CONTENTS
Tuesday 23 April 1991
Organization
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)
Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)for Mr F. Wilson
Scott, Ian G. (St George-St. David L) for Mr Chiarelli
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1552 in room 228.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order. We have before us several items, first of all, the approval of the budget, which was left after yesterday's meeting adjourned, and also a tentative agenda for witnesses with regard to conflict of interest, which I believe has been circulated; and some discussion of instructions for the researcher. If we could proceed first with the budget, the copies of the budget were circulated yesterday. If members are in need of additional copies, the clerk has them.
Mr Sorbara: You have to introduce this, Mr Chairman. This is your baby, okay?
The Chair: I believe the budget is that of the committee, not of the Chair.
Mr Sorbara: We can keep this very short if you will answer just a couple of questions, Mr Chairman. The first is, are you and your members satisfied with this budget? The reason I ask you that is because it is you as Chair of the committee who will have to go before the Board of Internal Economy and justify these expenditures. We can make all sorts of eloquent and passionate arguments to spend more or spend less, but I have counted up once again and your party still has a majority on the committee, so just let us know whether this is the budget that you as Chairman and your members as the majority want, and if that is the case we can go ahead and approve it.
Mr Fletcher: I am just wondering if this budget comes from the subcommittee, or where did it come from?
The Chair: The clerk prepared the budget.
Mr Fletcher: A $142,000 budget?
Clerk of the Committee: I just want to explain one thing about the budget. What I have done is I have prepared a base budget with no travel. That is what you have in front of you for the budget. What I have then also given you is a breakdown of what it costs us, per week, to sit at Queen's Park and to travel, per week, in Ontario. At the moment we have nothing referred that should have us sitting at all in the summer, so it is up to the committee to decide: Do we just go to the board with a base budget and if we are travelling this summer go with a supplementary, or do we want to try to predict and guess how many weeks we want to sit in the summer? If so, we will then add on what is required for us to sit in the summer, either at Queen's Park or throughout Ontario.
What you have in front of you is the basic base budget that pretty much every committee uses. Ours is a little bit higher because I have put in advertising, which runs to $52,000. It is $13,000 every time we advertise. We have advertised once already, for the private members' bills -- the ads should be coming out today and tomorrow -- and we have other things that we will probably be advertising for. That is what the $52,000 is.
We also have a conflict-of-interest report and three standing order 123 reports that have to be translated and printed. That is why your base budget is extremely high.
Mr Sorbara: Just based on what the clerk has told us, I would wonder out loud whether the other committee members are supportive of standing down consideration of the budget until the whip -- your whip, rather -- has had an opportunity to consult with the chief government whip and the government House leader to determine what we are going to be doing this summer. Some of us would like to know that.
There is apparently Sunday shopping legislation coming up. Mike Farnan or his successor is going to be bringing that bill forward in the House, we understand, within a month. There are two bills that will probably be referred here: the Arbitration Act and the Mortgages Amendment Act. Those can be considered very quickly, I think. There is the insurance bill. Are we going to be considering that? It would be easier to consider what we should be requesting from the Board of Internal Economy if we knew what the government had in mind as far as our workload is concerned.
Mr Mills: I kind of echo those sentiments because I believe that the common pause day legislation is going to come before this committee and I am just wondering what form that is going to take. Are we going to go across Ontario to listen to people or are they all going to come here? I think we should get some direction from the House leader or the government whip before we finalize this because I think that might be a major thing to address this summer, the Sunday shopping, be it here or elsewhere.
Mr Morrow: Greg, listen to this: I am going to agree with you on this, that I think the whip should take it to the House leader.
Mr Sorbara: Now I am going to change my mind. I cannot take the shock.
Mr Morrow: That is it, Mr Chairman.
Mr Sorbara: Can we look forward to a report, at least a tentative report, from the whip? I know the government House leader has had communication with the House leader for the opposition about so-called "must have" bills, and bills that must have second reading by the end of June and bills that you think you are going to be able to introduce and get to a committee. So let's have that information filter down, trickle down to us on the committee so that we can make a better determination of what we should be asking of the Board of Internal Economy.
Mrs Mathyssen: I would be happy to do that. I would be happy to go to the House leader and find out if she has been able to get some co-operation from the other House leaders so that we can proceed and find out what we will be doing this summer.
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: This is the first time I have served on this committee. Just so I know, do you recognize the speaker or is it fairly open? I am used to serving on the standing committee on government agencies, where you recognize my hand and then I talk. Is that the way this committee is or is this kind of a little more open?
The Chair: I think your point of order is very well taken, Mrs Haslam. Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: Saving in all cases, Mr Chairman, that Mrs Mathyssen is not the Solicitor General by the time we meet next.
Mrs Haslam: See what I mean?
The Chair: Could we move to a motion. The clerk informs me, Mr Sorbara, that not approving the next fiscal year's budget does not cause any immediate pressing problems. Therefore we do not need it within the next week or two. Could we entertain a motion to stand this down?
Mr Sorbara: I will move that this be stood down and that --
Mr Poirier: A short request before that, Mr Chair, please. I saw something and the clerk may help me with this. As for the advertising, you wanted to go through all the dailies of Ontario, is that not correct? I think there are something like 91 dailies in Ontario, of which only one of them is the French-language one in Ottawa. Now I presume if you want to reach all the dailies it is because you want to cover Ontario well. How do you plan to cover Ontario well for the francophones to know about this committee's work?
Clerk of the Committee: Generally when we talk about advertising throughout Ontario, you are absolutely correct. It is in every daily, which includes only one French paper. If the committee chooses, it can give me instructions to put it in every weekly French paper. It is totally up to the committee.
Mr Poirier: Right. There would be about seven or eight French-language weeklies across Ontario, and of course if you only leave it to the dailies, only the people around Le Droit in Ottawa would get it, which means the francophones elsewhere would not get it whatsoever. Could I request the committee's indulgence to consider that, so as to give a similar coverage across all of Ontario for francophones and anglophones?
1600
The Chair: Mr Poirier, your concern is in regard to consideration of the expense or of the publication?
Mr Poirier: Well, how we are going to have the methodology to advertise what we want to advertise, wherever we want to do it. I want to make sure that anglophones and francophones across Ontario can have a chance to do it. This may add to the cost, obviously, of the publications, but if you do not do it this way then only the francophones around Ottawa will get the same information that anglophones will get across Ontario through their 90 dailies.
The Chair: The clerk informs me that as long as the committee instructs her to do so, she can. Is it the wish of the committee?
Mr Poirier: Do you require a motion out of it in that case?
The Chair: Please.
Mr Poirier: In that case, could I ask that the committee consider adding to the advertising budget so that consideration can also be taken, along with the 91 dailies, to cover the bilingual and French-language weeklies across Ontario.
Mr Mills: I would just like to know roughly from the clerk what is the cost involved here, approximately. Any idea?
