CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 November 1995
Election of Chair
Election of Vice-Chair
Appointment of subcommittee
Briefing
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
*Chair / Président: Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)
*Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
*O'Toole, John R. (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Rollins, E. J. Douglas (Quinte PC)
*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)
*Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
*Shea, Derwyn (High Park-Swansea PC)
*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel:
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): Honourable members, it is my duty to call upon you to elect a Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I would like to nominate Toby Barrett.
Clerk of the Committee: Are there any further nominations?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to nominate Trevor Pettit over there. I think he'd be a great Chair.
Clerk of the Committee: Do you accept the nomination?
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): No, I don't.
Interjection: You had to think about it, though.
Clerk of the Committee: There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and Mr Barrett elected Chair.
Interjections: Hear, hear.
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Thank you for the gavel. Thank you for that show of support. I don't know whether that was a squeaker or not.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair: The next order of business would be election of Vice-Chair. Honourable members, it is my duty to call upon you to elect a Vice-Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'll nominate Bruce Smith.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations?
Mr Bisson: I want to try Trevor again.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I'll vote nominations closed.
Interjection: What's the matter, Trevor? They won't support you over there?
Mr Pettit: I'll respectfully decline again due to my scheduling.
The Chair: Any further nominations? Mr Ruprecht.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Chair, thank you very much for recognizing me. I'd like to propose a motion to have Sandra Pupatello as Vice-Chair.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. I can't hear. Mr Ruprecht, could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Chair, thank you for recognizing me, and I see my good friends opposite who I saw last night at very important public meetings. But having said that, I'd like to propose as Vice-Chair Sandra Pupatello.
The Chair: There being no further nominations, I declare nominations closed and would ask the clerk to --
Clerk of the Committee: The process when there are two nominations is that we will put the name of the first person who was nominated, which is Mr Smith. If Mr Smith receives a majority of the votes, Mr Smith will be Vice-Chair; if not, I'll put the name of the second member nominated, which is Mrs Pupatello. If she receives a majority of the votes, she'll then be Vice-Chair.
Mr Shea: Wise process.
The Chair: All those in favour --
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Chair, with respect, good morning. By way of information and so it becomes a matter of record, I understand that there are nominations and they will indeed be in order. It happens, with respect, that I can count and count quite well indeed, and suffice it -- I would like to have, if there's a stipend for the Chair or the Vice-Chair in accordance with the members' fees and salaries, that this become a matter of record, because you have a remuneration of so much per annum. I'm asking this by way of question. I want to know how much the Chair and the Vice-Chair will be paid and that it be recorded.
Clerk of the Committee: I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I believe the Chair is paid approximately $9,000 or $10,000 and I believe the Vice-Chair is somewhere between $4,000 and $5,000.
Mr Pouliot: With respect, and by way of a supplementary on that point of order, not good enough; I want the exact number. It's available by pressing a switch. That information should be a matter for public record. We all get the book. I know you're quite busy. Will you please endeavour to do so so it becomes a matter of record?
Clerk of the Committee: Before the end of the meeting I'll have the exact figure.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you.
The Chair: All those in favour of Bruce Smith as Vice-Chair so indicate. Opposed? Mr Smith is elected as Vice-Chair of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. I declare that order of business closed.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair: The next order of business is a motion concerning the appointment of a business subcommittee. I would ask Mr Bisson to make a motion to that effect.
Mr Bisson: I move that a subcommittee on committee business be appointed to meet from time to time at the call of the Chair, or at the request of any member thereof, to consider and report to the committee on the business of the committee; that the presence of all members of the subcommittee is necessary to constitute a meeting; and that the subcommittee be composed of the following members: Mr Barrett as the Chair, Mr Shea, Mr Pouliot -- congratulations, sir -- and Mrs Pupatello; and that any member may designate a substitute member on the subcommittee who is of the same recognized party.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, all those in favour of Mr Bisson's motion? Carried? Opposed? Seeing none, I declare that order of business closed.
1010
BRIEFING
The Chair: Our next order of business on our agenda: It would be appropriate to have a bit of a briefing, certainly speaking for myself, but a briefing for all of us on the committee process. I'm very pleased with the experience of our clerk and I would ask our clerk to present this briefing and perhaps tell us a little bit about yourself and the staff of this committee as well, if you would.
Clerk of the Committee: I'd like to welcome everybody to the private bills committee. I see that just about everybody's a new member. I think Mr Ruprecht has been on the committee about as long as I have.
I have clerked this committee for a number of years, starting in 1989, and then other committees and back to this committee. There are a number of staff associated with this committee. On the private bills side, most of that falls within my purview and the staff who assist the committee come from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, headed by Linda Gray who's sitting at the back. On the regulations side, most of the work is done by legislative research and it's done by Avrum Fenson, who's here today, and Phillip Kaye, who's not with us at the moment. After I finish my briefing, which will take about three or four minutes, I'll turn it over to Avrum to explain the regulations side.
What I put in front of you is standing order 106, which is the terms of reference of the committee, and that outlines both the private bills and the regulations part of the committee. What I'm going to take you through quickly is the flow chart on private bills and what I'm going to do is just tell you how you fit into the process and the information I send to your office and when you can expect to receive it.
Essentially, a private bill pertains to special powers or exemptions from the general law and it originates with an applicant. What happens is that an applicant starts an application in my office. An application consists of five things and they are listed at the bottom of the page.
The first is a copy of the draft bill. The applicants draft this themselves. They can get assistance from legislative counsel. There's a $150 filing fee for private bills. They must advertise, and you'll notice that the applicant must advertise in both the Ontario Gazette and in a local newspaper for four weeks. This is so that interested parties know there's a private bill and if they want to comment they can then get in touch with my office.
They have to provide us with a compendium of background information, and that consists of 10 questions and it's contained in a blue book that I send to your office. I have additional copies. Essentially, we want them to summarize what's in the bill and to say if there are any objectors.
They also have to give us the name of the private member who will be sponsoring the bill. This cannot be a cabinet minister nor the Speaker. When people call our office we generally send them to the private member in whose constituency the applicant is situated, so many of you may have already been approached to sponsor private bills.
