CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
Monday 17 June 1991
Conflict-of-interest guidelines
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)
Gigantes, Evelyn (Ottawa Centre 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)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L) for Mr Sorbara
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP) for Mr Winninger
Clerk: Freedman, Lisa
Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1543 in committee room 1.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES
Resuming consideration of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The Vice-Chair: We are on the part where we left off on parliamentary assistants. I believe the governing party has the floor.
Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to make a motion to the committee. My motion is that we vote quickly on the remaining items of the draft report and ask the researcher to have a new draft report ready by Wednesday 19 June to distribute to members of the committee on Thursday 20 June and that the finalized report be brought back to the committee on Monday 24 June. Any dissenting report should be tabled at that time.
The Vice-Chair: Can you give that to the clerk in writing, if you would not mind?
Mrs Mathyssen: I certainly will. She may not thank me for it, but I certainly will.
Mr Harnick: That is totally contrary to what we were discussing last week and totally contrary to the schedule I had understood we had discussed in terms of the preparation of the final report, which would then be provided to the opposition parties to review and consider if they wished to prepare a dissenting report. Certainly by doing everything at the 11th hour, you make it more and more difficult for the opposition parties, if they so desire at the end of the day, to prepare a well-balanced and well thought out dissenting report.
I might add that this is very typical of the way this whole matter has been handled by this committee. Let's do everything in a rush and let's not consider what the Premier said when he came here on 14 February, that he was genuinely interested in the concerted effort this committee was going to make to thoroughly review the conflict-of-interest guidelines and the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in a section-by-section way, rather than just taking a section or a block out of his already prepared preliminary work and saying, "Are you for or are you against it?"
I submit that is not what the Premier had in mind when he came here and when he left these guidelines in front of the committee. The Premier did not have in mind at that time that we would go through a report with headings on it and merely reiterate that which is found in the guidelines themselves. The Premier certainly indicated that he was anxious to see what our review of this material would bring, that he was anxious that we look at the guidelines and go through them on a section-by-section basis to see if we could make these conflict-of-interest guidelines better than they are.
Certainly the history of these guidelines has been fraught with difficulty. I do not think there is anybody in this room who would disagree with that. That would make it even more necessary to take our time and develop a proper report reviewing this material section by section. It would seem to me that if there is some question about whether that is really the mandate of this committee, we should ask the Premier to come back here and show him the pitiful job that has been done in terms of regurgitating his headings in the guidelines, just saying for or against it and not offering any constructive criticism of that material. The Premier will acknowledge readily, I am quite sure, that these guidelines are a new initiative, that he wants them to work, that he wants them considered and that he wants the experience of their usage in the last nine months to be considered.
I think this motion merely confirms the crass way in which the government members have dealt with this material. They have dealt with it on a totally political basis. They have made absolutely no effort to review the material in any thorough way. They have put ridiculous time constraints on the researcher, and quite frankly the work that has been turned out is nothing more than a regurgitation of the existing guidelines without a single, solitary concrete recommendation for any change. If that is what the Premier wanted, why did he bother giving the guidelines to this committee at all?
I think the motion should be reconsidered. I think it should be withdrawn and I think we should proceed with our work and do this properly, or at least have the courtesy to let the opposition parties deal with it in a way that does not give them three days to prepare a dissenting report. All that you have done is to create a system of trickery here to try to speed up the process and prevent the opposition parties from preparing a well-reasoned, dissenting report, or reports, as the case may be. To do that at the 11th hour and tell us that you are going to bring your final report back on the 24th and allow us maybe two days to get a dissenting report done is not proper. It is just crassly political and it shows that you could not care less about the quality of these guidelines when the report goes back to the Legislature.
The Chair: Excuse me. The clerk has a point of clarification.
1550
Mrs Mathyssen: In response to Mr Harnick, might I point out that we are acting on recommendations made last week by the opposition? In fact, I am looking at Hansard from 11 June and at that time Mr Harnick very clearly said, "It is my understanding now that we will be completing our deliberations." I am proposing that we complete those deliberations. As Mr Harnick so obviously pointed out, we have been at this since February. It is time to get on with it.
Mr Chair, if you were to check Hansard over the last four months, you would find that Mr Sorbara and Mr Harnick have gone on at length about these deliberations and about these guidelines. We have sat here and listened with great patience, Job-like patience. The opposition had ample time since February to consider its position. If they were at all serious about reporting serious guidelines back to the House, I suggest they would end this seemingly endless rhetoric of theirs.
My motion stands. I propose that we finalize our report by next week. If they have a dissenting report, fine. They have had months and months and hours and hours of our time to get those objections into Hansard. Let's get on with it.
The Chair: The clerk has a question back to the earlier discussion I was having with her, simply a clarification of the word "quickly."
Mrs Mathyssen: "Expeditiously."
The Chair: It says that we vote "quickly."
Clerk of the Committee: The only thing I wanted to clarify is that a motion is out of order if it is unclear, and I was not essentially clear on what the words "vote quickly" actually mean, how one would vote quickly.
Mrs Mathyssen: Okay, "today."
Clerk of the Committee: To vote "today." Thank you.
Mr Chiarelli: I first of all want to endorse Mr Harnick's comments 100%. I agree with all the comments he made and the submissions he made. I want to add several comments to those.
Quite frankly, I frequently feel under siege as an elected official, as a "politician." We all know that people in the public today place politicians on the lower end of the credibility scale. In fact, they place them on about the same level as lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer as well. I think we should look at the whole concept of politics as self-governing, like a lot of professions. In fact, the Premier's guidelines are really rules of self-government for the Premier and his cabinet. To that extent, the credibility of those guidelines, the self-governing rules in effect, will define to the public what our credibility really is.