Clerk of the Committee: I could look into the cost. The only other cost I know is when one committee did the human rights and they decided to go in every ethnic paper, which included about 500 papers at that point. That cost about $50,000. Now, adding five papers I do not think is going to cost us more than a few thousand dollars. They are weekly papers and the advertising costs in them are not great. I would estimate about $2,000 more per ad.
Mr Mills: The reason I brought that up is that I sat in on one committee and the cost was a big issue. That is why I just wanted to make sure I was not voting for something that is going to put tremendous costs on it and then you have to appear and justify this, etc.
Mr Poirier: From my knowledge of the number of French and bilingual weeklies across Ontario, I would estimate that the cost would be between $5,000 and $10,000 at the very most. I do not have a complete list in front of me and I do not have a list of the complete, up-to-date costs, but I think that would be the ballpark figure.
The Chair: The clerk informs me that she could bring the exact cost before the committee before the budget is finalized. Further discussion on Mr Poirier's motion?
Mrs Haslam: Could I have the motion repeated, please?
Mr Poirier: I move that the committee also consider advertising in the French-language and bilingual weeklies of Ontario on top of the 91 dailies as was proposed to be done for advertising so that anglophones and francophones across Ontario have a fair chance of getting the news of this fine committee.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We then have a motion to stand down the budget.
Mr Mills: So moved.
The Chair: Further discussion? All in favour?
Mr Sorbara: Hold on a second. Actually, you should wait --
The Chair: We were in the midst of a vote.
Mr Sorbara: No, no. When you say "Any discussion?" you should pause for three seconds and then look around, rather than say: "Any discussion? All in favour?"
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: Well, I am making a recommendation.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Sorbara: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to put on the record, within the context of the motion, that we do not bring the budget back until we have had a report from the government whip on the committee as to what business the government contemplates we will consider during this period, up until the end of the budgetary period. Is that all right? Do not worry about it, this is not a conspiracy. I would just like to know from you and from the government what you think maybe we are going to be doing in the summer.
Mrs Mathyssen: I was confused about the time frame. I thought you were talking about a time frame beyond --
The Chair: Could I interject there for a moment, Mrs Mathyssen. Clerk?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. I want to clarify something that Mr Sorbara just asked. The end of the budget year would also include the following winter recess. I assume you just want information on this summer's recess.
Mr Sorbara: Whatever budgetary period we are looking at. If we are writing a budget from now until next March, I do not think they are going to be able to speculate as to what they are going to do, but I would like to know what we propose to do during the summer period. While we are sitting next September the budget is pretty easy to determine and we do not travel during those times.
Mrs Mathyssen: As I said before, I will discuss with the House leader what the plan is regarding this summer and come back with a report regarding how long we are going to sit this summer.
The Chair: Regarding how long we are going to be sitting?
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes.
The Chair: Not with regard to what specific legislation or proposal that is going to be forthcoming?
Mrs Mathyssen: No, just what the plan is -- will we be sitting in the summer?
Mr Poirier: With all due respect, I think it is extremely important to also know what we may be considering, because this may obviously impact on whether we are going to sit in Toronto or move across the province. What we are going to study might also impact how much time we will need to travel this summer. There is no way we can respectfully make a decent budget for this if we do not have an idea what is going to be studied, because this may determine where we will study this and how long we will study this. Of course, from my previous practice, we better make sure that if we present a budget, it is as realistic as possible, because having to go back on a regular basis to the Board of Internal Economy to have this considered is a bit of a complication. So I think it is very important to be as precise as possible -- what, where, when, how much it will cost. We will need that. That is not an option; it is very much a necessary type of information.
Mr Sorbara: I want to give my friend the member for Middlesex some comfort. I am not trying to secrete out of her private, secret information about the government's plans. The government may well have it in its head to introduce a bill that no one has ever heard of in June and refer it to this committee. I do not expect you to tell me about that. What I expect you to do is just to bring the overall plans that the government has already discussed with the other House leaders to focus as far as they impact on this committee. For example, do we expect to be considering a Sunday shopping bill in this committee, or as my friend the member for Durham East calls it, the common pause bill? And you may not get it through on second reading. You know, "The best-laid plans of mice and men," etc. So again, this is not a conspiracy. We are not trying to find out the deepest secrets of the government of Ontario. We just want to know what you plan for us in broad terms. We do not expect that all of those plans will be realized, but if we knew that, we could do a better job of asking for the amount of money we need to fulfil those plans.
Mrs Mathyssen: I thank Mr Sorbara very much. My confusion resided in his description. When he said with regard to the entire budget, I thought he was talking about the end of the fiscal year and my confusion arose from his lack of clarity in that.
I will go to the House leader and I will consult with her regarding this summer's activities as best I can, and I am sure the House leader will give that report as best she can, because of course it does depend on co-operation with other House leaders. By virtue of the fact that we cannot be absolutely sure about what legislation is passed and what comes to us, I cannot absolutely say what we will be considering, but I will discuss it with the House leader and we will be as clear as we can be after that discussion.
Mr Sorbara: Is that not marvellous, Mr Chair? Absolutely marvellous. There is a new spirit of co-operation which is going to last about another two minutes.
The Chair: Can we now entertain a motion to set aside the budget until that discussion.
Motion agreed to.
1610
The Chair: We have in front of us a schedule prepared by the clerk. Any comments on that schedule for 30 April and 6 May?
Mr Sorbara: I think my comments on this schedule are regrettably going to be rather lengthy. I am not sure what you propose for the rest of the day. Might we just review that? I am not saying I am going to take up the rest of the day; I am not. I am not going to go on at great, great length, but given the information that has been given to me by the vice-chairman of this committee, I do have some objections to make about this schedule.
The Chair: What we had planned for the rest of the day was a discussion of directions to the researcher with regard to conflict of interest, which I would imagine to be a fairly significant piece of business this afternoon.
Mr Sorbara: Okay, so we will consider this schedule and then we will move on to directions to the researcher on the preparation of the report. Is that right?
Mr Harnick: Can I ask something before Mr Sorbara goes into the schedule. The directions we will be giving to the researcher will be about writing the report commencing now, or commencing after we have examined the material and heard the witnesses?
Mr Fletcher: Are you asking?
Mr Morrow: Who are you asking?
Mr Harnick: I am asking the Chair whether we are going to consider the bill or the guidelines and the bill, because I know that our mandate also includes reviewing the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's very detailed proposed amendments to the bill, and no doubt everyone has the bill with him and has read it. No doubt about that.
What my question is, are we going to tell Susan Swift to prepare the report before we have had a chance to examine all of this material, or are we going to take our time and do it properly and examine this bill, these recommendations, the Premier's very detailed list of concerns, as well as the guidelines, and then prepare the report with our recommendations? Are we going to do this without regard to hearing the witnesses, to reviewing the material and make a mockery of this whole proceeding?
The Chair: Mr Winninger.
Mr Harnick: I am not quite finished.
The Chair: I am sorry, I thought you had finished, sir.
Mr Harnick: I cannot believe that there is a person in this room who has the ability to instruct Susan Swift before we have reviewed the material, if we are really after obtaining a realistic and detailed report as we have been requested by the Premier. Those are my preliminary comments.
