting last week's debate on the issue of the perpetual leases:
"6. The Ontario Food Terminal Board should monitor market conditions every five years (the earlier `C unit' project was cancelled in 1990) and in 1995 assess possible tenant interest in reactivating a plan to build additional new warehouse units at the terminal, which would be offered for lease without a perpetuity clause.
"7. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ontario Food Terminal Board investigate" -- I think we're missing a word. It should be "should" or "shall."
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): "Shall investigate" is what we finally said. We wanted to give them a very firm, stern direction.
Mr Richmond: "...shall investigate methods of equitably terminating the perpetual nature of the warehouse leases on a priority basis. A `buyout' option and/or shorter-term leases must be considered. The ministry should provide a progress report on this recommendation to the committee within six months of the tabling of this report in the Legislature.
"8. Upon termination, or the intention to sublet a warehouse lease, the warehouse lease should revert to the Ontario Food Terminal Board."
Mr Waters: It was changed to "shall."
Mr Richmond: "Shall" rather than "should"?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Richmond: "...shall revert to the Ontario Food Terminal Board. In addition, if a tenant vacates the premises the lease shall be deemed terminated."
The Chair: How do you interpret, in number 7, "on a priority basis"? I think I know what Jerry means, but if somebody else from the outside is looking at it for the first time, what do you think that means?
Ms Carter: I'm not sure what it does mean.
The Chair: I'm not either. I think I know what you mean, Jerry. Are we saying we want them to do it soon? Or the other way I read it was "equitably terminating...on a priority basis." We're asking that the investigation be done now, but the way I read it, "on a priority basis" could revert to "equitably terminating." Why don't we say "immediately investigate" and take off "on a priority basis"?
Mr Waters: "...shall immediately investigate methods of equitably terminating the perpetual nature of the warehouse leases," period?
The Chair: Yes, I like that. I'm only the Chairman. Oops, I'll sit back again.
Mr Waters: No, no. This particular report has been a cooperative report.
Mr Richmond: "Shall immediately"?
The Chair: Yes, Dan said "shall immediately," and then finish it after "warehouse leases." Is that okay with everyone?
The "immediately" is to investigate, at least to start it. It's going to take them quite a long time.
Mr Waters: If you don't say "immediately," if you read the very last sentence in that recommendation, you're saying you want them to report back on their progress within six months, so with "immediately" all you're doing is reaffirming what you're saying later on.
The Chair: I think it's good.
Ms Carter: Yes, and you're saying what should be considered later on too, so that's there.
Mr Waters: "On a priority basis" should be struck, and it's "shall immediately."
The Chair: Maybe Jerry can re-read it, because we won't see this again.
Mr Richmond: "7. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ontario Food Terminal board shall immediately investigate methods of equitably terminating the perpetual nature of the warehouse leases" period, and that phrase "on a priority basis" would be deleted. Then it just continues on as is.
In 8, the first "should" in "warehouse lease should revert" would now read "shall revert."
Mr Waters: That's right. It just brings it in line with what you're saying later on.
1020
The Chair: You want the "shall" later in 7 as well, don't you? "The ministry shall provide a progress report."
Mr Waters: "A buyout option or a shorter-term lease must be considered," which is consistent, I believe, and then it should say, "The ministry shall provide," because we should be consistent.
The Chair: And then the other change is "shall" in number 8.
Mr Waters: Yes. That makes it consistent throughout.
Mr Richmond: A point of clarification: When I was reading last week's Hansard, I put in that phrase in recommendation 7, "The ministry shall provide a progress report...within six months." I can understand the committee wanting to focus on that particular recommendation and its importance, but I'm just wondering whether you would want to apply that six-month review to all those recommendations relating to the perpetual leases or whether you want it to only apply to number 7.
Mr Waters: I see 7 and 8 intertwined and being almost one recommendation. What we're trying to say is that no matter how you terminate them, whether they decide to give up the lease or whatever, it goes to the board. Yes, I have no problem with that.
Mr Richmond: So do you want it to apply to recommendations 7 and 8, or all three of them?
Mr Waters: My feeling is 7 and 8, but how do you feel, John?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I could go along with 7 and 8.