A difference between private bills and other bills is that these bills are sent to committee after first reading. You'll notice there are bills that have already been sent to this committee. They've been sent here after first reading. You will note that there may be some bills sent off to the Commissioners of Estate Bills, and these have to do with estates. Once they come back, they'll then be sent to the committee.
Once a bill's been introduced for first reading -- actually, prior to that, both legislative counsel and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will have circulated this bill throughout the ministries so that if there are any ministries that are interested in commenting on this bill, they generally contact my office and they will be scheduled to appear before the committee also.
Scheduling is done one week in advance, so this afternoon I will call those applicants who are scheduled for next week. I tend to go with those bills that are ready. Those bills that have been introduced and sit on the order paper now you can expect will be scheduled fairly soon. I guess a number of years ago there didn't seem to be a lot of objectors to the bills, and I think one day -- Al Furlong was the Chair -- we set a record of eight bills in 24 minutes. Lately there have been a lot of interested parties who want to comment on the bills, so I'll probably be scheduling three or four bills per morning. I tend to schedule the out-of-town applicants first so they won't be bumped over to the next week, so that we can schedule them and send them back home.
The process in committee: On the Friday prior to committee you will receive a file folder with all the information you need for the next Wednesday. That will contain the bills, the compendium, any letters or briefs I have from objectors or other interested parties, and that will be in your office -- we try to get it out either late Thursday night or messenger it first thing Friday morning. Occasionally, if we can, we try to send it out earlier on Thursday so those members who leave Thursday night can take it with them for the weekend, but we start contacting the parties on Wednesday and it depends if we're finished with the information or not. That file folder has a big sign on it that says, "Please bring to committee." I bring a couple of extras, but that is all the information you actually need for committee.
The process in committee is, we call the sponsor first, who is the MPP, who may or may not want to speak on the bill. Sometimes they just introduce the applicants. We then ask the applicant to explain the bill. We then have the representative from the government, who is usually the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, give the government position on the bill.
I just want to point out the committee is not bound by any government decision. The committees in the past have followed the government decision or not followed the government decision. It's an independent committee. They can do essentially what they wish.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff will be here. The committee is free to question the parliamentary assistant to the minister or the staff on the government's position. The committee is free to question the applicant, question the sponsor, if they choose.
We will then call for any interested parties. This committee works slightly differently. Interested parties can just show up in the room. They tend to contact my office. We will call those people first and have their names on the agenda, but we will also call out to see if there are any interested parties in the room. Sometimes a committee has to accommodate. A number of years ago we had a bill on hot dog vendors in the city of Toronto and we had the room filled with about 100 hot dog vendors and they all wanted to speak, so we managed to accommodate as many as we could.
There isn't a requirement that we finish these bills in the morning. If the committee has a number of questions and a bill is deferred, then the applicant will have to come back to the committee.
One issue the committee may have to deal with is that a number of these applicants are from ridings that are fairly far away from Queen's Park and some of their bills are quite simple, so the applicant may ask that they not appear.
It's always been the committee's position that the applicant has to appear. They have made a couple of exceptions. One was an applicant from Kenora, and it was a bill that past bills had gone through in about three or four seconds. What the committee decided is that they would not have the applicant but if there were any questions we would have to bring in the applicant in the next week. It's something the subcommittee may want to decide in terms of coming up with a policy on the applicants.
The committee, after the public hearings, immediately goes into clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We either pass or defeat the bill and it gets sent back to the House and sits on the order paper for second and third readings.
What I'm going to do now is pass it on to Avrum to explain the regulations side. Then I'll take any questions.
Mr Avrum Fenson: One of this committee's duties and powers under standing order 106 is to review regulations that are made, after they are made and published, and to report back to the Legislature if there are any flaws in their making or excesses of exercise of authority.
The standing orders specify the terms of the committee's review. Among the things the committee is to report on are regulations which are made beyond the strict terms of the statute which creates the power in some body or individual to make the regulations. The committee is to report if a regulation appears, without any particular authority, to be retrospective in effect. Regulations are not supposed to impose a fine. They're not supposed to shift an onus of proof on individuals. They're not supposed to initiate new policy. These are important issues for which this is the final review and safeguard within the walls of the Legislature. After that, it's up to the courts to deal with.
Regulations are a form of law, but they're a form of law that doesn't go through the normal procedures of the House. It's not created by the House or its committees. It's created under the authority contained in a statute which says that the minister or a particular director of a program or cabinet shall make a regulation on such and such a topic. This form of legislation is known as delegated legislation, sometimes executive legislation. Because it doesn't have the ordinary controls, the review by this committee is especially important.
Why is there a category of delegated legislation? The reason is that statutes to some extent have to be drafted in generic ways. The Retail Sales Tax Act can't anticipate every kind of object which might be subject to sales tax, so the minister is given power to designate kinds of things which come under different provisions of the act or to exempt certain things. The Health Protection and Promotion Act can't anticipate every outbreak of rabies, so authorities are given power to make regulations requiring animals in a certain district health unit to be immunized upon a certain date.
1020
It has to do with the bread-and-butter detail of the administration of the province. So, for practical purposes, legislative power is given by the statute in a limited and specified way to ministries and cabinet, and taken away from the hands of the Legislature as a whole. But the safeguard is, among other things, the review which this committee is responsible for.
The review has always been conducted on behalf of the committee by lawyers, either outside counsel or, in recent years, lawyers from the legislative research service. What we do at the legislative research service is read every regulation as it comes out, read it as against the provision in all the statute which says that such-and-such a regulation can be made and make inquiries of the ministry involved if there are any ambiguities. Then, should we find that there may be a violation of one of the guidelines, we say so in a draft report which we present to the committee. The committee then reviews it and, with or without amendments, tables it with the Legislature. That is how the committee reports these problems to the Legislative Assembly.
