Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox And Addington L)
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste
Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton
Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West /
-Ouest PC)
Substitutions /
Membres remplaçants
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough
Southwest / -Sud-Ouest PC)
Clerk /
Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff /
Personnel
Mr David Pond, research
officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James
J. Bradley):I call the meeting to order. Welcome,
members. Here we are, and the Olympic commissioner is here now so
we're in good shape.
The first item on the agenda
is the subcommittee report. I will ask the clerk to read into the
record for all of us the subcommittee report of the meeting of
November 25, 1999.
Clerk of the
Committee (Mr Douglas Arnott): Your subcommittee
considered on Thursday, November 25, 1999, the selection of
intended appointments for committee review, and has agreed to
recommend:
"That the following intended
appointees from the certificate received on November 19, 1999, be
selected for review:
"Date for consideration:
Wednesday, December 8, 1999
"Government: no
selections."
The Chair:
Can I have a motion, first of all, to adopt the report of the
subcommittee so that we can have some discussion, if there's any
discussion.
Mr Newman moves-I understand
a seconder is not required in the committee-adoption of the
report. Any discussion on the report?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): Just to perhaps move an amendment to it,
that since there are no other candidates to be brought before us,
we might consider having Ms Bassett for an hour as opposed to
half an hour. From our perspective there are lots of things we
would like to explore with Ms Bassett and her appointment, since
we have the time available to us. I think that half an hour, when
you divide it up among three caucuses and you get 10 minutes
each, goes by rather quickly, and just when you're getting into
some of the more interesting and important pieces, your time's
up. So I'm suggesting we have Ms Bassett before us for an hour as
opposed to half an hour.
The Chair:
When someone moves an amendment or a motion in the committee,
what would be very helpful for all of us would be to write it out
and have it before us. This is not a complicated one, but you'll
recall before when we were in committee we discussed some matters
that required some additional discussion. It's very difficult for
the clerk to try to determine exactly what we've said. All of us
tend to make motions on the fly. So I would ask that whenever it
is possible, and if there are any complications in the motion, we
try to get a written motion so we all know what we're talking
about then, particularly the clerk, but all the members of the
committee if we can do that.
Any further discussion on the
subcommittee report?
1010
Mr Dan Newman
(Scarborough Southwest): I believe that 30 minutes is
sufficient time to have Ms Bassett appear before this committee.
In the past, anyone else who has appeared before the committee
has spent 30 minutes in total making their presentation and
answering questions. We've had people from a variety of agencies,
boards and commissions appear before the committee. They've been
here for 30 minutes and I think we ought to keep with that
standard.
The Chair:
Any other comments?
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): I would just ask for one thing, if the clerk
could advise if there have been others who have appeared for an
hour, in his memory? Do you recall? I don't want to-yes, I do
want to put you on the spot. Mr Newman said that in the past it
has been 30 minutes. I just wonder if there are occasions when
we've had representatives for an hour.
Clerk of the
Committee: On occasion the committee has agreed to
increase the time or to decrease the time. It's been a committee
decision. The usual time has been 30 minutes. In May 1998, the
committee did agree that henceforth all interviews would be 30
minutes unless the committee agrees otherwise.
Mr Crozier:
I'd like to speak in favour of the motion because TVO is a
significant and important educational tool in Ontario. This is a
new president coming in. I would like, for example, from our
perspective, to give Ms Bassett the opportunity to outline what
her vision is for TVO.
From my point of view it
wouldn't be an adversarial situation. I'm interested, as I know
hundreds of thousands, if not several million, people in the
province of Ontario are
interested in what's the future of TVO. What direction does it go
in? What is her vision for it? I think it would be a great
opportunity for Ms Bassett to outline that vision for us. I think
in fact it may be very restrictive to keep her to the 30 minutes.
It would be an opportunity for her, and I would think, as the new
head of TVO, she would relish that opportunity to give us that
vision.
Mr Newman: I
think it's important to keep in mind that in the past, when we
look at other people who have been appointed to chair or
president or CEO positions of the various agencies, boards and
commission, these individuals have come before this committee and
they've been allocated 30 minutes.