The Chair: You know what I was just thinking? What I think the committee wants is a written progress report. Do you think we should say that?
Mr Waters: I don't care whether it's a written progress report or whether they come before the committee for an hour and give us an update. One way it's on Hansard and therefore is official, the other way it is a written report and therefore is official, so either way. When I did this before in another committee, about the WCB, they had to come back and go on Hansard about their progress. Either way is official. That's the intent.
The Chair: The only reason I'm raising it is that if the committee isn't sitting at that time, you might like the written report to peruse until such time as the committee is sitting. In order to speak to them six months from now without it being a selection, we want something that addresses the fact that the committee has the option of reading their report and having them in to talk to them about it.
Mr Cleary: I don't think it would inconvenience them too much to come before the committee in approximately six months' time or whenever the timing is right. Writing a report or being here to answer questions are somewhat different, in my opinion.
Mr Waters: So your preference is that they come before the committee.
Mr Cleary: I think so. That would be my preference.
The Chair: "...make a progress report on this recommendation to the committee." Then I guess it's all right the way it is. They're going to make the report to the committee.
Mr Waters: Yes, because even if they give us a written report, we are the committee, and if in six months' time we get a written report and we as a committee decide we're not happy, we say: "We want you in to explain this. The day is such-and-such a day, and we want an hour or two hours for you to explain to this committee, on the record, what you have done." I don't have any problem with either way. I still believe you cover it.
The Chair: But do you not think there might be an advantage to receiving a written report you can review, so that when they come before the committee you've already got questions you can ask them, and there are no surprises? I think we should have both so it flows that way, and that's a good flow if the committee actually isn't sitting at that time. You've got the report and then, as soon as the committee is sitting again, they are there to discuss the report.
Mr Waters: I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting, as long as there is an understanding that they must respond to this committee, because we are not giving up on this issue. It has been out there for a long time, with several reviews, and the time has come, we are saying, that they must respond and deal with the issue.
The Chair: Do we have to identify the committee?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): No. It's "respond to this committee." It's the report of the standing committee on government agencies.
The Chair: So we had better say "this committee." "The ministry shall provide a progress report on this recommendation to this committee," just so there's no question about where the report goes. Go ahead.
Mr Richmond: In your debate of a few minutes ago, I asked you a question, and I should have the gist of it. On that sentence, "The ministry shall provide a progress report within six months," one alternative would be that if you moved that sentence down and, let's say, made it a new recommendation 9, you could then apply the progress report to both recommendations 7 and 8, because the two are linked. The way it is now, they would, strictly speaking, come before you and give a progress report on only recommendation 7. But recommendations 7 and 8 are closely intertwined.
The Chair: Yes, that cleans it up.
Mr Richmond: So if you moved that sentence down and made it recommendation 9, "That the ministry shall provide a progress report on recommendations 7 and 8 to this committee within six months of the tabling of this report in the Legislature," then it would be very clear.
Mr Waters: I have no problem with that, because I want it to cover both.
Mr Richmond: If that's your wish.
Mr Waters: It beats writing it at the bottom of recommendation 8 as well as recommendation 7.
Mr Richmond: So that would become a new recommendation 9, and we would specifically say in there "a progress report on the two previous recommendations."
Mr Waters: You could say, "The ministry shall provide a written progress report on recommendations 7 and 8 to the committee within six months of the tabling of this report in the Legislature." You could actually go that far, could you not?
The Chair: "And shall appear before the committee to discuss the report."
Mr Waters: I don't think we have to say that. We have the right as a committee to say, after they've given us the written report, "We're not satisfied with that; therefore we're calling you in."
The Chair: The clerk is saying they don't have to be on the list for review because we've already reviewed them and this recommendation is part of that review. That's great.
Mr Richmond: We would then have a new recommendation 9 that would read as follows: "The ministry shall provide a written progress report on recommendations 7 and 8 to this committee within six months of the tabling of this report in the Legislature."
The Chair: Any further discussion? Okay, let's move on.
1030
Mr Richmond: The remaining changes I think are just housekeeping.
We've got the section on page 16 on the consideration of privatization of the food terminal, and, moving to page 18, you see we've deleted the alternative recommendation and we've got the preferred one. That reflects last week's debate.