There are something in the order of 700 regulations a year made under different statutes. Many of them are simply brief amendments to already existing regulations; others are very substantial things. For example, the OHIP fee schedule is a regulation. The long tables of drugs and the prices allowed to be paid for them by the province are regulations. Regulations sometimes will exempt people or activities from a statute. They can have very significant effect.
Typically, just to give you a round number, of the 700 or so regulations made a year, we report or we suggest reporting anywhere between 10 and 30. A lot of them are very small; one might call them technical violations. Some of them we consider to be more substantial. But that is reviewed by the committee when we present draft reports.
Our last report, the third report of 1994, covered regulations through the first 100 or 200 regulations in 1994, and the next report will cover all the regulations up to the first few months of 1995. That will be coming in the coming months; I don't know exactly when it will be brought to the committee.
One thing I should say is that the mandate of this committee is to review regulations only after they are actually made. This committee cannot disallow regulations; what it can do is report potential violations to the Legislature under standing order 106, with the hope and expectation that the ministries in charge will redraft them.
Clerk of the Committee: I just have the answer to Mr Pouliot's original question on the additional moneys paid to a Chair and Vice-Chair, effective June 14, 1993, until March 31, 1996. For a Chair of a standing or select committee, $8,592; for a Vice-Chair of a standing or select committee, $5,171. In addition, the Chair is paid an allowance of $88 each day and every other committee member $76 for each day that the committee meets when the House is not sitting. This committee does not usually meet when the House is not sitting, but it has met in the past.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you most kindly.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): One further, please: Are these taxable or non-taxable stipends?
Clerk of the Committee: I think you'd have to speak to your accountant about that.
Mr Kormos: Well no, they're identified, I think, in there.
Interjections.
Mr Pouliot: We're addressing the question to the Chair, if you please.
Mr Kormos: We know that the daily stipends aren't taxable.
Clerk of the Committee: The best answer I can give you, and I can provide you with a copy of this book, is all indemnity payments are subject to deductions for income tax.
Mr Shea: Excellent.
The Chair: We've had our briefing. I would entertain questions for either Ms Freedman or Mr Fenson. Any questions on that briefing?
Mr Shea: This goes back some time ago and I want to raise the question again. The province being very large, we can have applications in from Fort Frances, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, whatever. Has the committee got a track record of indeed allowing applicants to communicate with this committee by television?
Clerk of the Committee: No, there isn't. In the last Parliament we started to research with broadcast and recording teleconferencing, and it is my understand that there are facilities available to teleconference. We have yet to do it with any committee, although we have telephone-conferenced people from provincial penitentiaries and institutions. They have teleconferenced into various committees.
Mr Shea: Chairman, would it be in order to in fact ask the clerk if they could in fact give this further consideration and advise the Chair and bring the possibility of an extension of that back to the committee for some consideration?
The Chair: Yes. Should we put that under "Other Business"?
Mr Shea: Wherever you'd like to put it, just as long as we get at it somewhere. I think it's worth looking at that at least for some investigation.
Mr Bisson: Are you putting forward a motion?
Mr Shea: I'm asking for the Chair's guidance, whether they want a motion or whether the clerk wants to just take that under advisement.
Mr Bisson: It would be in order if you made a motion.
Mr Shea: I'm happy to make it as a motion that the clerk in fact report to the committee.
The Chair: Perhaps under this agenda it's been suggested we may put that under the business subcommittee for discussion and bring it back to the full committee.
Mr Shea: That's fine. I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to be guided that way. I'm just as happy also to have the report and just give some thought to it. It speeds it up, I think, Chairman, unless somebody thinks we shouldn't have --
The Chair: Okay, Mr Hastings. I'm sorry, discussion?
Mr Bisson: Have you called for discussion on the motion yet?
The Chair: There may perhaps be a motion after the subcommittee --
Mr Bisson: Oh, okay.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): What I'd like to request the business subcommittee to look at is the cost of regulations. I'd like to see some kind of a report out from legislative research services as to what it costs to analyse, scrutinize some of these regs from different types of statutes, how much time it takes, that sort of thing, so maybe half a page or a page.
Mr Fenson: You mean the cost of this committee's review of regulations?
Mr Hastings: Yes, as to different types of acts that have come before this committee in the past. Some of them would be much more --
Mr Fenson: Or the cost of administration?
Mr Hastings: Both.
Mr Fenson: I'd be glad to do that. I should say, though, that it's specifically provided in the standing orders that it's not within the purview of this committee to deal with policy matters contained in regulations.
Mr Hastings: But there is nothing wrong with asking for information in terms of that.
Mr Fenson: Oh no, not at all.
The Chair: Further questions from our briefings?
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My city council passed a resolution for private bills almost a year ago. Where does it stand now? Could you just review? I haven't heard anything about it.
Clerk of the Committee: What we do in our office is, currently we have 44 active files in our office, from any time. Some of these files have been in the office for a number of years because the applicant, for one reason or another, isn't ready. At any given time you can contact me in my office and I can tell you exactly what the status is of any bill. So I can talk to you after the meeting. I have a list here and I can tell you what the current status is of the bill that you're interested in.
Mr Boushy: I take it that has been submitted?
Clerk of the Committee: I would have to find out the name of the bill and check on the list, and I can do that after the meeting.
Mr Bisson: I just have a bit of a question for the member opposite in regard to the cost of regulation. Just so that we're clear what you're directing the research to do here, what's the intent of what you're looking at?
Mr Hastings: I want to find out for specific reasons how much it costs to administer a regulation, say that City of Toronto Act regarding the hot dog vendors. I'm just curious as to what the cost of administering regulations is.
Mr Bisson: Is it the cost of the regulation or the cost of administration?
Mr Hastings: I said both.
1030
Mr Bisson: I thought he said both. Thank you. Just so that we're clear, you're asking, how much is it going to cost to enact the various regulations that come before this committee, and the second request is, how much does it actually cost to do that?
Mr Hastings: If you were carefully listening, Mr Bisson --
Mr Bisson: I am.