On June 24, 1998, Ron Barbaro
from the Ontario Casino Corp board of directors, appeared before
the committee. The meeting started promptly at 10 am and finished
at l0:34, a total of 34 minutes, and that was the presentation,
the questions from all three parties and the concurrence. That
was a total of 34 minutes.
On February 12, 1997, Ann
Vanstone, co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission
appeared along with David Cooke, a former NDP member, now
co-chair of the Education Improvement Commission-education, yes,
a very important aspect within the province. The total on those
two appointments was one hour and seven minutes, for two
appointments to the Education Improvement Commission.
On November 19, 1997, the
meeting started at 10:10 and finished at 11:27 am, a total of one
hour and 17 minutes to review the intended appointments of Bill
Saunderson, a member of the House of the 36th Parliament, who was
being reviewed for the Ontario International Trade Corp, and also
Marilyn Sharma, for the Social Assistance Review Board. Those
were key positions. That was a total an hour and 17 minutes
between two individuals, not one.
Thomas Reid, May 14, 1997:
There were two people reviewed the day that he was here. He was
with the Ontario Lottery Corp board of directors, so he was there
for 30 minutes as well.
Brian Merrett, Niagara Parks
Commission, on December 10, 1997: He was here for a total of 33
minutes. That was in total for the review and the concurrence.
That meeting started at 1008 and finished at 1041.
I could go on and on, Chair,
that for most people who appeared before this committee in the
past it's been 30 minutes, and I think we ought to stick with
that tradition.
Mr Crozier:
I know full well where this is going, Chair. It's going nowhere,
unfortunately, Tony.
I've watched this government
time after time say they don't like the status quo. Well, here we
are, we want to break from the status quo and they're concerned
that we're going to bring a patronage appointment. I might as
well get at that point of it now, because what we're talking
about is that you're afraid we're going to attack a patronage
appointment.
I tried to assure you that
wouldn't be our line of questioning. We know that Isabel Bassett
is getting this because she was a Tory. We know that most of
those appointments that appear on the orders in council are
Tories. We understand that. But give me a break. Every once in a
while I'm interested in something significant that's going to
happen in the province of Ontario and I think that TVO is one of
those important things.
If you're not going to give
us that opportunity to have Ms Bassett outline the vision because
you're afraid that your Tory patronage appointment is going to be
attacked, then I understand that we won't get our hour.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Mr Crozier, I understand your
frustration, but previous governments have written the book on
patronage appointments. That's not the concern. The reality is
that if we can't as a committee do our evaluation in 30 minutes,
as has been traditional, then we're not worth our salt. If Mr
Crozier would like an extended period of time, if and when Ms
Bassett is appointed I'm sure she'd be pleased to give him an
audience to discuss more fully her plan for TVOntario. So I don't
understand why he needs an extra hour just to make it look as if
it's more of a patronage appointment than it is. Then it's purely
political grandstanding and not the reality of the situation.
The Chair:
Mr Martin, you had your hand up?
Mr Martin:
I'm disappointed but I'm not surprised at the direction that this
seems to be going. We've noted in this place over the last week
three time allocation motions that for all intents and purposes
cut off debate on very important pieces of business of the
Legislature.
The role of the opposition
has been diminished and continues to be diminished. Whenever we
raise an opportunity to participate further, have some further
opportunity to put on the table some of our concerns or ask some
questions, we're told that's not on. I would be remiss if I
didn't put that on the record here this morning. Here is yet one
more incidence of where we, as an opposition, are simply asking
for an extra half hour to interview Ms Bassett on a morning when
we don't have anything else that we're doing. We are all members
of this committee, and it's not like this committee is overworked
or that we're meeting late into the night or anything. We didn't
meet last week. The only person we've identified so far as
somebody we wanted to discuss to this point has been Ms Bassett,
and I don't know what the big deal is. I don't know what the
problem is here.
You can quote precedent until
you're blue in the face, but there are no rules around here that
say you have to do one thing or another. If we agree as a
committee that we want to give an extra half hour, particularly
at Christmastime when we're trying to be generous and
co-operative with each other, I would think we'd want to do that.
But here we are again. The government is flexing its muscle and
letting us know they're in charge and we're not. We'll get a
half-hour and we should be thankful we get that, and so be
it.