Moving to page 19, on the business about the food terminal being bound by the social contract, we've now got the third recommendation, what used to be 9(c). That's the preferred option. The recommendations here will be renumbered to reflect the new recommendation previous, so we'll just carry out that housekeeping.
Madam Chairman, that's about it. The rest of the text, except for some housekeeping, is as it was before.
The Chair: No further questions? So is it the agreement of the committee that this report will be sent for translation?
Mr Waters: I move that this committee adopt the report as revised today and sent for translation, and also authorize the Chair to report to the House.
That covers everything we have to do, right?
The Chair: Any discussion on the motion? All in favour of that motion? That's carried unanimously.
Thank you, Mr Richmond.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Our next item of business is not on our agenda, but we are to consider the future work of the committee, and the subcommittee discussed this in a preliminary fashion. There has been concern by the subcommittee members that we could be using the time of the committee more productively in doing in-depth reviews of government agencies, boards and commissions, and as we have in excess of 850 of these in the province, we have lots of scope. If they're not reviewed, the concern is that we may have legacies of ongoing ABCs some of which -- who knows? -- maybe should be disbanded or should have their mandates changed, and the work of the Legislature is so onerous that we never get enough time to do enough work in that area.
We're open to discussion by all members of the committee now of what our options are, whether we would agree to set aside one meeting a month to do appointments, or two meetings a month, or whatever you want to do -- it's up to you -- and balance it off with doing agency reviews also when the Legislature is sitting, not just when the House is in recess. And I guess we still have to get the agency from the other two parties.
Clerk of the Committee: We have one agency to come.
The Chair: It's the Conservative selection that we don't have. We have the Ontario Securities Commission from the government, the St Lawrence Parks Commission from the official opposition.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): We would suggest either the Ontario Film Review Board or the Council of Regents.
Ms Carter: Are there any research data about which agencies might be candidates for sunsetting and so on? You said there are hundreds of agencies, and I'm sure as members we're not aware of which ones might be dead wood just sitting there. Can we ask for somebody to look into this?
Mr Waters: Which committees are actually active and which are sitting somewhat dormant.
The Chair: That's a very good suggestion, and we certainly could ask our researcher to do that. That could be part of when we actually start to select which agencies we will do. Obviously, that would be very valuable information to have and I appreciate the suggestion. But I think what you need to decide first is how you would like to order the work of the committee.
Ms Carter: It might depend on what was turned up by such research, what kind of volume of business there would be to deal with. If it turns out that there are a lot of agencies that should be investigated on those grounds, then obviously we'd need the time to do it.
The Chair: We all have a copy of this infamous orange book. We might like to have some meetings where we invite in two or three agencies, just to find out what they do rather than doing an in-depth review, and then, based on what we learn from their mandate as they see it, you might want to know more about it or you may rather select others for an in-depth. I can see two levels of work here, first reviewing what some of them do.
That's one of the things I notice when we're questioning our appointments. Fortunately, because of the research work done by the researcher for each appointee, we learn about that individual agency, and we often want to ask the appointee how much they know about that agency.
I think you can approach it from two avenues: agencies you want an in-depth review of, the kind of reviews we've been doing; and others for which you want information about what their work is.
Ms Carter: Obviously, some are very familiar to us and we know they're useful, but I'm just wondering what there might be out there that never comes before us.
The Chair: We know what Ontario Hydro does, for example.
Mr Waters: We had a fairly lengthy discussion last week on this very issue in subcommittee, and what we have found is that when we go to review appointments, in a lot of cases it is indeed our curiosity about that agency, board or commission that leads to the selection of that particular appointment, not necessarily questioning the qualifications of the person who has the appointment.
What I would like to see is a balance of reviews of agencies, boards and commissions, and included in that, as you've suggested, maybe one day or an hour or a half-hour -- I don't know what it would take -- to get an idea of what some of these boards and commissions actually do first hand; but also, at the same time, always remembering that there are appointments we should be looking at. We do have 30 days in which to select, and there are at times people that we, from all three parties, would like to bring forward, either to highlight the fact that all three of us agree this is a wonderful selection or to question the qualifications and the match of the appointment.