Mr Hastings: -- what I was requesting from counsel is an example of a previous act that a previous committee dealt with, and the hot dog vendor thing could be the example, of how much it cost to do the actual scrutinizing and analysis of that reg, or regs, for that act. So that would be the cost of administration in terms of the legal administration of the regulation.
Mr Bisson: Very good. I'll send the Hansard to your minister.
Mr Pettit: The clerk indicated that this committee does not normally meet when the House is not sitting. I'm wondering why that is, and secondly, if that's the case, does that mean at best, assuming we have business to attend to before Christmas, we get roughly four to five meetings in before Christmas and then nothing till April or late March? I'm just curious as to why that is. It seems that that's very limited, within a seven-month or six-month time frame.
Clerk of the Committee: There are a number of reasons. First of all, in terms of sitting when the House is not sitting, it's up to the committee to request time from the House leaders and whips' offices and this committee in the past has chosen not to request time. That may be for a number of reasons. There may not have been a number of outstanding bills.
Secondly, if this committee does consider bills in the recess, those bills still have to sit and wait for second and third reading. So even if the committee were to pass it in the recess, it doesn't necessarily speed up the process for the applicant because the House must come back still and pass these bills on for second and third reading. But if this committee chooses to sit during the recess, it would just put in a request to the House leaders and whips.
Mr Pettit: So that wouldn't normally be the case with the other committees then. It's something for this committee. Is that it?
Clerk of the Committee: All of the committees request and then the House leaders and whips of all three parties get together and decide which committees will sit and for which period of time.
The Chair: Further questions?
Mr Ruprecht: Other business.
The Chair: Yes, I'll come to that in a second. I want to thank Mr Fenson and Ms Freedman. Ms Freedman mentioned she's been with this committee since 1989 and also is deputy clerk of committees, and I understand you chose to come back to this committee. I think we're going to reap the benefits of that.
I also wish to acknowledge that, as I understand, Mr Ruprecht has been a member since 1989, and as the senior member here, I think we'll be looking to you for your advice. Do you have any comments at this time before we go to other business?
Mr Ruprecht: I certainly have a comment to make, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your recognizing me. This has to do with the Vice-Chair and I'm wondering whether you want to do this now or you want to wait for other business. But thank you very much for your --
The Chair: Any other business? I declare that order of business closed.
Mr Bisson: We haven't got to other business yet.
The Chair: I know I haven't. The next order of business is other business.
Mr Ruprecht: I'm somewhat saddened today when you made the decision that the Vice-Chair is from the same party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Normally what happens at these committees, there is sort of a generosity of spirit and some understanding between the parties that the Vice-Chair is from another party. The reason is almost obvious, and that is that this makes for much better cooperation. All of us know there are enough issues that we confront each other on without having to go to committee not showing this generosity of spirit.
Now, Mr Smith is a very capable person, from what I've heard, and I know a bit about his background. There's nothing here that is slighted against him under any circumstances. But the point surely must be made that as we have had this understanding in the past, I'm wondering whether for $5,171 it's worth it to have it all within one party.
I'm wondering whether -- Mr Chair, I'm leaving it with you, and probably with other speakers of the party -- we can come to some kind of accommodation on this. Otherwise, it just makes for poor politics.
The Chair: Are there other comments on this?
Mr Shea: I can only assume that there may be some communications breakdown with my colleague's House leader, because in fact there has been considerable discussion in the past about this and I don't think there's any great surprise. So I'm a little perplexed by the comments, although I'm aware of the sensitivities that Mr Ruprecht expresses.
The Chair: Any other comments? Mr North? Mr Kormos, sorry.
Mr Bisson: North?
The Chair: That's my neighbour to the west.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, that was the first stupid thing you've done.
The Chair: And I didn't know you were on this committee. I'm sorry.
Mr Kormos: There's an old joke about three chances. No, Peter North was the one who wanted to be a Tory.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. You're a visitor? I'm sorry, I didn't have your name.
Mr Kormos: That's okay. I think Mr Ruprecht's comments are extremely valid. He spoke about generosity, and I think it's not a matter of generosity on the part of the government, because the opposition parties have always been eager to share the responsibilities of chairing by having one of their members put their name forward as a candidate for Vice-Chair.
Obviously, people canvassed with the clerk the matter of stipends that are paid for the two positions of Chair and Vice-Chair respectively, as well as of course the presence of a per diem for a Chair, and I don't know whether that applies to a Vice-Chair or not. I'm extremely troubled by the impression that might be left with the public, with voters, with taxpayers, that the eagerness to not only assume the position of Chair but to monopolize the role of Vice-Chair on the part of the government would be so that government backbenchers could be the beneficiaries of a stipend.
To boot, in this day and age, in the context of what's happened in terms of some very -- no two ways about it -- serious cutting since June 8, there being a clear message to all Ontarians that people have to do more with less -- I think that's the phrase. In view of the fact that one is a Chair by virtue of being appointed to the committee and one has to be here in any event, clearly Mr Ruprecht articulates -- and I think there's some consensus among the six opposition members present -- that the position of Vice-Chair would be assumed by opposition members, and surely the motive for that is not because of the stipend but because of the eagerness to participate, the eagerness to share in the process, the eagerness to -- again, because Mr Ruprecht spoke of how this facilitates communication, how this facilitates cooperation.
I think it would be behooving one of my colleagues, Mr Pouliot or Mr Bisson, to move, because this committee has the power to control its own process. That's inherent. But I think it would be befitting them to move that in this committee the Chair and Vice-Chair serve without stipend and that the members of the committee waive any per diem.
1040
Mr O'Toole: Just in response, in my respect on this committee, I'm understanding that Mr Bisson and Mr Kormos are asking the question if they can share in the benefits of one of those positions. The money, is that really what they want?
Mr Bisson: No, we can clarify --
Mr O'Toole: Just a point of clarification, is it the money they want or is it that they want the power? I mean, if it's the power, then that's obviously decided in the election process; if it's the money, I think the motives are, in themselves, self-criticism.
