CONTENTS
Wednesday 23 October 1996
Organization
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair / Président: Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mrs ElinorCaplan (Oriole L)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
*Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC)
Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
*Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
*Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr ToniSkarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Stewart
Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC) for Mr Froese
Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mrs Marland
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lisa Freedman
Staff / Personnel: Mr Philip Kaye, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1037 in room 151, following a closed session.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair (Mr John L. Parker): I call this meeting to order. This committee has been reviewing in private session many reports that are currently on record with regard to the Office of the Ombudsman, and I understand we are ready to proceed with some recommendations.
Dr Galt, I understand you have a motion.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I move that we release the report and the draft revisions to recommendations in review of the Office of the Ombudsman, dated April 1993, as a working paper to potential witnesses and invite comment on this paper and the 1993 report.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Is the public waiting for the release of that report, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I suppose we're going to find out, Mr Skarica.
Any other comments or discussion? I call the matter to a vote. All in favour? All opposed?
Mr Galt: Did we have a seconder, Mr Chair?
The Chair: We don't have seconders in this process. We had unanimous approval on that one, however, and the motion is carried.
Further motions?
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I would like to make a motion that would authorize you as Chair to set the agenda for those participants who would like to act as intervenors in this process. We know there's a list of people who have an interest in expressing their opinions to the committee here, so I move that we authorize the Chair to finalize the agenda.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion?
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): The only discussion I have is on how many people we intend to invite. Are we going to establish a maximum number who will be invited?
The Chair: I think the clerk has some recommendations to make in that regard. Maybe she can comment.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Just looking at people who appeared before, it would probably take approximately, not counting a preliminary morning, probably three more meetings to accommodate all of the witnesses.
Mr Lalonde: So we're talking anywhere from seven and a half hours then.
Clerk of the Committee: You're talking 12 to 15 witnesses, if everybody who is on one of the potential lists decides to appear.
Mr Lalonde: I concur with that.
The Chair: Further comment? I call the matter to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? I declare the matter unanimously carried.
Further motions?
Mr Lalonde: I move that we invite the Ombudsman as the first witness, and that is to be on November 20, 1996.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Will you make it quite clear to the Ombudsman it's on this report and on the report that was done some three years ago so she'll know why she's coming here for sure? I know we're talking about the report and everything, but I just want to make sure that the Ombudsman is quite clear why she's coming here.
The Chair: Do you want to make that an amendment to the motion?
Mr Murdoch: No, I just think you, as Chair, will make sure that's done.
The Chair: I'll take that recommendation under advisement. I've heard your recommendation.
Mrs Fisher: I agree with that. I think we are looking to release this report so that everybody is coming here prepared; that not only the report but the past report of 1993 be provided to all of the intervenors, obviously including the Ombudsman; and that if in fact we're setting a date, in support of Mr Murdoch's statements, in fairness to the process everybody comes with the same intent, the same documents and the same understanding.
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I take it, then, that the Ombudsman will have received and be in possession of this report, as amended, prior to her coming on November 20?
The Chair: I think we can take that as a given, but I will personally take that as a recommendation of this committee if that's acceptable. I see a lot of nodding heads.
Mr Lalonde: That was my question, what Mr Jordan just asked you.
The Chair: Further discussion? I call the matter to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? Carried unanimously.
Further motions?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to make a motion that we run an ad on the Internet and on the parliamentary channel concerning this particular issue.
The Chair: I presume inviting participation in the public consultation process?
Mr Len Wood: Inviting participation, yes.
The Chair: Discussion? I call the matter to a vote. All in favour? Opposed? Carried unanimously.
Mr Galt: If I may just review the timing, it would appear that the first witness may not be up and going until November 20. As I look at the calendar, it would appear that we have four Wednesdays prior to the end of the year for this committee to meet. Will we be able to get that all done in those four sittings and make a decision so that it is wound up in this calendar year?
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to comment on that, with a recommendation.
Clerk of the Committee: I think what will probably happen is, when I start inviting some of the potential people, I'll have a better idea of what the schedule is going to look like. If it looks like there will be a problem in accommodating everybody and finishing before the end of the year, that's something I would probably recommend go back to the subcommittee for its input.
Mr Galt: I'm just thinking we could sit for an extra hour one of those days to accommodate some of the witnesses. I think it is important that this get wound up in 1996. I'd just hate to see it drag out any longer if it's going to have any credibility.
Mr Murdoch: Having sat through the last one, I'll tell you that it takes a long time and there will be a lot of witnesses, I think. I wouldn't rush it either, though. I understand what Mr Galt is talking about, that he'd like to get it done, but this whole thing is very important. I wouldn't get excited about having to put time limits on it, because there will be a lot of discussion after people have been here and before you come up with your final report. After sitting through it before, I think it's almost impossible for you to have it done this term, so you're going to have to look at that. But don't rush it just because you want to have it done. I'm just cautioning you because I sat on the last one.
Mr Len Wood: I would support the comments that Mr Murdoch just made. I have no problem with the comment that Mr Galt had made, that it's ideal to have it completed this particular year, but I think there's opportunity during the winter months, if we feel we're rushing it too much, to deal with it in January, February or March, even if the Legislature is not sitting.
The Chair: Might I entertain a motion that the details be referred to the subcommittee to sort out matters of scheduling and timetabling? Could I have a motion in that respect, or further discussion?
Mrs Fisher: I did move a motion that scheduling be left to the responsibility of the Chair, and it did pass. I
think that would actually be in conflict with that motion. I have no problems if you choose to use other members of the committee to work out those details, but I think for making sure that we can actually get on with the process, something I think every member around this table would like to see, that the motion, as passed, should stand.
The Chair: My concern is simply this: As Chair, I'm quite happy to schedule people into our normal hours, but the suggestion was made that we might extend our normal hours to get things done, and I'm a little uncomfortable taking on that responsibility alone. I would be happy if the subcommittee was authorized to deal with that sort of thing.
Mrs Fisher: There's a good possibility we may have many delegations that want to appear. If that happens, I think we could raise it at the close of our next meeting and address it at that time. If it wants to go back to the subcommittee at that time, I think we can deal with it then.
Mr Murdoch: That's your job as subcommittee anyway, so I don't think you need a motion from the committee. That's just your job. Somebody from all three parties is represented on your subcommittee, so I think you can handle that. I have faith in you, John, that you'll be able to do that.
The Chair: Thank you for the affirmation, Bill. Any further comments?
Mr Jordan: Where the submissions appear to be very repetitious, do you have any power to combine them? There are about three basic things they are going to be talking about. Are we going to hear it over and over and over again from people? Is that a requirement, or can we condense it a summarized version?
The Chair: There's no mechanism that has arisen out of this morning's proceedings to give anyone the authority to filter the applications that come to us. We will invite participation and I think we take them as they come, unless there's any comment on that that we want to pursue as a committee. Seeing none, I think that's your answer.
Further comment? Further motions? We're done. Thank you all very much.
The committee adjourned at 1047.