I think what we need to do is somehow create a balance of those three things. I don't think it can be written in stone, but we can have an understanding, I guess, that this is the way it should go as long as there isn't something that comes along and throws the whole thing out of kilter.
1040
The Chair: The clerk is suggesting that we could leave that direction at the responsibility of the subcommittee. Say you agree that once a month you would review appointments, and if, at some time other than that, there was a very important appointment that the subcommittee agreed should be reviewed, it in essence would probably only be a half-hour or an hour anyway to be fitted in.
How would you like to proceed? Would each caucus like to select three or five agencies for a review of what their mandate is and from that decide whether you'd like a full review? Or would you like to do that as one part? At the same time, we now will have three agencies selected for a full review. Will that be in the recess?
Clerk of the Committee: It will have to be, because they need a good month's notice to prepare.
The Chair: By the time we come back after next week we're going to be into June, so those three agencies that have now been selected will be dealt with in the next recess.
Mr Waters: On the three agencies, could I get clarification from Ms Witmer about which, of the two she's suggested, she is really going to go with this time around? You suggested two in this round. What we have traditionally been doing in the committee is that it's the government party, the official opposition, then the third party. Actually, whoever starts, it's been around and around, one, two, three. I personally would like to know which of the two you would like to go with this round, and then the other you can either leave till the next round or indeed change your mind.
Mrs Witmer: I'll go with the Council of Regents.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The suggestion of a broader look at which agencies might be redundant and sunsetted is interesting. I just suggest that there might be another sort of generic approach in another sector.
It seems to me that a number of the agencies are really very technical. I don't have the list in front of me, but in Agriculture and Food, in Health and probably some other areas, there are some very technical agencies. I wonder if that would be a useful review, to get a sense of how those technical agencies function without us getting into a minute review of one particular one, which might be far too technical for us.
The Chair: That could be part of your choice of your caucus.
Mr Frankford: When one is choosing particular agencies, it requires a considerable amount of research time. Maybe this generic approach wouldn't require so much research, that it could be a discussion with, say, representatives of the appropriate ministry.
The Chair: We can't give an unreasonable amount of work to our researcher. If you are talking about selecting three to five agencies from each caucus, that they come in and you ask questions and they tell you what they do, I don't see that it's necessary, for that kind of review, to ask our researcher to prepare reams of pages, because they're going to come in and you're going to ask the questions that interest you. Is that what you would agree to?
Mr Waters: One of the things we should try to tie down is that if the -- shall we call it the curiosity hearings that we want to do? I don't know what we want to call them, but the short ones to get an understanding of what those ABCs do. Not only do I not want David to work day and night for a bunch of material we won't even use, I also don't want agencies preparing reams of things. We just want to have some idea of what they do on a day-to-day basis and what their purpose and function is. I think we should try to develop a way of communicating with these people that, "We don't want you to set some staff person aside for a month and a half or something."
The Chair: Our clerk has a good suggestion.
Clerk of the Committee: In addition to all the material that David prepares for you, part of the notification is including a questionnaire, asking them to prepare financial statements and submitting any materials they have that would give us any basic background. If we were to review that questionnaire with the subcommittee and see if there's any area they feel we might want to eliminate or might want to emphasize to the different groups, we could design a more tailor-made questionnaire to go to the people from whom you don't want as in-depth a review. We could tailor the request to them differently than we would to the people where you're doing an extensive review.
The Chair: I think Mr Waters's point is very valid about that preliminary review. We certainly don't want the agencies involved in a lot of preparation, because in that preliminary kind of review it's obviously information they're going to have right at the top of their head.
Mr Waters: One other question is that as we do this, if we indeed decide that once a month will be set aside for appointment reviews, how does that fit within the standing orders?
Clerk of the Committee: The subcommittee could still meet on a weekly basis and review the certificates on a weekly basis, which would dispose of them as quickly as possible. You've got 30 days from the day the certificate is actually released, and then you've got another 30 days from the time the committee reviews it. If there were any indication that the committee would have trouble meeting that 30 days, you've got that 14-day extension. I'd keep track of that. If there was going to be a problem on the date that is set aside for review, that you'd need that 14-day extension, then fine. If even with that there was difficulty, we could hold the certificate until the next meeting and review two certificates at one meeting, just so we stay within all the standing orders.