I'd like to make the point that the government has business to do, and I think that there are 82 members, there are fewer cabinet positions, fewer parliamentary assistants and fewer staff positions with the PC Party than there ever have been in this province. So, many members of caucus, indeed myself a backbencher, have no positions of any external remuneration. You're going to have five years of less and less remuneration, in my view. When the parliamentary committee reviews the remuneration for members, it may very well be that the committee work shouldn't be remunerated. That's a decision to be made, I guess. But for the moment there are 82 members, and I think it's appropriate that our party occupy those positions that have execute of some powers.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, you had your hand up first, I think, of the three.
Mr Pouliot: I find it somewhat difficult -- and I will try to avoid being repetitious; all the repetition need not apply. What we have here is a difficult situation. There isn't a day that goes by where we're not reminded -- always with passion, sometimes with vengeance because the opposition were the last two successive governments -- that we live in difficult times, and we do. We have to reconcile the balance in the context of a budget. Therefore, I do, humbly, find it commonsensical that the Chair of the committee, that the Vice-Chair of the committee waive their stipend; that all committee members also waive the supplementary allocation by way of a per diem.
You do preach a good line. It's time to walk that line, that you don't get paid supplementary for doing a job that a parliamentarian is to do in any event. I mean, we recall vividly, in fact as if it were yesterday, the kind of advocacy that you conveyed to the electorate in the province of Ontario, that this government, you, was to bring to Queen's Park a breath of fresh air. A cynic, being in the know vis-à-vis the supplementary, the stipend, would say, "No sooner do they get elected than we find them at the trough."
I find it, to say the least, offensive and inconsistent that the very same people who preach austerity, that we're to be different, would waive the opportunity to do exactly that. Surely the campaign was not a big lie. People believed, and they sent you here. It's not very consequential. Most people are consequential in terms of means, and surely it sends a message out that the mere bagatelle of $8,000 or $5,000, although very important for members of this House because we are people of moderate means, but members on the other side could waive that pourboire, that we can tip that gratuity.
I wish I could move, if it were in order, that there is no such thing as a stipend for a job that you're paid to do anyway, be it the Chair, Vice-Chair. When the House isn't sitting, if you're a member of this committee, when the province calls for your service as an elected member to do what you should do, you don't question how much it pays. You don't recount and take a few dollars more. You just go. That's what you do as an elected representative. You don't question or discuss anything extra.
I wish I could move that all those stipends be waived. I find it, especially nowadays, in this day and age when constraints and restraints are the order of the day, do the honourable thing, don't accept the handout if you're Chair, Vice-Chair or a member of this committee.
The Chair: Before I go to Mr Sergio, Mr Bisson called out a suggestion. I know nine hands have gone up. Is it the pleasure of the committee or is it the accepted practice to rotate, third party, opposition, government? Is that --
Mr Bisson: Exactly. Rotate by party is the best way. Otherwise it's difficult -- I sympathize with the government members; it's very difficult for the government members to speak.
The Chair: Is that acceptable to everybody? It sounds like that's the accepted practice. Okay. I might ask --
Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I recognize that is the procedure of the House, and I sit there every day and listen to the members speak because there are only so few of them. My point is, in this committee I don't particularly support the view that they would end up speaking twice for every person's single time over here. I think it should be one side, the other side, and that's -- I don't know if that's proper, I would like a ruling on that point.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: To the members of the government side, it has long been the practice of committees in order to rotate speaking by party, it's the way it's always been done. I sat on the government side at committees for years. That's just the way it works.
Mr O'Toole: Is that the requirement?
Mr Pouliot: There are some regulations. You just can't goose-step. There is a rotation that's been established since Confederation; it's the orders of the day.
The Chair: I might ask Mr Ruprecht's advice on this.
Mr Kormos: Give him your best.
Mr Ruprecht: We've had this process in place for years, since I joined the committee, and I think that's the way we should continue. But if you want to entertain a motion, I'm not sure that would be in the interests of your party or in the interests of democracy. I would caution you that if you want to make a motion like that, it would only backfire. I'm saying this to you: If you do it, you're going to be standing out there as the person who is trying to cut back. I advise you not to do that.
Mr Pouliot: Don't do that.
Mr O'Toole: I never made any -- there are six there and there are six here, and obviously you could speak twice to our once. It's that simple.
The Chair: Let's go back to the first agenda.
Mr Shea: Are we still speaking --
Mr Hastings: I had my name --
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, just for the sake of cooperation, let them have their turn, to the Liberals, back to us. That way we will just move it along. Let's go.
Mr Pouliot: If you're to ask, I can't believe -- let's start the rules. I've only been here 11 years, it's not the end of the world. It's obvious that I'm not privy to all the protocol, be it Robarts or Bourinot, but I'm enough of a disrupter when the time calls because I'm constantly provoked by all sides of the House, my own party included, but I know how to stay alive.
With respect to John, I like what he's saying and it would make common sense that you would have an allocation by number. That would be the ultimate in democracy. Unfortunately -- and I say this to protect all of us on the committee -- that's not the way it works. If we entertain such a motion, it's a matter of intent. Note I didn't move about the waiving, I spoke to the subject matter.
1050
With respect again, Mr O'Toole, first of all, it will be out of order. The second thing that would happen is you would have a mutiny on committees and it would spread to other committees, standing and select committees. There is a rotation. There is a time allocation, and that's been around for as long as we've been sitting.
But the point is well made. I take the point; it's commonsensical. There are so many of us and so many of them, and it seems to be so apparent, but it's not always a monopoly. People will not be like this. People will not be as long. The clock will kill each and every one of us, and help each and every one of us. Otherwise the committees, which are supposed to be non-partisan -- but we know better. We know the way constitutional monarchy works, even through committees. The clock will take care of itself.
So I would ask that the comments be recorded as just that, with the benevolence of Mr O'Toole, that they are comments, the point is well taken, as opposed to putting us into a quagmire, a committee of the black hole, to decide whether a motion is valid or not.