Mrs Mathyssen: As I am sure Mr Harnick knows, we made a decision yesterday that we would today give instructions to the researcher, and that is what we intend. As was pointed out very clearly and emphatically yesterday, we had a number of witnesses in the month of February. We had some very good input from those very talented and clear witnesses. We have had two months to consider that. We have material in our possession. We have had time to look at it, and now the time has come to begin to give instructions to the researcher so that we can, on 30 April and on 6 May, hear from others, fine-tune that recommendation and finalize it on 7 May. That was made very clear yesterday. I will reiterate it here today. That was what we decided.
Mr Harnick: Who is going to be giving these instructions to the researcher?
Mrs Mathyssen: We are. We will, together, as a group, give instructions to the researcher, based on the information that we have here. We will discuss it and we will put together a package of conflict-of-interest guidelines that are the envy of all, because they will provide our government, our ministers, with very clear direction about the kind of conduct the people of Ontario deserve and expect from government.
Mr Harnick: No doubt we have seen a good example of the way these guidelines are working in the last couple of weeks, and I think that if we rush this process through, we will do our utmost to make those guidelines even worse and even more confusing. You have the numbers on this committee, and you have the opportunity to invoke your --
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Harnick, we have an opportunity here and now to create and you are here to contribute to those. You can contribute in a positive way or not.
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, excuse me, if you would like to raise your hand, I will recognize you after Mr Sorbara. Mr Harnick still has the floor.
Mr Harnick: I look forward to seeing how you are going to give those instructions to Ms Swift, and I am quite sure that I will be enlightened by those as well, in light of how well the conflict-of-interest guidelines have been interpreted to date, and in light of the volume of work that has not been --
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is not a comment on what has been going on. We are going to be discussing his statements --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. Mr Harnick, would you proceed.
Mr Harnick: In light of the volume of work still to be done, I do not recall -- and Mrs Mathyssen has said that we have been considering these guidelines for two months. My recollection is that we have been considering Bill 17 for two months and that we spent three or four days in a preliminary look at these guidelines. I do not recall reviewing anything that the commissioner has recommended. I do not recall reviewing anything regarding the guidelines that the Premier has asked us to look at. If Mrs Mathyssen can do the superhuman job of writing the report before we review all this material, all the more power to her, because it just shows me how serious the government and the Premier are about these guidelines, and that is confirmed by the proceedings during question period today.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to suggest to Mrs Mathyssen that I am going to be a few minutes with my comments and then I will regrettably have to leave the committee, so I am not going to be able to stay around for her comments on the work that we are to undertake today.
I think the member for Willowdale did make an appropriate point when he referred to the events that are unfolding in the province right now relating to the conduct of the Solicitor General. No one, really, is very happy --
Interjection.
Mr Sorbara: No one takes any joy in the conduct of a minister --
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we discussing the conduct of the minister right now or are we discussing something else?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, if I might, on the point of order, we are talking about the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, are you speaking to the --
Mr Sorbara: I am speaking to the conflict-of-interest guidelines and the mandate that we are going to give the researcher. Now look, I do not really want to play this game this afternoon. If you are going to let me, I will make my remarks, but if you want to interrupt with a series of points of order, then just let me know. I will pack up my toys and I will go on to do other work. Now, what is it going to be?
Mr Fletcher: If you would just talk about what you want to talk about and --
Mr Sorbara: I will tell my friend --
The Chair: You have the floor, sir. Go ahead.
Mr Sorbara: No one takes much joy, really, either in opposition or in government, to have to go through what is going on right now in respect of the conduct of the Solicitor General. Let me tell you that nobody has suggested that the Solicitor General is not an honourable person and that he is not as honest as --
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would like us to get back to the guidelines. If he has any suggestions as to how we can give instructions to the researchers then that is what we are here to discuss, I thought.
The Chair: Actually, I believe we have the schedule before us as well, and Mr Harnick wished to address how the deliberations of today would relate to that schedule, which was a slight diversion from our discussion of the schedule. But I think your point of order still stands. Mr Sorbara.
1620
Mr Sorbara: Thank you. As I was saying, no one questions the integrity or the honesty or the honourability of the --
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is this on the agenda? Are we discussing the agenda now?
Mr Sorbara: I am going to try and help out Mrs Haslam just once. We are talking, my friend, about guidelines for ministers.
Mrs Haslam: Mr Chair, could you speak up. I cannot hear you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam has the floor raising a point of order.
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order: Are we discussing the schedule and the conflict-of-interest guidelines? Are we discussing the schedule right now and the idea that we are going to be giving some directions to the researcher? That is what we are discussing.
The Chair: We are indeed.
Mr Sorbara: Are we discussing the schedule --
The Chair: The schedule of witnesses for next week and the following week, yes.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: My purpose in making these remarks to this point is in respect of the schedule. Yesterday we agreed in this committee that the Premier would be a witness before this committee. I had asked this committee -- my good friend Mrs Haslam was not here -- through its Vice-Chair to bring forward to this committee a number of witnesses. That list included the Honourable Gregory Evans, Conflict of Interest Commissioner; George Mammoliti, MPP for the Toronto riding of Downsview, and Mr Perruzza, another Toronto MPP, both of whom, as it appears, have not disposed of assets in accordance with the conflict guidelines. We also asked that the Premier attend here for further examination in respect of his guidelines.
Yesterday we were assured by the Vice-Chairman of this committee that the Premier was willing to attend. In fact, it was confirmed by Mr Morrow that all of the witnesses we had asked to appear before the committee were willing to appear, with the one exception of the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Honourable Zanana Akande, and the reason why Ms Akande could not appear, we were told, is because she is under investigation, or matters relating to her compliance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines were under investigation.
Mr Chairman, let me assure you that committees like this have undertaken those very sorts of investigations many times in the past, for years and years. In fact, that is one of the things that a legislative committee like the committee on the administration of justice does. If our House Leader, Murray Elston, has not already brought forward a motion in the House that the matter of the conduct of the Solicitor General be referred to this committee, then I suspect he will soon do so.
I am talking about what we should be doing in this committee in respect of the guidelines and the instructions that we are going to give to the research officer. But in order to direct the research officer in her work, we need to know how these guidelines are actually working in practice and we need the Premier to be here to answer some very important questions about when the Minister of Community and Social Services resigned her directorships and when the Premier was advised about her ownership of a particular property.
We also, by heaven, need to ask the Premier how in the world he can publish guidelines in December and present them to Parliament, through a minister's statement, and distribute those guidelines to the Parliament and to the press and to the public and charge this committee with the responsibility of considering those guidelines, and then, some two months later, publish a private set of amendments to those guidelines which qualify very significantly the obligation to dispose of assets, which is the heart and soul of the Premier's new guidelines. We need to know that.