I think the important thing is, first, for the committee to see whether there is anybody, but also to let the secretariat get on with its appointments, if they're not going to be reviewed by the committee, as soon as it can.
The Chair: I'd like Mr Pond to also make a couple of comments, but how many agencies do you think we could reasonably review when the House is sitting if we're talking about in-depth agencies?
Clerk of the Committee: You picked the three for this year. You had a week on each during the recess and you still haven't cleaned up your reports. Hopefully, your last report will be cleaned up in June in time for us to get it translated and printed for tabling in the House, or otherwise we're looking into the recess. So a good six months to do three.
The Chair: And when the House is sitting, we only have eight hours a month.
1050
Mr David Pond: Just a couple of points of clarification: This book lists all agencies currently active in the province, so if it's in here, you know it's working, so to speak.
On the point about sunsetting, I'll look it up for you. Management Board does have an internal sunsetting process whereby all ABCs are supposed to be reviewed internally every three years. I'm sure they have a schedule, and I'll try to get that for you. Some agencies do get terminated. There are a couple not listed in here for which this committee's reviewed appointments in the past. So every once in a while some of them do disappear. The Citizens' Advisory Committee on the Oak Ridges Moraine, which we reviewed some appointments to a couple of years ago, and the Task Force on Advanced Training, which Mr Pitman headed up -- we reviewed his appointment a couple of years ago -- have been terminated and they're not in the book any more. So it does happen on occasion.
The Chair: I was amazed when I looked through some of them. Quite frankly, I did learn the importance of some of them, which, when you're going through superficially -- the fence-viewers commission or whatever is a terribly important agency to farmers in this province.
I'm looking for direction from the committee.
Mr Waters: Direction as in the coming weeks immediately, or in the long term?
Clerk of the Committee: We have to be looking at the fall, really. This summer, we've got the selections for the three but the notice will be going out for it over the recess. You're really looking into how you want to tailor your hearings when the House is sitting in the future, starting in the fall.
Mr Waters: What have we got left, five weeks or four weeks?
Clerk of the Committee: You've got next week as a constituency week, so four weeks.
Mr Waters: I was wondering how long the Ontario Securities Commission would take, because it is in town and it's a lot easier. To bring in the official opposition's group one day a week, every week, is difficult. That isn't fair to that group. If we have a Toronto group, it's a lot easier to ask it to come up.
Clerk of the Committee: Even for that, to give them this short notice to prepare for an in-depth review that would start, for example, during the last week the House is sitting in June, is still not a lot of time, and then you're only going to get them for perhaps two and a half hours. You'll still have to look at them during the recess.
Perhaps you'd be further ahead to identify how much time you'd need for full days with them during the recess. Maybe the subcommittee could look at that today, how much time it thinks it's going to need for each of the three picks. Then you can get your letter in to the House leaders as to how much time you will require during the recess to do the reviews. Then we could fit the report-writing into the fall schedule, as you have this time, as well as working in reviews of other agencies.
For example, instead of spending the time we have on this discussion today, it might have been having Jerry going over part of a report, and then going for an hour or an hour and a half with one of the agencies you just want to get some insight on.
The Chair: I can see too, with the St Lawrence Parks Commission, that the committee will want to go down and look at those facilities. I remember that with the committee reviewing the fort in Thunder Bay -- I can't remember its name -- there was a lot of discussion before we went to see it and to speak to the board up there that maybe it was time for the local municipality to take over the responsibility for this historical aspect of maintaining these forts and providing summer programs for tourists: Where was the benefit and what was the real cost, and just how important was that? Well, you get an entirely different perspective when you actually go there and see the facility and see the people who use it and see what it means to that local community.
When we're sitting in our ivory tower down here, we're very removed, unfortunately, from the reality of a lot of things that are going on outside, especially when you get into rural Ontario. I think the St Lawrence Parks Commission is a good example.
Mr Waters: If indeed we do travel down there, my colleague Mr Cleary and I both know what Charlottenburgh Park looks like today and we're probably the only two members of the committee who have an understanding of what it's going to cost to open that park. I have no problem with actually going and visiting the park. In fact, there's a wonderful building at Upper Canada Village that we could use for some hearings.