The Chair: Let's end the discussion on Mr Bisson's suggestion. I would like to go to Mr Sergio, and this is back to the original agenda with respect to Chair and Vice-Chair.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): A couple of points, Mr Chairman, but I want to touch on this discussion as well. It is not the fault of this side of the committee room if we are only so few; it is the fault of the government to have so many members on the other side as well. It is their choice. So you have to accept, the way we accept the result of last election. It is the government that has put so many members on the other side. So if you wish to have more chances, then make a request to have less members on the other side of the committee room.
So that's for that.
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, you can't have it both ways. Come on.
Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Chairman -- one moment, Mr Sergio -- I'm trying to listen to what this member of the committee is trying to say. Will the Chair please control the gaggle of members on the other side. I can't hear what he's saying. And if I can't hear what he's saying, then I feel compelled to ask him to repeat it.
Mr Shea: Mr Chairman, can I raise a point of order. I'm trying to hear what Mr Sergio is saying and there are interruptions here, and I know that my good friend Mr Kormos has to leave. Can we get down to business and hear what Mr Sergio has to say.
Mr Sergio: Going on the order of business of the day -- and I hope this is now the beginning of better things to come on this committee. I do intend that we have our contribution very effectively, Mr Chairman, and leave some of the things aside.
I think it is not fair to bring the result of the last election on the merits of this committee, with all due respect. I believe, and I want to be fair on both sides, that we were advised by our own whip how the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were going to be decided, so it does not come as a surprise to me or members of this House here. We expected, as it was said, that some benign suggestion could have come from the government side itself, although we are well aware of the direction the government is taking, not only on this particular issue but we have seen with other committees as well. They have preselected on their own, they have predecided who the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were going to be, so this does not come as a surprise to me.
What comes as a surprise to me is the fact that all along we have heard from the now Premier that serious consideration was to be given to eliminate all gratuities for members, chairmen and deputy chairmen. I'm asking the Chairman today if this has already been decided and if it is the affirmative policy of the government to continue to pay gratuities to members, deputies and chairmen of the various committees. I would appreciate if the Chair can answer that, or if you can find out for us, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Hastings.
Mr Hastings: I'll be brief. It's so interesting to hear the comments of the members of the opposition regarding this whole issue of MPP compensation. There's a certain hollowness about it in a way, though, because if they're really concerned about the whole issue of MPP compensation, indemnities or whatever you want to call it, before committees, I think it's important that the public record show -- a clarification may be in order on my next remark -- that the committee met about 18 times. Most of the time it met while the House was in session. There weren't any indemnities in addition to what the Chairman or Vice-Chairman received.
But aside from that particular consideration as to the actual number of times they met, whether it was in session or outside of the House sitting, I think the Finance minister or the government has appointed a commission on MPP compensation. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, the NDP members haven't made any submission as to what their overall strategy or position is on that. If they have, then I will be most interested in hearing about it or reading about it when and if they do.
The other thing is that if this issue was such a great, grave item of public business before today, then they had the opportunity back for the last five years -- correct me if I'm wrong, again -- to rectify this practice of whatever amounts of indemnities in addition to the regular amounts were received by members in the House. So, to me, they had the opportunity. Why didn't they correct it back in those days, and we could get on with what are the items of business, if there are any, on other items?
As far as I'm concerned, there is a certain hollowness in the ring about this whole thing. The portrayal that certain members are or aren't getting rewarded I find rather insulting in a way, that it's brought up in that context.
Mr Kormos: Let the revolution begin. The voters of this province were fed the line of the revolution for several weeks prior to June 8. There was a strong message from the now Premier and from every Tory candidate in Ontario, 130 ridings, that this government was going to be different, that this government was going to show fiscal restraint, that this Tory revolutionary government was going to demonstrate to the people of Ontario that government will no longer be the way it has been.
Yet what have we already? This porcine race to the trough, when there's an opportunity on the part of those same people who declared themselves revolutionaries to in effect make a revolution. Now we see them retreating. Are they revolutionaries? No, I think they're counterrevolutionaries. In fact, it's more of the same old stuff. It's more pigs at the trough, eager to monopolize those positions which generate extra stipends.
Mr Pettit: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think the "pigs at the trough" label would, in my view, be somewhat unparliamentary. I don't know that this applies in the committee.
Mr Kormos: Chair, why didn't he stop me at "porcine"?
Mr Pettit: I would ask that the member withdraw that. Also, when he says that, he should be aware that at least in the social development committee, both the Chair and the Vice-Chair are Liberals. So I would suppose that they're at the trough too, as he suggests.
Mr Kormos: Trust me, Chair, I'll be hitting those committees too.
The Chair: Mr Pettit, I apologize. I didn't --
Mr Pettit: I was just suggesting that this "pigs at the trough" label is somewhat unparliamentary.
The Chair: I actually didn't hear the "pigs at the trough" because -- Mr Kormos?
Mr Pettit: He said the pigs were racing to the trough, and I guess he applies that to the opposition parties.
1100
Mr Kormos: A mere porcine gathering at the food table.
Mr Pettit: I'd also like to --
Mr Kormos: Chair, the important thing, though, is that you want to talk about accepting the responsibilities of Chair and Vice-Chair because of your eagerness to serve --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Kormos has the floor.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Or are you there because it provides an $8,592 perk, bonus, in the instance of Chair, and a $5,171 bonus in the instance of Vice-Chair? Is this the rationale for monopolizing these two positions by government members, or is it a true eagerness to serve? In this province the government is telling a single person who is in receipt of social service benefits to live on some $90 and change a month for food purchases. You're telling communities to live with less. You're telling people that there's no money in the account, that the cheques are going to be NSF in short order.
Here is your opportunity, Chair, as a member of the Mike Harris Tory caucus, to waive your stipend, to waive this perk of $8,592 a year above and beyond your indemnity as a member of provincial Parliament, as an MLA, and to demonstrate that you say what you mean and you mean what you say. Otherwise the words are hollow and otherwise it's a mere exercise in the most cynical hypocrisy.
The Chair: Mr Ruprecht is not present and --
Mr Shea: Which follows in the tradition of the last five, 10 years.
Mr Bisson: This is now.
