CONTENTS
Monday 13 July 1992
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L) for Mr Conway
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Offer
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND) for Mr Huget
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1539 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Good afternoon. There is a subcommittee report, as follows:
"The subcommittee met on Monday 13 July 1992 and agreed as follows:
"That in the event Bill 40 is referred to the committee this week, that the committee place the advertisement as amended in all English daily newspapers in Ontario and Le Droit;
"That in the event Bill 40 is referred to the committee this week, that five weeks of sittings shall commence on 4 August 1992, consisting of two weeks" --
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You cannot agree to that as a subcommittee.
The Chair: One minute. This is the subcommittee's report. Let's deal with it when we're finished making the report.
"That in the event Bill 40 is referred to the committee this week, five weeks of sittings shall commence on 4 August 1992, consisting of two weeks in Toronto and three weeks at other locations.
"That the subcommittee will meet again to define a list of locations for public hearings, to address arrangements for witness time before the committee, authorizations for the Chair and such other matters necessary for due preparations for the committee's deliberations in the event Bill 40 is referred to this committee."
That is the report of the subcommittee. Do you move acceptance of that report?
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Yes.
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, I wish to interject that by no means has there been any agreement at this stage at all on beginning the hearings on August 4, and that in fact it's premature for you as a committee to adopt the report, as it's my understanding that I will be in receipt of other material from the government House leader, hopefully this evening, for tomorrow's caucus meeting, which will have a different start date. At least that part of the motion I think should be deleted.
The Chair: I appreciate those comments. You may well be at an advantage over the rest of us because of your participation in House leaders' meetings. Do you want to respond to that, or do you want to incorporate that into your --
Mr Waters: I think the way it was worded was that we were working with, as a tentative date, the 4th. It wasn't written in stone by any means. It was just a tentative date.
Mr Elston: No, it isn't. You may very well get Bill 40 this week, but it says if you get it this week then you start on August 4. I think that you should say that in the event Bill 40 is referred to the committee this week, five weeks of sittings shall commence in August 1992, and just leave the date out until we've had a chance to resolve that.
The Chair: It's not an unfair comment. Let's face it, the democratic self-control of the committee is, as we're all aware, subject to the sometimes less than democratic fiat of House leaders, so that's not an unreasonable proposition.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I was advised just before I came in here by my minister that there have been negotiations with the three House leaders for an 11th start date. We may be talking about another date entirely, so I do tend to agree with Mr Elston.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'm just curious. The longer the start date is put off, does that mean the less and less amount of weeks the public hearings are going to be? If we wait two weeks, does that mean they'll be reduced to three instead of five?
The Chair: Not necessarily.
Mr Elston: I can answer that.
The Chair: Let Mr Elston answer that, as House leader for the official opposition.
Mr Elston: We're just in the process of negotiation, of course, but the negotiation is taking us for a full five weeks. But it appears that there is room through August and clear weeks in September, which will allow the five weeks without a problem for you.
The Chair: Mr Ferguson, did you want to make a comment?
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): There was a condition attached to the motion, but that really seems to be academic at this point.
Mr Waters: Once again, we are overruled by our House leaders. It's out of our hands.
The Chair: This is a fantastic exercise. Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: I do not presume it's been discussed already. I know the opposition caucuses have retreats the same as we do. If we went five weeks straight, ours would conflict if we did indeed start on the 11th, because our retreat is scheduled for the 9th, 10th and 11th of September. So just be advised, that's all.
Mr Ferguson: We can work around that. We're not going to reschedule an entire retreat just because we happen to have hearings.
The Chair: It's good that the Toronto Star is back to work, because now we might be better advised about what's going on in House leaders' offices and in cabinet even.
Ms Murdock: Can I move that it be amended as Mr Elston suggests?
The Chair: Just be careful, because, "In the event Bill 40 is referred to the committee this week, that the committee place the advertisement as amended in all English daily newspapers in Ontario and Le Droit."
The second point, the one that's contentious, is, "That in the event Bill 49 is referred to the committee this week, that five weeks of sitting shall commence on August 4, 1992, consisting of two weeks in Toronto and three weeks at other locations."