Look at what has happened with politics in Canada over the last number of years. Look over the last week or two at the federal scene with the Al-Mashat situation and what is happening with respect to the credibility of ministers, the credibility of the government, the whole issue of ministerial responsibility. Look at the record of this government since the cabinet was sworn in. Look at the experiences and the circumstances around the Red Hill Creek Expressway issue and ministers Philip and Allen. Look at the factual circumstances around Mr Kormos's having to leave the cabinet. Look at the technical breach by Ms Akande of the guidelines. Look at the requirement, self-imposed by Ms Gigantes, to leave cabinet, probably temporarily as everyone assumes and probably rightly so. Look at the very difficult situation that Mr Farnan finds himself in and of course the events of late last week with ministers Swarbrick and Martel. What those incidents say to us and should say to us as a self-governing profession is that the guidelines are not working. The guidelines are not working because I believe some of the ministers are unclear, and I believe the Premier is unclear, on some of them. Quite frankly, if you read the public's points of view -- if you can say they are expressed through the media, through editorials -- I think there is a sense that something is amiss in terms of the rules that we in effect self-govern ourselves by.
I am not trying to impute motive. I am not saying that Bob Rae has bad motives in making the decisions he does. I am not saying Mike Farnan has bad motives for not offering to resign and that there are bad motives in any way on the part of Swarbrick or Martel in offering to resign. I am not saying there was bad political judgement on the part of Ms Gigantes for deciding to resign and having it accepted. All I am saying is that it is manifestly clear to the public that the concept of guidelines, as we have them now, is not working. They are not working for the people who are on the firing line -- that is, the ministers -- and certainly they add confusion and problems even for the opposition, because we have to make an assessment.
As an opposition, we have to sit down and ask: "What is our responsibility to the public to give credibility to us as a profession? Is it really a question of substance to question the guidelines and the propriety of the ministers or should we get on with other issues, such as the budget and support and custody orders enforcement, etc." Believe me, we talk about that. We talk about our responsibility to the public on these issues. We have to make a determination whether or not bringing to the public's attention and keeping in the public's attention the questions of possible resignations and the propriety of these ministers is a proper matter to consistently bring before the Legislature.
The point I am making is that we have now had some very direct evidence, in the course of the last eight or nine months, that there is confusion internally about these guidelines. There is confusion in the public; there is confusion in the opposition. If there is a fault we, the people on the government side and the people in the opposition, are collectively at fault for decreasing and diminishing the credibility of our profession. If we can together make rules that make sense, we are going to enhance that credibility with the public. I think we have got a long way to go and I am talking collectively, as a Legislature.
I am going to make a motion after this vote which I hope will help cast some light on the comments I am making, but the fact of the matter is I agree with Mr Harnick. I think we should spend some time exploring objectively, in a non-partisan way, the real difficulties with implementation. It is all right to have motherhood guidelines, but if motherhood guidelines create real problem -- and I am talking about heartaches for the ministers, because surely there have been many, and heartaches for the public, the families of people involved and the opposition members. We saw Mr Nixon's response. It was a very emotional response that was made in the House. It was a very human response.
Ms Gigantes: Very civil.
Mr Chiarelli: And a very civil response, as the member said. The fact of the matter is that the reason there is such a divergence and diversity of responses is that the guidelines are unclear, and when it comes to implementing and enforcing the guidelines there are serious problems.
Winding up, I believe the circumstances of the last number of months should say quite objectively and in a non-partisan way to this committee, let us take a little more time to look at the enforcement and look at the realities of some of these circumstances. I believe if we do not rush into it, we can improve it and make more sense. To that end, after this particular motion is dealt with, I will be placing another motion.
1600
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I would like to propose that we take the vote on the motion.
The Chair: Are you putting the question, Ms Gigantes?
Ms Gigantes: I would like to have the question put, please.
Mr Harnick: May I say something further about this vote?
The Chair: It is not debatable.
Mr Harnick: I do not want to debate that; I want to discuss the motion.
Ms Gigantes: No, we will take a vote on this first.
Mr Harnick: I guess we are seeing closure again.
Mr Chiarelli: Can I have 20 minutes so we can talk to our other committee members?
The Chair: I do not believe we have had sufficient discussion of this particular motion. Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: I think it is passing strange that we are considering the conflict-of-interest guidelines. We have not yet even opened and looked at the letter Bob Rae wrote to John Black Aird, who was interim commissioner for conflict-of-interest matters. It was mentioned in February when the Premier gave it to us. As a committee, we have never looked at this letter, nor have we discussed it on a heading-by-heading basis.
Mrs Mathyssen: We talked about it in February.
Mr Harnick: May I continue, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Please.
Mr Harnick: We have never discussed this letter. We have never discussed the addendum to the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the Premier released, I believe, in February, although we all have copies of that. It has never been discussed at this committee. We have never discussed the act on a clause-by-clause basis. We have never discussed some of the problems that have come up, dealing with ministers Akande, Richard Allen, Elmer Buchanan, and all of this documentation that was delivered to the Legislature last week dated 5 June 1991. We have never discussed the conflict-of-interest act, nor have we discussed the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's proposed amendments to that act.
I do not know what the government members' instructions are. Obviously there is a big hurry here. The Premier came into the Legislature last week and again this week and said he was looking forward to our considered deliberations. With all due respect, we have not had any considered deliberations. We have not even gone beyond looking at what the witnesses said. We have a compilation of what the witnesses said. That is all that Susan Swift, our legislative research officer, has been provided with. She has put that into the form of a written report and that is all we have looked at. That is absolutely all we have looked at. We have not looked at the conflict-of-interest act. We have not done clause-by-clause on the guidelines. We have not looked at Bob Rae's letter when he was the opposition leader writing to the conflict commissioner of the day. We have not looked at his addendum to the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
If you want to do this fast, I will put it on the record that this is not what the Premier intends. The Premier intends a good report back to him. If you do not want to do a good majority report, at least permit the opposition parties the time to see what your report says and to prepare, in a considered and reasoned way, their minority report or reports. At least grant us that courtesy. You may want to do it quickly and you may want to do it in a cursory manner. That is up to you. You have the majority on this committee and you can win every single vote of every single motion that you bring.