Mr Shea: Oh, of course. On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could you ask the clerk -- a clarification of the rules for me, please. Are members entitled to speak as many times as they wish on each item? I just want to make sure I'm clear about that. So in rotation, will you advise the number of times a person can speak and if there are any time limits on each person?
The Chair: Time and number of times.
Clerk of the Committee: The standing order on committees states essentially that there is no limit on the length or the time that members speak in committee.
Mr Shea: That's fine, very good.
Clerk of the Committee: And in terms of who speaks, it's whoever the Chair recognizes.
Mr Shea: I understand the rules well. Thank you so much. What goes around, comes around.
Mr Sergio: Have we decided on rotation then under the rules, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: I think that's the assumption, yes.
Mr Boushy: Mr Chairman, I was sitting back here and listening. The only reason that you and I are here is to serve the public. We've spent over one hour now discussing things that maybe we shouldn't have been discussing. Now I've got a lot of work in my office. I could serve the public better than sitting here and discussing something that -- for example, the NDP last year or the year before had the chance to implement what my friends are talking about. They never did.
It seems to me all we want to do is just waste time. I think I've got better things to do than sitting here just wasting time. I'm sorry. We are here to serve the public. We are here to cooperate with each other and discuss the problems of business, not to object to everything for the sake of objection. We have enough of that in the House. I am surprised that this has continued to be in the committee level.
Mr Pouliot: We put up with your garbage for five years and I had four ministries, so I have no lessons to take from you.
Mr Bisson: There are two or three points that I'd like to speak on. The first one is the whole notion of what the opposition is all about. It's been suggested here by a number of members from the government just lately that we're discussing a bunch of uninteresting matters to the public and that we're wasting the time of the public.
I think that is an ill-advised comment, at the very least. Every member of this assembly gets elected on his or her merit and their willingness to be able to serve the public. We do that to the best of our ability and we come to the committees, we come to the Legislature, in order to do that.
Mr Boushy: What have you done right now?
Mr Bisson: I listened very patiently to your comments, now listen to mine.
Mr Boushy: It's a waste of time.
Mr Bisson: How members choose to deport themselves and choose to bring matters forward before committees or the Legislature is not a thing that I think we can impute motive on, on the part of one member or another, depending on what side of the House he or she may stand on.
What really bothered me was the suggestion somehow that we should delineate the rights of the opposition on the basis of the last provincial election, because I've heard that comment two or three times this morning fairly clearly, and I would just want to revisit a little bit of the history of our British parliamentary system.
You would know as well as I, because I'm sure that you're all very learned and that you've taken the time to read Erskine May and you've taken the time to read Beauchesne's, to talk about what the rules of the House are, the purpose of the British parliamentary system and how it is set up and what it does.
One of the fundamental principles of that system is the role of the opposition. Yes, the government has the right to govern. The government has the right to make laws, provided they have a majority of the people in the House, and we accept that. I accept that there were more Conservatives elected than there was in my party or the Liberals put together. But what I don't accept is the notion somehow that, because we are in the minority position in the House, both the Liberal Party and ourselves, we do not have something to bring to this Legislature and something to bring to these committees.
There's a very serious point that was raised here this morning by Mr Ruprecht. In some committees, it has been the established practice for many years that the Chair comes from the governing party and the Vice-Chair comes from the opposition party. It is not the standard practice across all committees, but it has been done, and I think Mr Ruprecht and others were trying to raise with you, as members new to this assembly -- and I don't mean that in disrespect -- that there are some certain practices that have happened around here for years, and it is incumbent upon us as members to try to live up to those practices, so that we don't establish practices or precedents that are going to come back to haunt us in the future.
I can tell you, I sat on that side of the House, where I came to this House not as an opposition member but I came first as a government member, and I thought like you at the beginning, "Oh, my God, I'm here, I've got more than all the rest of them, the Tories and Liberals, put together, and somehow that gives me licence, in order to have my views heard more or my rights more protected in this assembly," and I can tell you that's wrong.
Because of the words of your party when you were in opposition and the words of the Liberal Party, I learned that the opposition does have a valued point of view to bring forward, and this House works well when we respect, yes, that the government has a right to govern, but at the same time the opposition has the right to bring forward issues and bring forward points of view that are held within our communities across Ontario so that you can consider those within your caucus, that you can consider those when you're making decisions so that we end up at the end doing what we come here for, which is to represent the people of this province.
So if Mr Ruprecht and Mr Kormos raised the issue of the Vice-Chair, I would like to tell you that has nothing to do with the stipend. Believe me, I sat on committee on the government side and I never collected a stipend, on the side of the committee. I did on the standing committee on Confederation as a new member, because I didn't understand how the rules were, but I made it my practice after the standing committee that I would not collect a stipend when I sat in as Vice-Chair on a committee.
The Chair: Mr Shea?
Mr Bisson: Hang on, I'm not finished. So be careful about how you do that. As well, our party had made a decision when we were in government, especially if you were a parliamentary assistant, that you would not collect a double stipend. That you collect a parliamentary assistant's salary and that of a Chair or a Vice-Chair is something we had decided not to do. I accept that the government has a role. They got elected, and one of the things that you ran on was that you were going to bring integrity back into the House. I very much respect that, because I believe, quite frankly, one of the problems we have in our public system is that there is a perceived view by the public that we, the politicians, are somehow dirty and crooked and we should not be trusted. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to lead by example, such as Mr Pouliot said a little while ago, in a very verbose way none the less because he was provoked, and I know my friend to be a very calm individual who does not often lose his temper, and I can understand why he was a little bit hurt by that.
What we are recommending here is simply this, that the Chair be that of the government -- we accept that -- but the Vice-Chair be that of the opposition, and that the stipend to both of those positions not be paid. We're not asking that the Vice-Chair gets a stipend of $5,000. We want to be clearly on the record that both of those positions be unpaid, but that the rights of the opposition are recognized in this process and that the Vice-Chair be that of an opposition member. I would support the Liberal name put forward -- I think it's Linda whose name was put forward --
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Sandra.