Do you not realize how surprised we and our researchers were when we found out in mid-April that the guidelines that we were given in this committee, which are contained here, were qualified by a private memo from the Premier to "Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Assistants and Caucus Members," setting out a number of qualifications, setting out what, in the Premier's view, it was not necessary to divest, to sell, to get rid of?
We need to know from the Premier whether that memo is an amendment to the guidelines we are considering, and we need to know how he came to draft that amendment, because if I say to you publicly, "Sir, you must sell your business assets," and then I say to you privately, "But you will not have to sell some of the assets, and here is why," then the very process that the Premier has asked us to undertake is compromised.
We asked a series of questions about a number of ministers, including the Minister of Culture, Elaine Ziemba, and the Minister of Community and Social Services, Zanana Akande, about assets that they had not sold, and I want to tell my friend Mrs Haslam we were genuinely surprised. Our researchers were genuinely surprised because the disclosure statements said that they retained business assets. Compare that to the guidelines, and the guidelines said these sorts of assets have to be disposed of within 60 days.
We remembered that there had been an extension to 31 March. The day after the extension, two days after the extension, actually, on 2 April, the Premier himself issued a press release saying that all ministers had complied. And yet our researchers, looking through the document that was submitted to the conflict commissioner, found that assets had not been disposed of. We did our research and we found that, lo and behold, these assets were still owned by ministers, and we could not square that with what the Premier had said and done, because in his guidelines as well there was an undertaking by him personally that if he made an exception --
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we talking about the agenda?
Mr Harnick: Very much so we are.
Mr Fletcher: No, that does not sound like the agenda.
Mr Sorbara: Just to respond to the point of order, Mr Chairman, we are talking about the agenda and I am explaining why it is important to have the Premier here, okay?
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, are we talking about the agenda?
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, I think you are making some excellent points and you want to confine them to what is on the agenda or what is in absence.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, as I understand it, I can speak to this topic for a while. This is a very important topic, and I am not --
The Chair: No one is suggesting you do not, sir. Go ahead.
1630
Mr Sorbara: The Premier, as it turned out, had issued qualifications to his guidelines. The qualifications to the guidelines set out a number of instances where ministers would not and parliamentary assistants would not be required to sell or dispose of their assets. Those qualifications have led to a serious cloud hanging over the head of the Minister of Community and Social Services, and a cloud as well, I suggest to my friends on this committee, over the head of a number of other ministers and parliamentary assistants. We need to clarify that.
But even more important, we have this problem on this committee: The Premier was sitting there and testified eloquently, as he always does, about his guidelines, but he has not yet testified before us about the guidelines as they now stand or as they are qualified. When he testified here, he was working on the basis that ministers would have to dispose of their assets. He had not yet prepared this major addendum to the guidelines, and so we need to hear from the Premier about whence this amendment, and why the amendment was not referred to this committee, and why the amendment was not made public.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, you are raising a point about the Premier's absence from the agenda, is that right?
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, you invited --
The Chair: And the clerk whose responsibility it was to invite the people --
Mr Sorbara: Now, do not blame the clerk.
The Chair: No, I am not blaming the clerk, but I think the clerk should maybe have the opportunity to address what is the 4:30 to be confirmed.
Clerk of the Committee: The 4:30 to be confirmed is Mr Kormos.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. By the way, Mr Chairman, it has already been confirmed to me by Mr Morrow, your Vice-Chair, that the Premier will not be attending.
Mr Morrow: That is right.
Mr Sorbara: Yesterday it was confirmed to me that the Premier would attend, and that is what I am speaking to, if you do not mind.
I was speaking about the amendment to the guidelines, the document that --
The Chair: This absence, though -- my apologies as Chair -- I was not aware that was the problem. It had not been brought to the committee's attention as a whole that the Premier was not going to be attending, and certainly not to my attention.
Mr Sorbara: Here is our problem: This amendment, this document, which all of you received, all of you caucus members for the New Democratic Party received --
Mr Mills: I cannot remember.
Mr Sorbara: -- has not even yet been referred to this committee. The Premier has not stood up in the House and referred the document to the committee. Do you want to hear something even more shocking? I could not believe it until we got confirmation of this in writing.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Please, will you please address the agenda, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Harnick: He is addressing the agenda.
Mr Morrow: He is not.
Mr Sorbara: I am making arguments to support the proposition that the Premier ought to come before this committee, and we are discussing our agenda right now.
As I was saying, Mr Chairman, even more shocking --
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara has the right to speak at whatever length he wishes to about the agenda. He is speaking about the agenda. Go ahead.
Mr Sorbara: I am making arguments for the proposition that the Premier ought to be requested once again by this committee to come and appear.
Mr Fletcher: Then move an amendment.
Mr Sorbara: Even more shocking than the fact that this was a private memo given to government members is the fact -- now get this -- that memo was not even sent to Gregory Evans, the conflict commissioner.
Mr Morrow: What memo? We did not get a memo.
Interjections.
Mr Sorbara: Now, just a second. Can I --
Mr Harnick: We do not know --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara has the floor.
Mr Sorbara: Now this is interesting, Mr Chairman, because the government members are shaking their heads and saying they never got the memo. This is shocking.
Mrs Haslam: We do not know what you are talking about.
Mr Sorbara: Okay. I will --
Mrs Haslam: Clarify what you are talking about, Mr Sorbara.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara has the floor.
Mr Sorbara: I will in due course produce that memo, and I will tell you what is in it, because it is not only shocking and surprising but really appalling that one, two, three, four, five, six --
Mrs Haslam: Do not count me. I said clarify.
Mr Sorbara: Oh, okay. Well, some members of the government are denying any knowledge of it.
Mr Fletcher: I have a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher on a point of order, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I am going to table it before the committee.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, are we talking about the agenda, are we talking about a secret memo, are we talking about the contents of the bill? I thought the item for discussion was the agenda.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara's discussion of the memo, whatever it was, is I think still in order as it is his rationale for including the Premier on the agenda. Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chair, a few days ago -- oh my God, no, it was just yesterday; forgive me -- this committee passed a motion over our strong objection to in effect limit the discussion on the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Today we have a minister whose very reputation is clouded and who is the subject of an entire hour in question period, because he refused to do the honourable thing. I just want to suggest to my friends on this committee that if they have not seen a copy of this memo, then there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and I would hate to think that this memo was just --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, are you going to circulate that memo?
Mr Sorbara: No, I am not. I do not have a copy of it. I am going to read it into the record. Just to set the background for this memo, you recall the guidelines. You have all read the guidelines, okay, and you have all read the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.
Mr Mills: And the letter of extension.
Mr Sorbara: And the letter of extension. Okay. You have probably seen the press release and all of that. Now I hope that members will, after I read this memo, acknowledge whether or not they have actually ever seen it or heard of it. It is on stationery of the Premier of Ontario. Given what has happened today with the Solicitor General, maybe this does not mean anything. I do not know. It is dated 12 February 1991. It is a memo to "Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Assistants and Caucus Members." It is from, purportedly, "Bob Rae, Premier." The subject is "Conflict of Interest." If my friends down at the back of the room could actually make a copy of this memo, I would distribute it to the other committee members. In the meantime I will just tell you what it says.