Go ahead and win your votes, but at least extend to the opposition parties the consideration of the time necessary to prepare a proper report, because there is not going to be a whole lot gained by tabling your report in the Legislature in the last week of this session or the first week of the next session. Not a whole lot is going to change in between, so I put it to you, go ahead and pass your motion if that is what you want to do. All your motion is is another form of closure, but if that is what you want to do, go ahead and pass your motion. But at least extend to us the courtesy, the opportunity, without having a time deadline of a day or two or three, to prepare a report.
We do not have a research assistant to do it for us as the committee does. We have to do these things ourselves. If we are going to do a minority report, the least you could do is give us more than three days to do it. All right? If you want to do it the fast and easy way, that is fine and you will win the motion because you have more votes than we have, but at least extend to us a realistic time frame so that we can prepare our report and can consider all the things that this committee has not considered. Maybe we can give the Premier back something in addition to a regurgitation of the guidelines as written, because that is all you have done here.
Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is that enough?
Mr Harnick: Go ahead and have your vote.
The Chair: There would have to be a motion to find out. Mr Fletcher is next.
Mr Fletcher: I am willing to defer to --
Ms Gigantes: Go ahead and move it again.
Mr Fletcher: I move the question.
Mr Chiarelli: Can I raise a point of order?
The Chair: I had ruled the previous question out of order as there had not been sufficient debate.
Mr Chiarelli: Can I make a point of order?
The Chair: No, I am sorry. Not on that question, no. That is my ruling, as you know.
Mr Chiarelli: I wanted to speak on the motion. I wanted to know why the Conservative member can speak twice to this matter and I cannot, for much less time.
Ms Gigantes: On the point of order, Mr Chair, you were going to rule on putting the question. It is not debatable.
The Chair: So I understood.
Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Did you not say that you were going to permit additional time to debate the issue?
Ms Gigantes: He did.
The Chair: I did.
Mr Chiarelli: Are you going to permit me some additional time or just the member from the Conservative Party? Is that fair and evenhanded as a Chairman?
The Chair: I think that is a reasonable request, Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Chiarelli: I do not go on at length. I try to make my points briefly.
The Chair: The issue was sufficient time. Mr Harnick, as you have already mentioned, has already spoken twice. I think that is reasonable.
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are you allowing the opposition to speak again on this for the same amount of time Mr Harnick spoke?
The Chair: What I am suggesting is I am allowing Mr Chiarelli to speak. If the request is brought up again, I suggest that at that point it would probably be ruled in order.
Mr Fletcher: Then do I have the floor after the opposition? Is my name still on the list?
The Chair: It is, sir.
Mr Fletcher: Then I will move it after them.
Mr Chiarelli: I just wanted to make a comment that we are talking about something that is obviously very technical. It is something that requires Solomon to interpret, both from the end of the persons who are doing the acts and from the end of the person who will be doing the judging. I am talking particularly about the ministers and the Premier.
If the government side is determined to move quickly and rush these matters through, I hope it is going to be cautious and careful and judicious in what it does, because it is paying a monumental political price for the guidelines that are in place at the present time, a monumental price in terms of human turmoil that has been created on the part of individual ministers, on the part of the Premier and on the part of the opposition. In fact, if they are hell-bent on speeding this thing through, then there will be no sympathy after the fact when this becomes law or is legislated, if and when errors continue.
I am simply cautioning that there should be deliberation and patience. As a matter of fact, the House is not going to be sitting for a number of months. There is time to consider things in due course and to do the job properly and right. I am simply suggesting, from the point of view of giving some advice to those who are going to be on the firing line, that they might want to think twice about rushing into it.
Mr Fletcher: Just a couple of comments: We have had four months of deliberations on this and countless witnesses. For Mr Harnick to speak for the Premier I find to be ludicrous. To say that he knows what the Premier wants is crazy. He does not know what the Premier wants. Only the Premier knows what he wants.
On that note, Mr Chair, I am calling the question.
The Chair: All in favour of putting the question?
Mr Chiarelli: Can I have 20 minutes for the vote, please?
The Chair: A 20-minute bell.
The committee recessed at 1610.
1630
The Chair: We are resuming. All in favour of putting the question? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We now have the motion in front of us. Mrs Mathyssen, would you like to re-read your motion or would you prefer I do it?
Mrs Mathyssen: Would you please, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen moves that we vote today on the remaining items of the draft report and ask the researcher to have the new draft report ready by Wednesday 19 June for distribution to members of the justice committee on Justice on Thursday 20 June and that any dissenting report should be tabled at that time and that the finalized report be brought back to the committee on Monday 24 June for final approval.
Mr Chiarelli: I ask for 20 minutes, Mr Chair.
Mr Morrow: Did you just ask for 20 minutes?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
The Chair: The question has been put. All in favour of the question?
Mr Chiarelli: Just a minute. I have asked for 20 minutes.
Mr Morrow: Excuse me. I do not understand something. If both caucuses have their full complement here, why do we need 20 minutes?
Mr Chiarelli: Because I want to go and review the motion that I am going to move immediately after the vote. I want some time to consider that. Besides, you are not entitled to an answer.
Ms S. Murdock: On a point of order, or a point of information, Mr Chair: I do not know whether it is a point of order or information, but I am sure I will be told. Have the substitutions been properly adhered to in this committee?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Elston: Thank you for your concern.
Ms S. Murdock: I am definitely concerned.
The Chair: We have the question in front of us.
Mr Chiarelli: I am requesting 20 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1632.
1652
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee back to order. Can I ask the clerk to please read the motion.
Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Mathyssen moves that --
Mr Harnick: Dispense.
Mrs Mathyssen: I want it read, Mr Chair, because the first time it was read, it was not read correctly. I want it read correctly because after it was read the second time, the intent of what I had written was seriously changed. It would possibly, by virtue of the fact that the time frame had been seriously changed, cause the opposition some concern and at this point in time it is not my intention to ever upset or cause the opposition any concern.
The Vice-Chair: I am asking the clerk to re-read the motion as you have stated.
Mrs Mathyssen: Oh, thank you. I appreciate that very, very, very much, Mr Chair. It is very important that it be delineated in a clear fashion. That is very kind of you, I must say.
Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Mathyssen moves that we vote today on the remaining items of the draft report and ask the researcher to have the new draft report ready by Wednesday 19 June for distribution to members of the justice committee on Thursday 20 June and that the finalized report be brought back on Monday 24 June and that any dissenting report should be tabled at that time.
The Vice-Chair: All those in favour?
Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Vice-Chair: I am sorry. A point of order.
Mrs Mathyssen: We are in the middle of a vote here.
The Vice-Chair: You cannot have a point of order in the middle of a vote. All those in favour?
Mr Elston: I have a point of order, Mr Chair. We now have had two motions read to us, one by the preceding Chair and one now by the clerk. It is my view that in order to ensure that we know exactly what the motion is, we now undertake to determine the matter before us. I had heard the previous motion read to indicate that the dissenting report, which it was to be assumed might be available since the hammer is coming down on us, would have to be delivered by 19 June. This one now changes that date, I believe, to Monday 24 June. It might be well that we have Mrs Mathyssen, who was concerned that the matter be read more fully this time, now expound upon the background on why the previous reading was in error and why this new motion is the one that is in place.
Mrs Mathyssen: It was a courtesy that I extended to you to make sure there was clarity in this motion. I am not playing any more games here. My motion is before this committee and there is a vote called on that motion.
Mr Elston: Which one?
Mrs Mathyssen: Shall I read it?
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, you have two options here.
Mr Chiarelli: Can you please explain why there are two motions here?
Mrs Mathyssen: There are not two motions and you know that.
Mr Chiarelli: Can you explain why there are two of them? Why do they read differently?
Mrs Mathyssen: They read differently because there was a misreading. I will read it and I will provide clarity if that is what you wish.
Mr Chiarelli: The motion is now on the table.
Mrs Mathyssen: My motion is on the table. Shall I read it?
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. Order, please. The only difference in the motions is that the first motion stated that the report would be back by Thursday and the second motion said it would be back by Monday. You can go with the first one if you so wish. I leave that up to the committee. I am now asking the clerk to clarify, if you will give the the clerk your indulgence, please.
Clerk of the Committee: In terms of what closure was moved on, the motion that the Chair read -- that is, that the dissenting report is due on Thursday of this week -- was a misreading of the intent. Therefore, I believe the New Democratic Party gave the benefit of the doubt in terms of what it wanted and changed that to Monday to give the opposition extra days. If we are moving closure on the motion that was read, then the dissenting report of the opposition would be due in by Thursday of this week.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, if I could add to that my understanding of what happened, Mrs Mathyssen read her motion in the form that has just been read to us now. When it was transmitted to the clerk and it was read before the adjournment motion for the vote, it was read in mistaken form. If we want to go back and check the tape right now, we can check what Mrs Mathyssen said in the original tape, but it is, I guarantee to you, exactly as it has now been presented to us.
The Vice-Chair: Ms Gigantes, I am going to rule in your favour, as Mrs Mathyssen read that in the first place and all members have had this motion in front of them for 20 minutes.
All in favour of the written motion? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have a motion.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Chiarelli asked to be recognized after this. You cannot move a motion on a point of order.
Mr Chiarelli: I will defer to Mr Harnick. I have a motion to put after his motion.
Mr Harnick: I have a motion to put on the floor. I move that we request the Premier to reattend before this committee for clarification of the kind of report and the kind of review he wanted done regarding his conflict-of-interest guidelines. That is my motion.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I put it to you that the motion is out of order, this committee having just passed a motion which is of contrary intent to the motion Mr Harnick is trying to place right now.
Mr Harnick: No, it is not. What do you have to lose by asking the Premier to come back?
Ms Gigantes: The motion we just passed is that we finish today the decisions to be made on the remaining points in the draft report that we have in front of us. The intent of Mr Harnick's motion is to delay matters again. We have just passed a procedural motion which I expect you will now proceed to follow. No delaying motions, Mr Chair, are now in order.
The Vice-Chair: The question of delay implies intent on Mr Harnick's part. However, I think you do have a very valid point. I am sorry. Mr Elston, do you wish to speak on the point of order?
Mr Elston: I do wish to speak on the point that was raised. Although Ms Gigantes has raised an issue about the compatibility of the new motion with regard to the one that was just passed by the New Democratic majority, I must indicate that if she really wishes to be consistent, she might very well check the reference of this material to this committee in the form that it took, which was, by the Premier's own admission, to ensure that there was the fullest and most complete and thorough analysis of the conflict-of-interest materials.
That having been stated, and that also having been indicated not to have occurred at this point, could mean that the reference which was given this committee would not be subject to the cutoff that was just orchestrated by the New Democratic majority. That being the case, I suggest to you, Mr Chairman that if you want to be perfectly consistent, perhaps Mr Harnick's motion is even more correct than was the last one which was just placed and found to be in order by yourself and then voted on and passed by the New Democrats.
I suggest to you that this is a particularly long day and there is time to extend the invitation to the Premier. We are all sitting here until midnight. He can come over. I am sure he has a couple of minutes someplace or other and we can get all of the work done. We have from now till midnight to do all that work. Mr Harnick's motion is very compatible with the amount of time we have to do our work.
1700
The Vice-Chair: Mr Elston, we have until 6 pm.
Mr Elston: No, we can sit all day. The day is now extended until 12.
Mr Chiarelli: I have an amendment.
The Vice-Chair: We are entertaining questions on the point of order, not an amendment.
Mr Chiarelli: It has to do with the point of order in the sense that I think the comment was made by Ms Gigantes that this particular motion is contrary to the substance of the motion that was just voted on and approved. Quite frankly, I do not think that is the case. My understanding of the process is that when a motion has been approved for extra hours, as it has for the Legislature, that applies to committees if the committees so choose.
The Vice-Chair: No, it does not.
Mr Chiarelli: We certainly can accommodate that particular request for the Premier to attend for evening hours. We need unanimous consent.
The Vice-Chair: We need unanimous consent to extend the committee's hours, so we are discussing the point of order at the moment. Do we have any further discussion on the point of order?