1020
The Chair:
Any other comments from any other members of the committee at
all? No other comments. As Chair, I am neutral. I want to tell
you I have views on this and not having been a Chair of a
committee, you know how
difficult it is for me not to express views, but as the impartial
Chair of this committee I found the discussion very interesting.
I will now call for the amendment to the subcommittee report to
be voted upon, the amendment which requests that Ms Bassett
appear for one hour.
Mr Crozier:
Recorded vote.
The Chair: A
recorded vote has been requested.
AYES
Crozier, Dombrowsky,
Martin.
NAYS
Johnson, Kells, Newman,
Spina.
The Chair:
The motion is defeated.
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): The amendment is defeated.
The Chair:
Sorry, the motion which is an amendment, yes, is defeated. Yes,
Mr Martin?
Mr Martin:
Mr Newman quoted rather extensively from a document in his
discussion here this morning. I was wondering if it would be a
requirement that that document be tabled so the rest of us can
have a look at it.
The Chair:
Mr Newman has put his comments on the record. If he wishes to
share it, I suppose he can do so. Mr Newman?
Mr Newman:
That's just research that I did. I think all members can access
the library and find that information.
The Chair:
I'll consult with the clerk to determine whether that is an
actual requirement or not, if you'll hold on for a moment.
I would rule it is not a
requirement that Mr Newman provide that. He may do so if he sees
fit. He has on the record the statistics he has provided, and if
he chooses to share those with members, that will be his
decision.
The amendment has been
defeated. Any discussion on the report as a whole? I'll then call
the motion on the report itself. The motion was made by Mr
Newman.
The Chair:
It is unanimously approved by the committee. Motion passed.
Mr Martin:
When can we expect that Ms Bassett will be before us?
The Chair:
The date for consideration is Wednesday, December 8, and the time
for consideration is 30 minutes. Our meeting will be at the usual
time of 10 am, according to the report we have adopted.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair:
May I raise with the committee another potential problem, just a
procedural problem, and I will consult with the clerk who may be
able to help us.
The problem, through some
further investigation, has been overcome. It's a matter of
whether we deal with agencies with a separate subcommittee. That
is not necessary. There was some thought, because of the
procedures we go through that are set out, that we might have to
have had two committees. We do not have to have two
subcommittees. The idea would have been that it would have been
the same subcommittee but simply for a different purpose. It's
all to do with timelines and procedures. That's apparently been
resolved, so we're not having a problem with that.
Is there any other business
that someone wishes to bring before the committee?
Mr Martin:
It's exactly that issue, and maybe I need some direction from the
Chair and the clerk.
I want to broach the subject
of bringing some boards or agencies before this committee for
review. I was wondering when we could do that and is it something
that we could do during the intersession? It's probably going to
be a long one and we wouldn't want-I don't think the government
would either-to move unilaterally ahead on changes to some of
these organizations without we who have been elected having some
opportunity to take a look at, review and report on just exactly
what's going on.
For example, I put before the
committee the amalgamation of the two gaming organizations in the
province, the Ontario Lottery Corp and the Ontario Casino Corp,
which are now going to be melded. Of course, the headquarters of
the lottery corporation will probably then leave Sault Ste Marie,
without having had any impact study done or study of any sort
that we've seen to indicate why that would be an advisable thing
to do.
When we're putting two
relatively new corporations together, causing the dislocation
that that's going to cause, I want to know how they're going to
meld, who's responsible to whom and, at the end of the day, who's
ultimately accountable. I don't know if you know or not, Chair,
but the president and the chair and the CAO of the Lottery Corp
is the same person. I know I have some questions about
accountability.
I met in my office on Monday
of this week with a group who were concerned about the growth in
the gaming industry in the province without any plan. It seems to
me that this government announced at one point they were going to
have a province-wide referendum on gaming. That never happened.
Now we're going ahead and we're melding two organizations.
When we look around and we
listen to groups like the one that came to meet with me earlier
in the week, gaming is growing by leaps and bounds; it doesn't
know any bounds. It seems to me that here's an obvious example of
an organization with all kinds of questions jumping out because
of some of the things that are happening that we might want to bring before
the committee and have somebody answer some questions on. We
might then report on what we found to the larger House and
perhaps suggest some action that might be taken. That's just
one.