"As you know, in December I released conflict-of-interest guidelines for ministers and parliamentary assistants. These guidelines will be considered by the members' services committee starting February 18, 1991." Now, that is wrong. It is not the members' services committee. This is the standing committee on administration of justice, but I forgive whoever wrote this memo for making that error.
"Because of the number of members who are in fact in the process of divesting themselves of interests, I want to let you know that the date for compliance with the guidelines will be March 31, 1991.
"The guidelines are tougher than the legislation, and as such I have been considering how the specific rules that we have agreed on will be applied in specific cases." You see that? He is qualifying the rules.
"My office will be in touch with affected individuals, but I wanted to let you know of these general rules that will, I hope, clarify some of the guidelines." You see, the Premier is admitting there that he is clarifying and modifying the guidelines.
"In terms of financial and business interests, the main areas of interest fall into three categories: ownership of rental property, financial investments and RRSPs."
Now, the subheading reads "Rental Property." The Premier says, "I do not consider rental of rooms or apartments in owner-occupied property a conflict of interest." He says, "I don't consider it a conflict of interest." The guidelines are silent on that, but he says, "I don't consider it a conflict of interest." "However, ownership of rental property does pose the potential for conflict."
Now, this next paragraph I think is extremely important: "I am aware that market prices have fallen substantially and that to force divestment at this time would create hardships for many members."
Just pay attention for a second, because in the guidelines he is saying, "You have to divest," but in this private memo, not made public, he is saying: "We're in a recession. Times are tough out there. You are going to put an apartment building or a business up for sale and there are going to be no buyers. So we'll have to make some concessions."
"I will, then," he says, "allow to be held as assets property consisting of a single-family dwelling, condominium or other such dwelling in addition to an owner-occupied dwelling. This in no way affects the prohibition of members acquiring an interest in land in Ontario except for personal residential or recreational use or, where there is an existing farm, additional working farm land."
What he is saying in effect there is, "There's a category of property that you don't have to sell, and besides, I understand in a down market you might not be able to sell property that eventually I want you to sell."
Did we know about this memo? No. I could call one of our researchers, because he was terribly confused about the fact that Akande and Ziemba still had property and the guidelines said "Sell."
Now, the second heading is "Financial Investments." "Investments in specific companies, including debentures and stock, must be divested. Mutual funds administered by an arm's length financial institution are permitted."
Why is that? I have no idea. A mutual fund could, even if it is administered at arm's-length, contain stocks in energy companies, stocks in Bramalea, stocks in heaven knows what, Eaton's, Simpsons or whatever. There is nothing special about a mutual fund that would not give rise to a conflict. But for some reason the Premier has said, "Mutual funds administered by an arm's-length financial institution are permitted." Would it not be appropriate if this committee heard testimony from the Premier about why he was permitting the retention of those sorts of mutual funds?
1640
The next heading is "RRSPs." "Self-administered RRSPs are prohibited," -- I can understand that; a self-administered RRSP means that I, as the administrator, have to actually do the trading on the stock market -- "and must be converted," he says, "to other forms of RRSP investment."
So if my RRSP is not self-administered, I can own stocks in all sorts of companies as long as some other person is administering them. That is closer to a minister than the management trust that we set up under the law that is now in place and enforced by Gregory Evans. The relationship between an owner of an RRSP is much closer to the assets than is that of a trust which is administered at arm's length to the beneficiary of the trust; in this case, the minister. I know. I was the beneficiary of a trust and it cost me several thousands of dollars to establish that trust and manage it in compliance with the laws of the province of Ontario.
But for some reason Bob Rae says that a self-administered RRSP can be converted to other forms of RRSP investment. Do you not wonder why? Do you not ask yourself, when you propose to give instructions to the researcher, what you would want to say about this in conjunction with what the Premier said in his original guidelines?
Now, under "Other Financial Interests," he says, "I do not consider genuine non-profit enterprises or shares in co-operatives that are bought as a condition of membership to be conflicts." Zanana Akande has shares in a nonprofit enterprise. I guess that is why she thinks she is not in trouble.
Do you not think this committee ought to know what the Premier was thinking when he decided that a nonprofit enterprise is okay? Some non-profit enterprises are very large. I will just give you an example: Toronto Trust Cemeteries, a very large undertaking, deals with millions and millions of dollars, buys and sells land all over the greater Toronto area, but it is non-profit. Can you be an officer of Toronto Trust Cemeteries? Can you be a director? Can you be the president? United Co-Operatives of Ontario -- are there any farmers on this committee? -- is a very big outfit. Can you have shares there? Can you deal in grain on their behalf? What is the answer here? We do not even have the opportunity to pose the question.
The next subheading is "Exceptions and Exemptions," and I am quoting again. "There is provision for an exception to the divestment rule where I can be satisfied that the interest has been fully disclosed, that undue hardship would be created by divestment, that retaining the interest would not be inconsistent with the public interest and that the minister has given appropriate undertakings to avoid a conflict of interest."
Now, I do not have any problem with that, and the reason why I do not have any problem with that is because that is not new; that is in the guidelines. We have already heard that. He has already said that to the public and to this committee.
"These decisions," he says, "where made, will be made public."
I would expect that any government member who has seen these amendments to the guidelines ought to interject right now on a point of order and make that fact known.
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: As a matter of fact, I did see these and I took it to be clarification of some of the guidelines because I was confused about my RRSP and when this came, I remembered asking this question.
Mr Poirier: That is not a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: I think my friend is right. It is not a point of order.
The Chair: I think Mr Poirier has a point. However, Mr Sorbara did ask a question.
Mr Sorbara: I made a suggestion.
The Chair: Although it is not a point of order, you did ask a question and Mrs Haslam responded to it. It has nothing to do with the rules of order, none the less, but still -- anything further, Mr Sorbara?
Mr Sorbara: Yes.
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we still discussing the agenda?
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Mr Sorbara: Yes, we are. We are still discussing the Premier's refusal to come before this committee and give further testimony so that we can do a better job of commenting on his guidelines.
I know what Mrs Mathyssen wants. She wants a report from this committee and by God, she is going to get it. She wants a report from this committee saying that the Premier's guidelines are the best thing since sliced bread.
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Sorbara, whatever you are, you are not a mindreader. I will tell you what I want.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, this is not a point of order.
Mrs Mathyssen: I want to get on with the business of this committee.
The Chair: Will you allow Mr Sorbara to continue with his --
Mrs Mathyssen: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. My light was on again and I was tempted.
Mr Sorbara: I think your light went off several years ago.
I just want to say that if we could have the Premier come before this committee again, I would ask him about what investigation he did in respect of the matter relating to Richard Allen and Ed Philip in the Red Hill Creek Expressway matter. I would ask him the basis upon which he threw Tony Rizzo out of caucus. I would ask him whether or not the Solicitor General even tendered his resignation. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Solicitor General violated the guidelines on conflict. He is not a bad man. Violating guidelines does not make you a bad man.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, excuse me. We do have a microphone system in the room.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, I really appreciate your reminding me of that.