Mr Harnick: May I speak on the point of order? The point of order indicates that the motion I have put on the floor is incompatible with the motion we just passed. The only incompatibility concerns the time limits, and I put it to everyone here that we have the time. The Premier could be here tomorrow afternoon if we extended the invitation. We would probably need him for one or two hours. We are going to be here from 3:30 till 5:30 or 6:00 tomorrow. We could quite easily have the Premier here and get the clarification that I think we need in order to provide the kind of report the Premier has mandated us to deliver, which is not the report that this committee -- the majority, I might add -- is in the course of ramming down the opposition's throat. That is not, I submit, the intent of the Premier.
If you feel that is the intent of the Premier, you have nothing to hide by having him come here. We can seek clarification by telling him what we have done and clarify what it is that he wants us to examine for the purpose of providing a proper report. That certainly supersedes the ridiculous time limits that we have now imposed upon ourselves, but it is not incompatible with those time limits. We can certainly find the time to have the Premier attend and we can ask him the specific questions that remain, certainly in my mind and I know in the mind of the official opposition and in the mind of my colleague Mr Carr. The only incompatibility is the fact that you are in a great hurry to ram this through and come up with some kind of half-assed report that is not going to do anything to further good conflict-of-interest legislation in this province.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Harnick, I would like to suggest that while the motion which you put is, I think, out of order with today's proceedings, if another motion were put to invite the Premier for tomorrow -- now that, given the Premier's schedule, may be difficult, but that may be in order. However, I would have to agree with Ms Gigantes that your motion is out of order as it was originally stated.
Mr Harnick: Well, I think if that is --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Chiarelli.
Mr Harnick: May I respond to that?
The Vice-Chair: No. I have ruled. Ms Gigantes?
Mr Harnick: At least tell me you are going to cut me off.
Ms Gigantes: He just did. You have just ruled, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: I have.
Ms Gigantes: That is good.
Mr Harnick: Can I amend my motion, then?
The Vice-Chair: Ms Gigantes, did you have something further to add?
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I am prepared to begin our process through the report with motions --
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: I am sorry. You are quite right, Mr Chiarelli. I apologize, Ms Gigantes. I should have recognized Mr Chiarelli first.
Mr Chiarelli: I had indicated much earlier, even before the last number of votes, that I had a motion I wanted to put. I have since changed the motion and I will be introducing the motion I originally indicated later.
The motion I have at the present time is that the draft report referred to in the motion be translated and available in French for the public and members of this committee. That is my motion.
The reason I have indicated that is I have been informed by Mr Poirier that there has been tremendous media interest from the francophone media on this particular issue, conflict-of-interest guidelines. There are a number of constituents who have raised this matter and I think it is in order for this committee to consider variations of the rules concerning translation. We know that there are guidelines available to committees for translation of reports and draft reports, etc. In my opinion, our committee should consider having this available in both of our official languages.
The Vice-Chair: The report, unless a motion is placed to have it available only in one language, is automatically translated into both languages.
Mr Chiarelli: I am talking about the draft report.
The Vice-Chair: The draft report?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes. It is simply a motion I have put on the floor and in my opinion, it is in order.
The Vice-Chair: I believe you are right. Ms Gigantes?
Ms Gigantes: Again I am going to suggest that this motion at this time is out of order. In fact, we have just placed a procedural motion. It would be quite in order, once we have completed work under the motion which we have just passed, to have a new motion about the form of the draft report. But in the meantime we are governed by a decision we have just taken procedurally, which is to proceed with the outstanding items to be decided, for the draft report to be completed in second round. After that, I think it would be in order to have another motion.
The Vice-Chair: I appreciate your input, Ms Gigantes. I think, however, that the motion is in order. I would suggest that further debate be on the motion.
Mr Fletcher: Speaking to the motion, this draft report will automatically be made available to the public.
The Vice-Chair: The final report will be made in both languages. The draft report may not be.
Mr Fletcher: Is not all testimony that is brought forward before this committee open to the public?
The Vice-Chair: May I ask the clerk to respond to that issue of what is translated and what is not.
Mr Fletcher: No, open to the public. I am not saying translated. Open to the public.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr Fletcher: We do not really need a motion to make this open to the public, since the public will be --
The Vice-Chair: No.
Mr Fletcher: I do not have a problem with the translation. It is just the other part where you are saying --
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. Further discussion on the motion itself?
Mr Elston: I think that in this case, particularly when we are at the foundation of the existence of this government, the draft report ought to be available for analysis in both English and French. It seems to me that this government has staked its reputation on making a new mark for itself in these matters. From my point of view, the motion by my colleague the member for Ottawa West is both timely and of importance so that we can make sure there are no errors between the two versions. When we review the reports, they then can be made to correspond one with the other. We wish no problems to arise after the material is printed.
It seems as well that while we consider some of those other things and have the translations brought forward to us, as you had well indicated, a motion later for us to review some of the material the Premier might bring in would allow us to augment the reports as well and we ought to take time now so that we do not waste time later in making sure that the English and French reports are to the same effect. I think my colleague for Ottawa West has moved a very important motion to make sure that our work is done in the most thorough fashion and I commend him for that.
1710
Ms Gigantes: I am going to speak against the motion, because it is being used as a delaying tactic. It is in direct contravention of the motion we have just passed, in my view, and it would also constitute a total precedent for the drafting of reports around this Legislature. It would make it even more difficult to reach the point of report writing and report completion, report tabling. If the members opposite wish to have delays built in which are going to make it impossible for a government to proceed in any kind of regular way with work, then clearly that is what they are about.
Interjection.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I believe I have the floor.
We will certainly, as is the normal course of events, make sure that the conclusion of our work is available in two languages, but to go through the process of drafting and redrafting in two languages seems to me quite extraordinary, particularly as we are not going to be delaying this matter, I hope, beyond next week.
Mr Poirier: Obviously what my colleague for Ottawa West advanced was quite true. There is quite a bit of interest, and if I am not mistaken, the draft report is available for the public's perusal. Is it?