Mr Bisson: Sandra, sorry. But that clearly the stipend not be paid to either the Vice-Chair or the Chair, that money has nothing to do with this. It's the idea that if you want to work on this committee and you want to be able to work in a cooperative manner, I would suggest it's a darned good idea to have the Vice-Chair from the opposition.
I would move a motion forward that the Chair's position be that of the government as elected and that the stipend not be paid in order to demonstrate to the people of Ontario that we are trying to do things differently here, on all sides of the House, and that the Vice-Chair be that of the opposition, whoever you would select, and that that position be an unpaid position.
1110
Mr Boushy: Is the motion in order, Mr Chair?
The Chair: We have a motion before this committee, and I would ask that the motion be repeated.
Mr Bisson: Yes. I would move that the --
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Okay. I'll ask my friend here, my colleague from the --
Interjection: To reopen the discussion of the Vice-Chair --
Mr Pouliot: Mr Chairman, I --
The Chair: Are you reading the motion for Mr Bisson?
Mr Pouliot: Yes. I have a motion as follows: I move that the Chair be called upon to waive the stipend for the position and that the Vice-Chair also be called upon to waive the stipend for the position of Vice-Chair, as well as all members of the committee be called upon to waive the per diem.
Interjections.
Mr Pouliot: When the House is not sitting, there is a per diem.
Interjection: We don't need that.
Mr Pouliot: I realize this is the bottom of the food chain when it comes to perks, to extras, and that's why I'm taking the time. You know, time is of the essence. We too are busy. There are fewer of us. We're talking about money; we're talking about principles.
Mr Bisson: Could you read that back?
The Chair: We have a motion before the floor.
Interjections.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Mr Bisson has requested the motion be read back.
Mr Bisson: Lisa, can you read back the motion?
Mr Shea: Is it in order?
Mr Bisson: Yes, it is.
Mr Shea: I'm asking if the motion is in order.
The Chair: Just for clarification --
Mr Shea: I understand the motion is out of order, but I want to --
The Chair: Let's just clarify the motion first.
Mr Shea: Sure.
Mr Boushy: Didn't we make a decision on this? Then another motion would be out of order, unless a reconsideration is submitted.
Mr Kormos: I trust the Chair's going to explain -- at length and in detail.
Interjections.
Clerk of the Committee: My understanding of the motion is that Mr Pouliot moved that the Chair and Vice-Chair be called upon to waive the additional stipend and that, in addition, all members of the committee not collect any additional stipends.
Mr Bisson: And, in addition, that the Vice-Chair's position be reopened and allow it to go to the opposition.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Do we have to do that as two separate motions?
Interjection: Yes, okay.
The Chair: Now, I understand that this does not require a seconder. The motion is out of order, as the indemnity is legislated by subsection 65(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act and this committee does not have the power to move a motion --
Mr Shea: And you know that. Shame on you.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. I repeat: This committee does not have the power to move a motion to amend legislation. By way of explanation, members may personally choose, if they wish, to accept or not accept their indemnities.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think if you had listened to what we were suggesting in the motion, it is that the Chair be called upon to raise this matter with the government in order to waive. We're not --
Mr Pouliot: No, I won't take the money. I won't go to the trough.
Mr Bisson: Just go to your House leader and say, like, "We don't want it --
Mr Pouliot: "We don't want the money."
Mr Bisson: -- and we want you to pull it away."
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, are you finished with the floor?
Mr Bisson: Yes.
Interjections.
The Chair: With respect to this item on our agenda, is there any further business or other business?
Mr Ruprecht: Sorry, I was called away for a few minutes. Mr Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I had no idea at the beginning, when I made my original comments, that it would go in that specific direction in terms of taking away stipends, but you never know in this place how it all ends up. I'd like to make a motion, if possible, to have the discussion on the Vice-Chair reopened so that we can propose that a member of the opposition would be able to take that position.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for this proposal?
Interjections: No.
The Chair: The nays have it. Any further items of business for this committee?
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, are there at times recorded votes at this committee?
The Chair: I'll ask the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee: If any member requests a recorded vote, they must request it before we take the vote. They simply just yell out, "Recorded vote."
Mr Sergio: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I realize that this is the initiation committee, if you will, and I guess we'll --
Clerk of the Committee: Just to clarify, also, the last motion by Mr Ruprecht, because we had already finished with the Vice-Chair, in order to reopen the Vice-Chair that required unanimous consent. So it technically wasn't a vote. All that the Chair put before the committee was, "Is there unanimous consent?" Because the Chair heard at least one "No," there was not unanimous consent to reopen. So it wouldn't be something that we would have a recorded vote on anyway.
Mr Sergio: But I believe, Madam Clerk and Mr Chairman, that if a member requires to have a recorded vote, a recorded vote can be had at any time even though a prior decision has been made. Am I correct?
Clerk of the Committee: A recorded vote can be had at any time as long as it's asked for before the vote. There would not be an opportunity for a recorded vote on something that would not go to a vote, like a request for unanimous consent. You couldn't have a recorded vote on that because it's technically not a vote; it's just asking the committee if we can open it for a vote.
Mr Sergio: Could I request, then, for the sake of having a recorded vote, and since I was not present when this election and the voting on the Vice-Chair and Chairman was taken --
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I know where we're going to end up unless we have some order. I duly respect the fact that you've just been elected and I would ask every member to assist the Chair, because this isn't going to be an easy committee, as I can see it. I would ask that you rule effectively and control the members, Mr Chairman.
I do wish to move, and I request for the sake of a recorded vote, that the matter of the Chair and Vice-Chair be reopened, solely for the question of a recorded vote. I'm asking the Chair.
Mr Ruprecht: If you make a motion, I will second it.
The Chair: Is this a motion?
Mr Sergio: Yes, for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to reopen?
Interjections: No.
The Chair: I have no unanimous consent, sir.
Mr Sergio: But do we have to have unanimous consent every time, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: That's my understanding.
Any further new business for this committee? Is this new business? Because that's over.
Mr Pettit: No, I don't think it is. May I? I move that we adjourn.
The Chair: All in favour? This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1120.