As I was saying, I think I know what Mrs Mathyssen wants. She has already said it, in fact. She mentioned that these were the best guidelines and the most stringent guidelines, if I am quoting her --
Mrs Mathyssen: I said we wanted to create them, here, together, co-operatively.
The Chair: Do not fight Mr Sorbara, having addressed you.
Mrs Mathyssen: But I do not think, Mr Chairman, that he should misquote me so.
The Chair: You will have an opportunity to correct the record after Mr Sorbara has finished his oration.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You are doing a marvellous job of trying to keep your unruly colleagues in order and I know it is a very difficult job, particularly in the case of the member for Middlesex.
What I would like to get out of this committee is a real opinion on the Premier's guidelines, and I am going to find that very difficult to do unless the Premier comes back here and testifies in respect of the amendments to the guidelines that he had made.
By the way, can I just read you a letter from Gregory Evans, the commissioner, to our researcher?
Mrs Haslam: On a point of order, Mr Chair: With all due respect, I would like to get on with some of the business of the committee and I do not see any reason why we should use Hansard as a means of reading letters. I would like to know if we are still discussing the agenda.
Mr Poirier: These are not points of order. Please.
Mrs Haslam: Oh, I am sorry.
The Chair: It is a legitimate point of order; however, it is not accurate.
Mr Sorbara: The letter from His Honour Mr Justice Evans states as follows, "Further to your memorandum of April 15 addressed to Lynn Harris, please be advised the commission has not received any amendments to the December 12 guidelines." Signed, "Yours very truly, Gregory T. Evans."
Knowing Mr Justice Evans, I am sure that he signed this letter and not somebody else.
Pretty soon the government members are going to join forces and give direction to our research officer on these guidelines, to write a report before we have heard evidence on crucial matters relating to the enforcement of the guidelines. I accept that that is going to happen, so I just want to make a few comments about what I think the report should say.
1650
Mrs Mathyssen: That is what he should be doing when we actually get to the instructions.
Mr Sorbara: That is what is on the orders.
Mr Morrow: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Mr Sorbara's giving us a few points on what should be in that report is not part of the agenda.
Mr Sorbara: It certainly is. I beg to differ. That is what you call really discussing the agenda and the directions that are going to be given to the researcher.
The Chair: No, Mr Sorbara. We are discussing the tentative agenda as set out. You were discussing the absence of the Premier.
Mr Sorbara: Right.
The Chair: The instructions to the researcher were not to occur until after we have approved this tentative agenda.
Mr Sorbara: Right.
The Chair: This is, I believe, a legitimate point of order.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much..
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, could you confine your remarks to the agenda.
Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, in considering the agenda, I would want to hear from someone who is not on our list right now, so I am going to move a motion that in the absence --
Mr Mills: I am not on the list.
Mr Sorbara: We hear from you all too much, Gord.
I am going to move a motion in a few moments requesting the committee to ask the Solicitor General to appear before this committee. My friends on the committee might think that is a little bit too sensitive, but ask yourselves this question. What better way for the Solicitor General to clear his name than by coming before a legislative committee and testifying as to exactly how it came to be that a letter on his letterhead, with his signature or his name signed on the letter, came to be written to a justice of the peace asking, in effect, that a ticket be fixed?
Someone commented during question period that this is just a low-grade ticket-fixing operation. But that is a serious charge. Interfering with a judge and his determination of a matter is a very serious charge.
Mr Harnick: I've seen JPs lose their jobs for that.
Mr Sorbara: People's reputations are destroyed for ever on that basis. Do you know something? if Mike Farnan does not step down and let this matter be resolved independently --
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Are we talking about the agenda or whether or not Mr Farnan --
Mr Sorbara: Yes, I think very clearly. I am making two points. One, that the Premier should --
Mr Fletcher: I am not asking Mr Sorbara; I am asking the Chair. Are we talking about the agenda or are we speaking about whether Mr Farnan should step down? I think there is a clear distinction. Either he should be here and that is what you are saying -- whether or not he should step down is another point, and that is a personal point.
The Chair: Do you wish to include Mr Farnan on the agenda?
Mr Sorbara: I am doing something that I think is really simple and straightforward. The government members -- I mean, just realize --
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, are you making an argument that Mr Farnan appear?
Mr Sorbara: I am trying to make the argument that Mr Farnan appear before our committee in lieu of the Premier, if it turns out that the Premier is not willing to attend, but in addition to the Premier if the Premier changes his mind again and agrees to attend.
Mrs Haslam: Is that a motion?
Mr Sorbara: I will make the motion in due course, my friend. We are talking about the agenda and so I am trying to make the argument.
I do not think any of you realize that this thing will live with Farnan for the rest of his political life, and if he does not clear it up now, it is just going to get worse. If the Premier continues to stonewall and not do an independent investigation and not let somebody else look at the evidence as to who authorized the writing of the letter and who actually signed the letter and how the letter came to be sent and why Ed Philip, the Minister of Transportation, or his ministry did not twig to the fact that someone was asking --
The Chair: Mr Morrow on a point of order.
Mr Morrow: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I thought we were speaking to the agenda here.
Mrs Haslam: We are.
Mr Sorbara: Oh, goodness, if I cannot make a case for calling Mike Farnan --
Mr Morrow: Mr Chair, we are also looking at the fact that yes, Mr Farnan is being investigated by the RCMP. That was brought up in the House today and Mr Sorbara does know that.
Mr Sorbara: All I can tell you is that every time the government members interrupt on these silly, foolish and inappropriate points of order, it just shows how nervous they are.
Mrs Haslam: We want to get something done.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, continue please.
Mr Sorbara: The problem that Farnan has is that the only one who has stood in judgement of him so far is Bob Rae, the Premier of the province. Now, his judgement might be accurate, but would it not be better if the minister stepped aside from his office and allowed an independent investigation?
You folks want to get this conflict-of-interest matter wrapped up really quickly. Well, can I just tell you something? Your motion of yesterday requiring that the report be written, starting as of today, and be finished as of 6 or 7 May or whatever will not make these situations go away.
Mrs Haslam: Mr Chair, he seems to be wandering and telling us things and I would appreciate if we could discuss points towards the agenda and come to some conclusion about this agenda.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam does have a point. Perhaps you could address yourself to the agenda, Mr Sorbara.
Mr Sorbara: I think the agenda is conflict of interest and the schedule of witnesses, and my arguments are that Mike Farnan ought to be here as a witness.
Mrs Haslam: Point made.
Mr Sorbara: I hope we are going to hear some party arguments in rebuttal of that, why you do not want to listen to Mike Farnan and why you do not want to ask him questions. You may take that view, and that is a reasonable view. You may want to be the Solicitor General some day. You may want to measure carefully what you say in this committee about how you think a Solicitor General ought to operate. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for the Solicitor General. My respect has fallen somewhat over the past day. Not because of the letters but because, as I understand it, he did not even have the courtesy to offer the Premier his resignation. I may be wrong on that and I would like to question him about that in this committee.