Clerk of the Committee: I do not hand the draft report out to the public. If anybody from the public wants it, I request that they get it from a member.
Mr Poirier: Fair enough. As a francophone member, I have a hard time with people who might find some problems with that. Obviously bilingualism will require a bit longer to produce material, but I am sorry, I would like to be able to look at it in French, and if we want to write part of the material in French or the media or somebody requests it, what is the government going to answer, that it is not available in French?
The Chair: The clerk informs me that the translation of the draft report could delay the draft report's presentation by up to three weeks.
Mr Harnick: Is there a problem with living with 23 September as opposed to now?
Ms Gigantes: If I might, we are not writing legislation here. We are not dealing with legislation. We are dealing with a report about how the proposed additions to conflict-of-interest legislation in this province are to be approached. We have been mandated to provide guidance to the Premier, and for us to engage now in a delay for purposes of translation -- it is quite clear to all members on all sides of this committee and everybody in this room that the motion is put forward as a delaying tactic, as many other motions have been.
Mr Elston: Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us.
Ms Gigantes: I am speaking for myself. I will hazard a guess that people on all sides of this room see this as a delaying motion.
Mr Elston: It is against the rules. Ask her to withdraw, Mr Chair. You know it is against the rules. It is quite clear. You should call her to order and ask her to withdraw the remarks.
The Chair: If you have a point of privilege to raise, you can do so sir.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: You know what the rules are. You know that it is against the rules of procedure of the House and therefore the committee for another member to impute motive to another member. I have asked informally, but now, because you have requested it, I ask you formally to ask the member for Ottawa Centre to withdraw and apologize for the remark made about what our motives are. She is not allowed to do that by the procedures and she should be called to order. Please call her to order.
Ms Gigantes: If we were to accept that kind of notion, we have been accused of everything from jackboots to you name it as we have proceeded.
The Chair: Ms Gigantes, you are aware of that particular --
Ms Gigantes: It will certainly cause us to care what members of the opposition say in the future.
The Chair: Ms Gigantes, would you resume your discussion of the motion.
Mr Elston: Does she withdraw? She is to withdraw under the rules.
Ms Gigantes: I will withdraw if I am asked to withdraw.
Mr Elston: Mr Chairman, I ask --
The Chair: Mr Elston, I hear your point. Ms Gigantes made some comments which could have been interpreted as you suggest. I believe I heard her having responded positively.
Ms Gigantes: I was just trying to remember his riding, if he would quit interrupting me.
The Chair: I am sure she will attempt to avoid having any semblance of imputing motive.
Mr Elston: Excuse me. I want you to be clear, Mr Chair. For the record, she withdrew. Is that correct?
The Chair: Could we resume?
Ms Gigantes: Remind me what riding you are from.
Mr Elston: To be clear, did she withdraw her remark?
The Chair: I believe I heard very clearly Ms Gigantes indicating that she would be more cautious.
Mr Elston: No. I said, "Did she withdraw?" It is the orders.
Ms Gigantes: If the member for Bruce would allow me, if he feels impugned, I withdraw all those words that make him feel subject to any impugnment on my part. If he feels his motives have been questioned, I withdraw all those words. Now, to say that I find this a delay is certainly correct and to say that most people in this room and most reasonable people would find it a delaying motion is correct. I hope he will find that satisfactory.
Mr Elston: New Democrats.
Ms Gigantes: You would not have to be a New Democrat.
The Chair: We have already discussed the point of order. Actually, I believe it should have been a point of privilege. Regardless, Ms Gigantes still has the floor.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I have asked you to accept the fact that, first of all, I consider this to be in conflict with our original decision. I consider this a motion designed to undo the motion we have just passed. I will therefore be voting against it.
Mr Chiarelli: I want to comment with a bit of hindsight. Last year some time, I believe it was early in the year, there was a special meeting which had been convened of committee Chairpersons and committee clerks. At that time, I was Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice. The meeting was convened by the Speaker and the Clerk to discuss in some detail, and to get some feedback and soundings from the committees, as to what the rules or the guidelines should be with respect to providing French-language services through the committees. There was very detailed discussion on this matter.
My recollection is that the the Speaker and the Clerk's office took the comments of the Chairs and the clerks under advisement, with the clear understanding that under certain circumstances, depending on the nature of the issue and perhaps the public need, committees could determine their own agenda with respect to providing French-language services. I believe this is a case where it is appropriate, because the matter has received such widespread media attention over the last eight or nine months -- the entire life of this government -- that in recent weeks, in fact in recent days, there has been tremendous attention placed on this issue by both the anglophone and the francophone media. Certainly, Franco-Ontarians across this province are very interested in this particular issue. I really believe it would be extremely helpful if the draft report could be translated and this matter could be dealt with equitably for both official languages.
1720
Mr Harnick: I find it rather incredible that a request such as this has been made and is receiving opposition, particularly in terms of Mr Poirier being on this committee. Mr Poirier is expressing, certainly in his wisdom and his experience, that this would be a necessary report to be translated into the French language. I would say to everyone in this room, who better knows of the necessity of this than Mr Poirier? I am quite frankly very surprised that we are not, as a group, prepared unanimously to vote in favour of this. Again, it is all because we are in a great big hurry here.
We keep hearing that this has been here since February. In fact, it has not been here since February. We had one week of conflict-of-interest hearings in February. The months of March and April were virtually totally devoted to Bill 17. We then had a one-month delay while the Premier refused to refer the budget to a committee.
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would like to inform the member that while he claims the Premier was playing with the budget, that in essence did not happen.
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Mr Morrow: Excuse me, Mr Chair. Can I get to my point of order, please?
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Harnick: He is challenging your ruling.
Mr Morrow: The point of order is that we sat here with witnesses every day while the third party played with the budget in the House.
Mr Harnick: I think the idea that has been expressed here, that the conflict-of-interest guidelines have been on the table and actively discussed since February is quite wrong. Now we did, I will admit, fall off our schedule because we had the one-month delay while the filibuster was going on.
Mr Morrow: Whose fault was that delay?