Is what the committee wants to say something to the effect that upon referral to the committee there will be five weeks of sittings, with two weeks in Toronto and three weeks in other locations, nothing more, nothing less; no time frames?
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): With respect, Mr Chair, I believe that was the consensus we had at the subcommittee meeting. I was reasonably strongly of the opinion at that point that we weren't very sure when we would be permitted to start.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I was wondering how the two and three weeks were arrived at -- two weeks in Toronto and three weeks of travel.
The Chair: It was one of the matters of consensus by all participants in the subcommittee meeting this morning. If you want to comment on that, feel free.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I would like to comment, because I think our representative made that comment in isolation of having solicited any opinions. In further discussion, we would personally prefer three weeks in Toronto and two weeks travel.
The Chair: Once again, to be fair to Ms Cunningham, she did make it quite clear that she was pinch-hitting this morning and did want a chance to talk to her caucus.
Mrs Witmer: She's had a chance to do that.
The Chair: We indicated that of course you'd be here to speak in your own right, which is what you're doing right now.
We've got the one amendment so far. That's, I presume, being adopted on the part of the mover as a friendly amendment.
Mr Waters: Yes, fine.
The Chair: Are you making this as an amendment to the subcommittee report?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I wish to make that as an amendment.
The Chair: Okay, so that's ruled as an amendment. We're in the course now of discussing that and resolving the issue. Do you want to add to that?
Mrs Witmer: I think one of the things we need to be aware of is that the Ministry of Labour also is going to have two weeks of hearings on pay equity.
Ms Murdock: That's another committee.
Mrs Witmer: That's another committee, but it does involve some of the same people.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion on that amendment?
Mr Waters: I find it interesting, because that was my original proposal this morning, and now I'm wondering --
Mrs Witmer: I wish I'd been here, Dan.
Mr Waters: I don't think there's a problem with that. We came in with that originally this morning, so there's no problem from us.
Mr Elston: Our critic is not here these couple of days. Steve is away. I know it was his intention to be here for a couple of weeks -- ie, Toronto -- for public hearings and then going out and talking to people out in the hinterland. Everybody makes such a point of the fact that we never get out of this place to talk to people out there. From our point of view, that is what is important, particularly about this bill. It's a major piece of legislation and I think ought to be subject to people being able locally to come and visit the committee. I think two weeks here is fairly ample, and by the time we get out and go to some various communities which hardly ever see us -- maybe they don't want to see us, but that's another matter. As soon as we advertise -- if we're going to be in some places, I think it would be better.
I just would like to say, Mr Chair, that at the moment neither Mr Brown nor I is substituted into this committee. We might have to ask for time to get substitution slips so at least we can vote on the motion, which we would be prepared to resist. We would like two weeks here and three weeks out.
The Chair: Can everybody make sure that their substitution slips are provided so that there could be a vote on that?
Mr Ferguson: I think everybody who has an interest in this matter certainly would be prepared to be somewhat mobile in coming here to address the issue if in fact some of the smaller communities are not covered. You will still have, I think, ample time to cover the larger major centres across the province. I also think we have to recognize that this isn't a two-week hearing process; it's five weeks. I think it's a real commitment on behalf of the members of this committee. We certainly would agree with the suggestion of three weeks here, two weeks out in the province, knowing full well we're still going to get to the major centres that were covered under the consultation process as well.
Can we have the vote?
1550
Mr Elston: We have to ask for 20 minutes to get our last member here.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Have we settled on three weeks here and two weeks on the road, or is that something you need some time to talk about?
Mr Elston: We settled on two and three, like it came in the report.
The Chair: It's going to be put to a vote, but people in caucuses are entitled to ring the bells here to get their members present.
Is there any more debate on Ms Witmer's amendment? I have the substitution slips now.
Mr Waters: No debate, Mr Chair, but if indeed we're going to end up with a 20-minute period for a vote, maybe we could lump some of this together so that more than just the two and the three -- although it makes it difficult, I guess, when you're looking at cities to attend.