Mrs Mathyssen: On a point of order; Mr Chair. Mr Sorbara knows there is an RCMP investigation going on and that it is highly inappropriate for Mr Farnan to be here. What he is basically doing is just wasting a lot of time discussing something that is not pertinent.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Mathyssen. Mr Sorbara?
Mr Sorbara: Number one: that is not a point of order.
The Chair: Mr Sorbara, I have already ruled on that.
Mr Sorbara: Number two: there is no prohibition about ministers or anyone coming before parliamentary committees in situations where a police investigation is going on. Number three: Mr Chairman, I would move --
Mrs Haslam: Is this a motion, Mr Chair?
Mr Sorbara: -- and I hope I get the support of some government members -- that this committee reissue an invitation to the Premier, the Honourable Bob Rae, and Mike Farnan, currently the Solicitor General, to appear before this committee and that time be made available at this committee to hear their testimony and have them answer our questions.
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, do you wish to discuss the motion?
Mrs Mathyssen: I can only reiterate again that there is an RCMP investigation going on. It is not appropriate to have Mr Farnan here. We have extended an invitation to the Premier, and because of his agenda he is not able to be here, at least at this point in time it seems not. We propose that the Deputy Premier or Mr Hampton, the Attorney General, be invited to fill in the time slot Mr Sorbara refers to, or perhaps Mrs Caplan be invited, but it is not appropriate to have Mr Farnan.
The Chair: I am sorry; the clerk points out to me that Mr Sorbara's motion is --
Mrs Haslam: Point of information or point of clarification Mr Chairman: If somebody makes a motion and then leaves, does that motion stand? Do we get to vote on it?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you.
The Chair: The clerk points out to me that we have already requested the Premier's attendance. Unfortunately he is out of the country on one of those days, and the other day he is not able to come due to other commitments. However, Mr Sorbara's motion is still quite appropriate, seeing that we are talking about some other time not presently fixed.
Mr Winninger: Am I still on the list?
The Chair: You are, sir. Would you like to speak to the motion in front of us?
Mr Winninger: Mr Sorbara has spoken at great length on issues that are of interest to him and possibly even to his party. These are all issues that might be more appropriately addressed during question period in the House. I think they deal with interpretation of the guidelines in specific instances, rather than the guidelines themselves, which we have to consider. To that extent, I think Mr Sorbara departed from the pith and substance of this particular motion, which is one of scheduling.
Mr Harnick: You were not even here when he was speaking.
Mr Winninger: I heard most of what he said.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, Mr Winninger has the floor.
Mr Winninger: When people speak in circles, it does not matter when you come or when you go.
Mr Harnick: How can you say that when you were not here?
The Chair: Mr Harnick, it is inappropriate to discuss absence --
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, please, Mr Chairman: My point of order is very direct. Mr Winninger is making comments about Mr Sorbara's submissions to this committee when he was not here for 20 minutes.
Mr Fletcher: That is not a point of order.
The Chair: It is not a point of order. Thank you.
Mr Harnick: Let me finish. Why is that not a point of order?
The Chair: It is not only inappropriate; it is not a point of order.
Mr Winninger: To continue from where I was interrupted, I heard Mr Sorbara speak for 20 minutes and I am basing my comments on what I heard him say. Obviously, I am not basing my comments on what he said when I was out of the room. All I am saying is that I heard what he said. I am suggesting that he spoke at some length about specific instances concerning the interpretation of these guidelines. I do not think that matter is properly before the committee on a scheduling motion. I know Mr Sorbara does not want these conflict-of-interest guidelines, but he certainly cannot extend the time for discussion indefinitely with the fond hope that four or five years from now, if he is back in government, these conflict-of-interest guidelines may never have been passed.
Mr Harnick: I have another point of order. I do not know how Mr Winninger can say what Mr Sorbara wants or does not want.
Mr Winninger: This is not a point of order.
Mr Harnick: Let me finish. Mrs Haslam was quick to jump on Mr Sorbara.
The Chair: I am trying to hear the clerk's advice on your point of order.
I think you have a very good point, Mr Winninger. You have a very good point, Mr Harnick. Mr Winninger?
Mr Winninger: He has a very good point?
The Chair: You should not be imputing motives to Mr Sorbara. Mr Winninger, you can continue, please.
Mr Winninger: I did not know I was imputing motives. I was simply stating the facts.
Mr Harnick: That was not my allegation at all.
Mr Winninger: In any event, we are dealing with a matter of scheduling. Some of these witnesses whom Mr Sorbara seeks to recall we have already heard from. Mr Sorbara has cited a memorandum that went out to various members of government, interpreting the guidelines -- not amending the guidelines, but interpreting the guidelines -- and in my respectful submission, that is certainly not a sufficient basis for insisting that the Premier be recalled for that specific reason. Certainly, we are entitled to hear from witnesses. Two days seem to be sufficient to hear from these witnesses, and I do not hear a clear plan from the opposition here. They are not saying, "We need three days, we need five days, we need six days." They are just saying, "We need more time." They are not saying how much time. This could go on indefinitely and quite frankly, there has been quite an adequate amount of time devoted to these guidelines already.
The government is showing an extreme flexibility in extending the schedule, and on that basis I would suggest that you have to attach sufficient weight to Mr Sorbara's submissions; nevertheless, there have to be some time constraints imposed or we could go on for ever.
The Chair: Mr Harnick, just for the purposes of the committee, we are not dealing presently with the agenda before us but rather with Mr Sorbara's motion. Sometimes it can be forgotten.
Mr Harnick: I appreciate what Mr Winninger says and he knows that I respect the things that generally tend to come out of his mouth.
Mr Winninger: But.
Mr Harnick: No "but" -- no, not even a "nevertheless." May I suggest that we maybe recess for 10 minutes so that the whips might speak with one another apropos some of Mr Winninger's comments, because we may well be able to avoid any further discussion about this if we can work out --
The Chair: So you are suggesting a 10-minute recess.
Mr Harnick: I appreciate there is a motion. Yes, if we could have a 10-minute recess.
The Chair: Mr Poirier, could you fill in for Mr Sorbara?
Mr Poirier: Yes.
The Chair: A 10-minute recess is requested so that people can confer about this.
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, that would be fine, Mr Chair.
The committee recessed at 1705.
1732
The Chair: May we resume, please. Mr Harnick, you had the floor when we adjourned. Mrs Mathyssen.
Mrs Mathyssen: I have a motion regarding the agenda. I move that on 30 April 1991 we hear evidence from the Honourable Gregory Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, from 3:30 until 6 and on 6 May we hear evidence from George Mammoliti, Anthony Perruzza, the Honourable Elaine Ziemba and the Honourable Richard Allen. On 7 May --
The Chair: We already had a motion on the floor from Mr Sorbara. Is there unanimous consent to stand down that motion?
Agreed to.