Mr Harnick: Mr Morrow is asking me whose fault it is. I would not characterize it as being anyone's fault. There was obviously a difference of opinion that was ultimately resolved when the budget was referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and is now being sent out for public hearings. I would not describe that as anyone's fault and I would not describe that as anyone's victory. I think it is a good thing for the people of Ontario, who are now going to have the opportunity, as the committee travels around the province, to come and discuss the budget. Whether anyone was the winner or anyone was the loser, I do not know and I do not characterize it in that sense.
What I am saying is that these conflict guidelines have not been on the table and have not been actively discussed for the length of time that people are making out. The fact is that they have been discussed very little. We did have a tentative schedule that was thrown off during the period of the budget controversy -- I will call it that as opposed to a filibuster -- but at any rate the fact is that these guidelines have not been reviewed to the extent that I believe the Premier wanted them reviewed.
We have had our differences of opinion, and one would expect that. Obviously I was never in favour of having these guidelines proposed as becoming law; I preferred them to remain guidelines. A difference of philosophy obviously indicated this was not going to be so, which is fine. But I say to the members of the committee that it does not negate our duty to sit down together and review these guidelines on a clause-by-clause basis to try to make them better. Whether we agree philosophically that they should be guidelines or should find their way into legislation is now behind us, but it does not negate the idea of sitting down and reviewing the guidelines on a clause-by-clause basis, because that is very important.
At any rate, I want to get back on topic because the chairman is going to get upset with me. I only point this out to indicate that we have not wasted the amount of time people are alleging we have wasted. We are not under the gun to complete this by 27 June. We can very easily deliver our report on 23 September when we come back to the Legislature. We could very easily invite the Premier --
The Chair: Mr Harnick, you are diverting somewhat.
Mr Harnick: No, I am not diverting. I am just making the point.
The Chair: According to our earlier motion, we have a timetable in front of us, sir.
Mr Harnick: I am just making the point that the hurry that the committee seems to be in is exemplified by the fact that it does not wish to spend whatever the time is to get the document translated into French. That is something Mr Poirier has told us is important, that it is important in his community, that it is important to the media that he obviously knows better than we do, and out of respect for him I think this is a serious motion and it should be considered.
I think this committee is setting up a timetable that is indicative of only one thing, and that is to complete the review of these guidelines as quickly and as superficially as we possibly can. I will note for the record that everyone on the government side, except Mr Fletcher, just indicated that my remark was very funny. Well, I do not think my remark was funny. I think this is serious and I think the Premier has been very genuine in asking us to review these guidelines and to give him a thorough review of the guidelines, not just a recitation of what witnesses said and a motion at the end of every section saying, "I move we accept this section." That is not what the Premier wanted.
But in your haste to avoid translating this document into French and in your haste to get this away from the committee and get it done for the sake of saying you are going to get it done, you are passing motions like Mrs Mathyssen's motion and you are denying motions such as the motion put on the floor now by Mr Chiarelli. I think what you are doing is a grave disservice to your own Premier, who is interested in these guidelines, who thinks these guidelines should be reviewed thoroughly and who has given every indication to this committee that these guidelines can and should be made better.
We have had now, from I guess early December when the guidelines were released, several instances where the guidelines have been controversial. Surely as a committee we should be reviewing those instances so that we can be reporting in a relevant way back to --
Mr Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Please speak to the motion.
Mr Harnick: I am speaking to the motion, and certainly that is quite obvious to you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: You did return to it, but I think you have diverted slightly.
Mr Harnick: It is all part and parcel of the same unrealistic timetable that is being set. I think we have had numerous instances where these guidelines have been the subject of controversy, and surely as a committee, even though we differ philosophically, we should be reviewing those instances in light of what the guidelines say. I do not recall a single word in this committee dealing with the idea of contact with the judiciary. We have not talked about that at all, yet we have had a number of instances in the Legislature -- I think four come to mind --
Interjection: Mr Chair, this is not in order.
The Chair: This is a motion, which was a translation of the draft copy of the --
Mr Morrow: He is way off the topic.
Mr Harnick: Yes, and the committee, based on the majority on the government side, is obviously not interested in making that review that the Premier has requested. They have now set a timetable that will effectively negate the idea of translating this document into the French language.
The Chair: Oh, you did. Thank you.
Mr Harnick: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I do not have the facility to think quite as quickly as you do and I have to go from point to point. I cannot really speak the words as fast as you can think them, but I know you are thinking along the same lines I am.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, he is a mindreader.
Mr Harnick: No, I am not a mindreader.
Ms S. Murdock: You just said, "I know you are thinking what I am thinking."
1730
Mr Harnick: He has given me enough clues to tell me the wavelength he is on and I am trying to stay on it. If there is some controversy about the time it is going to take to translate the working paper into French, maybe we could adjourn until tomorrow before we vote on this important motion brought by Mr Chiarelli and supported by Mr Poirier. Perhaps we should find out how long it is going to take to translate this document, and maybe we could adjourn for the day seeing as it is now almost 5:30.
The Chair: The clerk has already informed us it will take several weeks. It is not something that needs research.
Mr Harnick: She indicated that is what she thought, because that is the normal course of things around here, but I am sure that if we could speak with the powers that be who translate these documents, we may well be able to find out that it can be done more quickly.
The Chair: There is no internal translation, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: Maybe we could get the external translation to move more quickly in this particular case, because we are not talking about an extensive or voluminous document. We are actually talking about a very pedestrian piece of work up to this time. It would seem to me it would be well worth our while to find out if we could have this translated within a faster time frame to satisfy the government members who want to see this finished without having enough time for the opposition parties even to prepare a thoughtful and reasoned minority opinion.
Those essentially, then, are my comments. I think (a) we should find out whether we can get this translated more quickly than we now believe is possible, and (b) we should support this motion, even if you are against it, even if you believe it is for no more reason than delay, because to deny this motion is to impute to Mr Poirier a motive that would be improper. It would be disrespectful to him to deny this motion.