Mr Ferguson: That's the only issue we have to resolve. We have agreement on all the other issues, don't we?
Mr Elston: Actually, we should put the motion to amend the report. The August start date should be put first and finalized so they know we had a consensus.
The Chair: That was adopted by Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: No problem. We aim to please.
The Chair: All right, no further debate on the issue of Ms Witmer's amendment? Does anybody want to raise other issues before we recess, prior to the vote?
Mrs Witmer: What about the witness time? Have we determined that at all?
The Chair: That's an excellent point. Perhaps Mr Waters, on behalf of the subcommittee, could talk about what had taken place in that regard.
Mr Waters: Mr Brown is now back. What we had discussed in sub was 30 minutes, regardless of whether you represented a group or were an individual. We had found out on a couple of our trips that it was difficult to decide who was speaking as an individual and who was speaking for an umbrella group, so we were talking 30 minutes for everyone.
Mrs Witmer: In regard to that, if we're trying to accommodate as many people as possible, I would agree with the 30 minutes for groups. But I know I've had some individuals contact me and they purely are individuals, but they want to make a point. I'm wondering if we could limit their time to 15 or 20 minutes. I wonder also, when we're talking about a 30-minute presentation, if we were going to allow that for groups, if we would encourage people to devote 15 or 20 minutes to the presentation and to make sure they allow 10 to 15 minutes for questions. I think that's the valuable part, to have an opportunity to ask some questions.
The Chair: Obviously that's the sort of thing that's going to be discussed when the subcommittee meets again, as it's expected to in the report of the subcommittee we're voting on now. The subcommittee did discuss that and will undoubtedly be discussing it again.
A request for 20 minutes for people to bring members in?
Mrs Witmer: Would you know if they're still discussing the education bill? I hope Mr Turnbull will come back.
The Chair: I hope he will too.
Mr Elston: It may not be necessary. If it's the will of the government members to team up with Ms Witmer to stay here for three weeks and two weeks out in the hinterland, then another member from the Liberal caucus isn't going to matter. I don't want to waste a bunch of time waiting if it's going to be pretty well cut and dried.
Mr Wood: It could be a close vote.
Mr Elston: It's not going to be that close. It's six plus one vote against three.
The Chair: We'll recess for a few minutes.
The committee recessed at 1555.
1605
The Chair: Okay, we will resume. The first vote is on Ms Witmer's amendment providing for three weeks in Toronto and two weeks at other locations. All in favour please indicate. Opposed? Ms Witmer's amendment carries.
We're dealing now with the subcommittee report, as amended. Are there any brief comments anybody wants to make?
Mr Brown: Could we have a recorded vote on that?
The Chair: On the one just passed?
Mr Brown: We weren't quite quick enough.
The Chair: I'm concerned, obviously, about the propriety of having a recorded vote basically after the vote has been counted. Obviously if there is consent, it could be done.
Mr Brown: You have unanimous consent, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for that proposition?
Interjection: Sure.
The Chair: Okay, notwithstanding what the rules may provide for, there being unanimous consent the vote will be taken again. All in favour please indicate. Keep your hand --
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Am I supposed to vote?
The Chair: If your conscience moves you to vote, vote. Raise your hand and keep it up there until you've been recognized, please.
The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 7
Ferguson, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward (Brantford), Waters, Witmer, Wood.
Nays -- 2
Brown, Elston.
The Chair: Any brief discussion on the subcommittee report, as amended? All those in favour of accepting the subcommittee report, as amended, please indicate. Opposed? The subcommittee report passes.
Any other matters?
Mr Waters: Do you want to talk about some of the cities or leave that for --
The Chair: No, that's for the subcommittee to do. Do you want to propose a time for the subcommittee to meet next?
Mr Waters: Can we have an adjournment for a minute? I'd just like to ask Mr Elston a couple of questions. Probably off the record would be better.
Mrs Witmer: Will we have an opportunity to have a subcommittee meeting on Wednesday of this week?
The Chair: We sure could.
Interjections.
The Chair: The subcommittee will set a meeting time and place. Any other issues? There being none, we're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1609.