Mrs Mathyssen: Should I begin at the beginning?
Mr Harnick: Begin at 7 May.
The Chair: We will accept the earlier bit as read.
Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you very much. Carrying on is my forte.
On 7 May we will hear from Paul Wessenger, from Peter Kormos, from the Honourable Ed Philip and testimony will conclude at about 5. From 5 to 6 we will give instructions to the researcher.
On 13 May we will extend an invitation to the Premier and to the Solicitor General, Mr Farnan, to come to the committee. On 14 May we will have a final discussion regarding our report and come back on 27 May to read the report, make sure that it is clear, and that will finalize our report. So 27 May will be a finalization of the report.
Mr Poirier: Just a question of words and whatever, but you are going to invite the Premier and the Solicitor General to come, if I remember well our whip's discussion, either on the 13 May or 14 May. You will offer both days to them according to their availability, if I remember well from our whip's discussion.
Mrs Mathyssen: One thing I am concerned about is how you can finalize a report until you have had discussion, and that creates a problem.
Mr Poirier: I agree.
The Chair: Ms Swift is also asking for clarification with regard to the instructions. Is it the intent that there would be an initial report, a draft report on the 13th?
Ms Swift: One from the instructions on the 7th?
Mr Harnick: I had assumed from our discussion that we would be discussing the contents of the report and instructing the researcher on the 14th. We would then be getting the version of the report back from Susan and discussing it further on that date, if any changes had to be made or whatever, and thereafter it would go through the process that the clerk indicated it had to go through, which was printing, translating, distributing or whatever.
Mrs Mathyssen: I think obviously on the 7th there would not be enough time in one hour to conclude all that we had to conclude, so that is the point of having extra time on the 14th, to make sure that we are in fact able to conclude.
The Chair: And on the 7th, for my own clarification here, you have instructions to the researcher, but what you are saying is that those are not final instructions then.
Mrs Mathyssen: We will begin and we will conclude on the 14th, because there would not be enough time in just one hour to do all that we had to do.
Mr Harnick: Certainly to accommodate Susan Swift, I would be prepared after we give her instructions on the 7th between 5 and 6 o'clock to recommend that if she wanted to, if it was in her best interest in terms of the way she prefers to do this, she could start drafting a draft report at that time so that it all does not fall on her at the last moment. We could then look at the draft report that will be prepared between now and 7 May, and then we would see another addition to the draft report. Once we give the instructions on 7 May, we would then be able to see the next instalment on the 14th, discuss it further on the 14th in light of the evidence we hear on the 13th and have it finalized by the 27th.
The Chair: Ms Swift informs me that she cannot prepare a draft report without instructions.
Mr Harnick: We would be giving those instructions on the 7th, and between the 7th and the 14th she could start drafting what it was that she wanted to draft after she gets our instructions on the 7th. The only changes that will be necessary would be the addition of the Premier's comments and the Solicitor General's comments in terms of how that would affect the report. Then it would not all come down on her shoulders at the last minute.
Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, that is fine. I think it was just a matter of being clearer. Your initial comment suggested that we would be expecting her to come up with something for us to consider on the 7th. I think it was just a matter of clarification.
Mr Poirier: Could I get the reaction from the researcher if she feels comfortable with that.
Ms Swift: Yes, to the extent that the committee will be able to give me instructions between 5 and 6. I can certainly begin writing a report on what you have given me. I could not start a report on the other issues that you have not dealt with, obviously. I could come back on the 14th or perhaps even on the 13th, depending on how much you have given me and asked me to do, with a report on the instructions to that time.
Mr Harnick: Would that be helpful?
Ms Swift: Yes, that would be helpful because at least we would have a start on the report. That would be fine.
Mr Poirier: I do not recall getting the whip's comment as to the Premier and the Solicitor General being offered both dates of either 13 May or 14 May. Were you in agreement with that?
Mrs Mathyssen: The problem is being able to come up with a final discussion, and my concerns are still the same. We cannot have a final discussion until we have heard from them.
Mr Poirier: I agree. For the sake of discussion, what if the Premier and/or the Solicitor General cannot come up to the committee until the 14th? If I remember well from our discussion, the member for the third party and I were in agreement that we will try and make arrangements to allow the Premier and the Solicitor General to come on the 14th if they cannot make it on the 13th. Is that correct?
Mr Harnick: The preference would be the 13th.
Mr Poirier: Of course. The first choice is the 13th, but if they cannot make it, then we would strongly encourage them to come on the 14th. Is that correct? Does that translate well our discussion, Mr Harnick?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
The Chair: The clerk also wants clarification with regard to the amount of time, on the 13th or whatever date, that would be required of the Premier and the Solicitor General.
Mr Poirier: A 50-50 percentage distribution of time in the afternoon between the Premier and the Solicitor General?
The Chair: Are we speaking then of an hour to an hour and a quarter each?
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mrs Mathyssen: That would be fine, but again we will extend them the invitation and perhaps we could make it clear that we will be working on our instructions to the clerk as best we can around that conference with the Premier and the Solicitor General if they accept our invitation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Mathyssen. With regard to the scheduling, the clerk asks, if there are difficulties with it, if she could get back to the members of the subcommittee to confer.
Mr Harnick: Yes.
Mr Poirier: Is there a sense that what we are looking at is a proposal for the schedule for which people will be able to show up? Of course I understand that the Premier and the Solicitor General might be a particular problem because they are not aware, but as for the other members that are listed here, can the whip of the government party tell us if these people are aware that they will be coming forward?
Mrs Mathyssen: I believe they have already been invited, have they not? I believe the people who have already been confirmed are going to be present. I do not see any problem with that.
Mr Poirier: So the only two question periods that we might still have are the Premier and the Solicitor General, right?
Mrs Mathyssen: I believe so.
Mr Poirier: Okay. Fair enough.
The Chair: Further discussion? Can we have a motion to accept the proposed agenda?
Mr Poirier: We already had the motion.
The Chair: We have the motion. My apologies. Yes, that was Mrs Mathyssen's motion. It was the order that we had some problems with. Any further discussion? All those in favour? Carried.
Any further business this afternoon? Oh, we have Mr Sorbara's motion. Mr Poirier, would you like to address that? Is it still relevant?
Mr Poirier: I think it is still relevant. Since we called it, we just might want to vote on it.
Mr Morrow: You asked, "All those in favour?" What about "All those opposed"?
The Chair: I believe I saw unanimity, sir.
Mr Morrow: You did not see my hand.
Mr Fletcher: That is right. You did not see my hand up.
The Chair: Okay. My apologies. May I go back to that vote again?
All in favour of Mrs Mathyssen's motion, please raise your hands. Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Morrow: That is the proper way to do it.
The Chair: Would you like a recorded vote?
Mr Morrow: No.
The Chair: The clerk informs me that Mr Sorbara's motion is now out of order as it has been dealt with substantively in the new motion from Mrs Mathyssen. Any further business this afternoon? We are adjourned until 30 April.
The committee adjourned at 1744.