I think we have a couple of options and I think we should proceed accordingly. But again, I think we have to respect what Mr Poirier tells us. He certainly knows more about the necessity of doing what the motion asks than anyone else in this room. He certainly knows the press that is anxious to review the document. We should respect his views regarding both the press and, as he says, the public who are interested in this very subject matter.
Mr Chair, I apologize for getting in the way here and for delaying, or what the government obviously says or would seem to be thinking has been nothing more than to delay this committee, but I think we can do a much better job than what is on the table right now. Those are my comments.
Ms S. Murdock: There is no question that any motive for our opposition to French translation is being impugned totally by the members opposite, but in fact there is no question, and I am sure everybody realizes, that the minimum length of time it would take to translate the draft report would be three weeks and that alone contravenes the motion that has already been previously passed by this committee.
I realize I am a guest on this committee today, but I know that when I sat on this committee for the week of 11 February and subsequent weeks thereafter, all members of this committee had contributed to the contents of this draft and had listened to the presenters, and it is now open for discussion. We have spent -- as I say, I am a guest today -- the last two hours, of course with no intent at all imputed, without discussing one item of this, and certainly not because we on the government side are not prepared to discuss and debate and whatever. We have been ready and willing, and I think we should get on with it, even though we only have 24 minutes left
Mr Chiarelli: I just want to make some comments, particularly with respect to certain references that have been made by a number of people regarding imputation of motive.
I indicated to the members a bit earlier that there was a committee established last year on which I sat with other committee Chairs and committee clerks. If anyone cares to check the record of that time, I think you will find that I was the only member of that committee who spoke at some length, very strongly and vociferously in favour of the Legislative Assembly having 100% French-language services in its committees. I talked about simultaneous translation. I talked about having Hansard prepared in both French and English languages. I felt strongly enough about it at that time to put that on the record.
As a matter of fact, again, if you are imputing motive, there is no imputation of motive, because I felt strongly about this issue. I felt strongly at that time and I feel strongly now. At that time I suggested that we go so far, as a Legislative Assembly, as to have simultaneous translation. We have a committee room, 151, which is set up for simultaneous translation. Last year, probably around this time of year as well, I recommended that the Legislative Assembly invest the funds to do every committee room the way 151 is so that there would be simultaneous translation, that we be prepared to put our money where our mouth is.
If we look at the select committee on Ontario on confederation which travelled around this province, that issue was determined by somebody to be significant enough to have simultaneous translation services travel across this province for five or six weeks as it dealt with that issue, which somebody, in his wisdom, determined was important enough for French-language services.
Someone has to make a determination. What are the issues that are important enough for French-language services? Much to the chagrin of the government members, I think the issue of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines is of sufficient interest and sufficient importance to attract the same type of attention I was talking about for all committee work last year and which the constitution committee determined this year was sufficiently important for simultaneous translation to go around the province with the constitution committee.
I am saying, in that context, that when we have an issue that has totally dominated this government and the media, affecting eight ministers, week after week after week, it is of sufficient importance to be put in the context of why I was asking for all committee proceedings to be translated simultaneously last year, to be put in the context of the importance of the constitution committee travelling around this province with simultaneous translation.
This issue is so important that it was included in the speech from the throne. The Premier stood in the House and made special statements on it, and it has almost caused the resignation of eight ministers and has in fact caused the resignation of some.
We are now saying they are imputing motive as to why I feel this draft report should be translated. The motive is a good motive. It is a motive that is part of my philosophy that I talked about last year.
Interjections.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Chairman, could we have some order?
The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen?
Mrs Mathyssen: I am sorry, but --
Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we going to be able to dispense with this matter, at least while the opposition --
Interjection.
Ms Gigantes: I am asking, Mr Chair, are you going to help committee members on this, because the effect of what is happening is to destroy the procedural motion we passed.
The Chair: We have a little difficulty.
Mr Chiarelli: She is attributing motive again.
Ms Gigantes: No, I am attributing effect. Mr Chair, could we get a ruling on this, because I would like to know how we are proceeding here. Are we going to get to a vote on this matter at least, which I consider out of order in any case, but are we going to have a vote on it before six? Mr Chair, I am asking you.
The Chair: I think that is a good point.
Interjection.
Ms Gigantes: He has not made a ruling on it.
Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We have a point of order here already, Mr Harnick. Could I confer with the clerk for a moment, please. I think Ms Gigantes has a very valid point. I would like to recess for a couple of minutes, please.
The committee recessed at 1741.
1750
The Chair: We are ready to rule on the motion in front of us.
Mr Chiarelli: I had the floor when there was a point of order. I would like to just wrap up for a minute or two.
The Chair: There is a ruling and we are continuing debate with your motion. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Chiarelli: I just want to wrap up, for those people who were imputing motive or who continue to do it in a secondhand way, so that they realize I felt strongly about that issue last year when it came up and I feel strongly about it now. I still feel that the Legislative Assembly should provide full services in both official languages, including simultaneous translation, that at the very least, if we are going to abridge the normal guidelines and rules from time to time, we be evenhanded on the issues for which we determine that we are going to provide extra French-language services.
As I say, we provided extra French-language services, simultaneous translation, for the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. This issue, conflict-of-interest guidelines, is of sufficient importance as described by the government in the throne speech that the draft report should be translated.
Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, on a point of order: We recessed in order to have clarification.
The Chair: I received consultation and the motion is still in order.
Mr Chiarelli: The member for Ottawa Centre will be happy to realize that I have now concluded my remarks and the question may be put.
The Chair: Thank you. All in favour of the motion?
Mr Poirier: A recorded vote.
Clerk of the Committee: Is he moving that the question be put?
Mr Chiarelli: No, I did not move that the question be put. I said somebody may want to move that the question be put.
The Chair: He did not move it. I am sorry. Go ahead. Anyone else want to speak on this motion?
Ms Gigantes: I will move that the question be put.
The Chair: Twenty minutes? We are recessed until after routine proceedings tomorrow, unless there is unanimous consent. That issue was brought up earlier. Is there unanimous consent?
Interjection: No.
The Chair: We are recessed until after routine proceedings tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1753.