There are numerous boards and
agencies out there that are changing direction, doing things that
they weren't initially intended to do, as this government
implements its program for the people of this province with less
and less need to be accountable to anybody, it seems.
This Mr Barbaro, who was the
CEO and the president and the chair of the lottery corporation,
was also in all three positions in the casino corporation. This
is a very powerful man in an industry that is causing all kinds
of anxiety to tons of people across the province and communities.
I think it's incumbent on us to find out exactly what's going on,
what checks and balances are in place and how this government is
going to guarantee to the community of Ontario that integrity is
going to continue to be the foundation upon which we build.
I guess I'm looking for
some direction as to how we go about making sure that we have
time to bring some of these groups before us.
Mr Newman:
Just in response to Mr Martin's comments, the point that you
raised today with respect to having agencies, boards or
commissions appear for review might be an item that the regular
members of the subcommittee might be able to deal with.
On that point, I'd ask Mr
Pond if he might be able to provide a list of agencies, boards
and commissions that have been reviewed by the government
agencies committee for the 34th, 35th and 36th parliaments of
Ontario.
Mr David
Pond: Certainly.
Mr Martin:
I'm just wondering how we go about having some of these
extracurricular commissions and boards come before us, like the
crime commission and the gas-buster commission and maybe even the
office of the Ontario Olympics Commissioner.
Mr Spina:
You won't get paid more money for that.
Mr Martin:
I'm not questioning your integrity at all. I just want to know
what these guys are doing and what the long-term plan is and whom
they've been commissioned by. In some instances you may not be
paid for it, but certainly when you're travelling around the
province-and I know that the crime commission came to my
community-I want to know how much is being spent on this kind of
work, and is it good value.
The Chair:
May I take this opportunity? First of all, Mr Newman is correct
in that the regular members of the subcommittee would meet for
the purposes of discussing what agencies may come up.
In terms of your specific
question-because I also have to hear from Mr Crozier yet-as to
which agencies are eligible to come before the committee, I would
ask either our research officer or our clerk to indicate to you
which are eligible to come before this committee.
Clerk of the
Committee: As standing order 106(e) forms the basis for
the committee's mandate, it sets out the agencies that the
committee is empowered to review. It states that the committee
may "review and report to the House its observations, opinions
and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and
commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes
some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which
the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder."
The Chair:
Mr Martin, if you were to make a proposal, it would have to fit
within the parameters of the standing order under which this
committee operates. Whether the gas-busters or the other ones you
mentioned, the Olympics commissioner or others, would be
eligible, they would have to fit within those parameters to be
eligible.
Mr
Crozier: Just a general comment to that: Mr Newman has
asked that a list be provided of those that have been reviewed,
because there may not be much sense in going over old ground; if
that list then could be extended to include all those that fall
within 106(e), noting those that have been reviewed and when,
just so we have some idea of how broad this list is. I think, and
here again it's a personal view, that this committee's time can
be much better spent on that kind of thing than simply bringing
individuals in for the sake of bringing them in. I think we can
spend the time much better in doing that kind of thing. That's
where my interest lies, anyway.
The Chair:
The subcommittee will discuss that. I can report, Mr Newman, and
I think the others on the committee would concur, that I did not
hear an initial objection to looking at the possibility of having
the committee review certain agencies. I did not hear an
objection to that previously. That discussion would take place at
the subcommittee. As you have suggested, the subcommittee may
determine which, if any, agencies would be reviewed by this
committee.
We also have, when the
House is not sitting, appointments that are made by the
government. Most us will know that there is a provision to
activate the committee for the purposes of reviewing certain of
the appointments that take place when the House is not in
session. I think it would be a very useful discussion. In a
general discussion we had at the beginning, there was some
thought that there may be some agencies we might wish to look at
in some detail. Again, they would have to fit within the
parameters of the rules that govern this committee.
Any other suggestions or
discussion today before we bring the meeting to a conclusion?
Mr Spina:
I move we adjourn.
The Chair:
OK, moved by Mr Spina that we adjourn. All in favour? The motion
is carried. The meeting is adjourned.