The Chair: Mr Cleary, is it in your riding? Is your riding part of that?
Mr Cleary: Oh, yes. To get back to that, if the political will were there, it wouldn't cost anything to open those parks. They're a disgrace.
Interjection.
Mr Cleary: You can laugh, if you want. I don't care what you do. It's the truth.
Mr Waters: It's just that the fact that it isn't going to cost anything is an interesting concept.
Mr Cleary: Not the government, I said.
The Chair: Let's not get into the debate of the pros and cons. I know it's hard not to get into that debate.
You see, what you've just said, John, is all the more argument for the fact that people do have to see what it is that we're talking about, if that indeed is an example.
Mr Waters: In the case of the St Lawrence Parks Commission, they actually have a proposal that will help make them more self-sufficient, a capital proposal. Maybe we could look at that while we're there because that would be part of the review. There are some things they're doing or have on the drawing board that would help their situation. Other than the rental of parks, there are other things they've got on the boards that are quite interesting.
The Chair: What I'm saying is that there are some reviews that you simply can't do in the isolation of this building. We have a clerk who's very good at renting buses with square wheels, so it's not like we're looking at a big cost to get down there and back. That may be something that will be part of that particular review, but I'm only using that as an example. What we were discussing was how much work we have now agreed to and how much time.
Obviously, we've got the work set out for the recess, and we have one day in June already booked for appointment reviews.
Clerk of the Committee: You have the Ontario Human Rights Commission report to work on in June, and you have one day set aside, so far, for intended appointments, and the subcommittee will be meeting again today on intended appointments. So I would think you've got your work ahead of you.
Mr Waters: We're pretty well booked.
The Chair: We are, because we're not going to get through the Ontario Human Rights Commission report the first time we look at that draft.
Mr Cleary: Madam Chair, maybe I didn't answer you right. The parks commission goes from the Quebec border to west of Kingston. It spreads across my riding, but the actual offices of the St Lawrence Parks Commission are not in my riding. I have to put up with the weeds and the stuff in my riding.
The Chair: What I meant was, is part of their property in your riding? Obviously, it is.
What do you want to do about ordering the business of the committee in the fall?
Mr Waters: Seeing that in the discussion this morning everybody seems to be in agreement about creating a new balance in the committee and having pre-hearings or whatever we want to call them, where we are now going to start looking at people for an hour or so just to find out what they do, seeing how we all seem to be in agreement in the committee, I think it should be up to the subcommittee to sit down with the respective caucuses and come back with a list, then sit down as a committee and decide in what order we want to do this list and how far we want to go before we start actually selecting.
The Chair: Would you suggest three per caucus?
Clerk of the Committee: I would think, if you really intend to get through, even with just a one-hour or an hour-and-a-half review, it would be optimistic to look at any more than a maximum of three per caucus.
The Chair: Let's say you would come back with three per caucus for this preliminary review --
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Could we call it an agency overview?
The Chair: That's a good term, because it is just an overview; that's a good suggestion. If it's an hour, it's still only 20 minutes per caucus.
Clerk of the Committee: And you're going to want some kind of presentation.
The Chair: That's right. We're going to want to hear from them too, to start with. Looks like we can only do one a week, doesn't it?
Mr Waters: That would be my suggestion, that we do one a week. In an hour, they will make a presentation and we're also going to want anywhere from five to 20 minutes each as a caucus to discuss this with them. You're eating the morning.
The Chair: That's right. Let's agree that you'll each come back with three names, and we'll do one each caucus in order until they're done, and we'll do one per week. So they would have a half-hour presentation, then you would each have half an hour of questioning.
That's great. I think we've made some good progress in ordering the business of the committee. Frankly, my sense as Chair is that the committee members will get more out of this mode of approach.
Ms Harrington: They all know what appointments they'd like to have, right?
The Chair: For sure.
All right. I'm glad we've got that decided, and I thank you for the open discussion on it. We are going to have a brief subcommittee meeting this morning. Other than that, the rest of the business of the committee is completed for today. Thank you for your attendance.
The committee adjourned at 1104.