Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale /
Toronto-Centre-Rosedale L)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): We'll call the meeting to order, if that's
acceptable to members of the committee.
The subcommittee has met to
discuss certain matters. The first item of business we have is
the report of the subcommittee on committee business. I invite
comment and discussion, first of all.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): I'm putting a motion on the floor that
we-
The Chair:
If you'll hold on for a second, there may be another way of doing
this. I'm informed that this specific subcommittee report refers
to one particular certificate, and then we can get on to the
other business. The report we're looking at is the report of the
subcommittee on committee business, first of all, so I'll ask the
clerk to provide us with some guidance on that.
Clerk of the
Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): After a certificate of
intended appointees is tabled with the committee, it is usual
procedure for the subcommittee members to consider that
certificate and consider whether there are selections they wish
to make from that certificate and to report that recommendation
or those recommendations to the full committee. The
subcommittee's decisions on the certificate received on November
5 are attached to your agenda today as a subcommittee report,
which reads as follows:
"Your subcommittee considered
on Friday, November 12, 1999, the selection of intended
appointments for committee review, and has agreed to
recommend:
"That the following intended
appointees from the certificate received on November 5, 1999, be
selected for review."
From each of the parties
there were no selections.
Mr Martin: I
saw that certificate, mind you, a little late. I got it when I
came back, and that's no fault of yours. I know that you sent it
out on the 5th and it was in the system somewhere.
There was an appointment made
that I had some interest in that I thought was made following the
callback of the House. That was for a Mr Glen Wright to the WSIB.
I was wondering where that certificate went. That would have been
one of the only ones I would have wanted to spend a whole morning
doing. I was wondering what happened to that particular
appointment. It didn't come before us.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): We don't get them if it's a reappointment.
Mr Martin:
Pardon?
Mr Wood: We
cannot review them if it's a reappointment. It's only if it's a
new appointment.
Mr Martin: I
beg to differ. I would like a ruling on that by the clerk.
Mr Wood:
It's quite clear in the rules.
Mr Martin:
The guy stepped down and now he's been reappointed and a lot of
stuff happened in between.
The Chair:
Mr Martin, a portion of standing order 106(e) says, "excluding
reappointments and appointments for a term of one year or less."
So according to the procedures for the standing committee on
government agencies, standing order 106(e), we do not deal with
reappointments.
Mr Martin:
Could I make a motion flowing out of this that this committee
call Mr Wright for an interview in the very near future as to his
appointment and why it is he stepped down briefly from the
committee and then came back on again? Let's just leave it that.
The motion is that we call Mr Wright before the committee for an
interview.
Mr Wood: On
a point of order, Mr Chair: I think that motion is out of order.
The standing orders are quite clear as to whom we can review. We
have no authority, unless the Legislature gives it to us, to
review anyone else. I think the motion is out of order.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): On the point of order, Mr
Chair: Just so that I clearly understand this, was it a
reappointment from the point of view that he had been appointed
and then his term was up and he was immediately reappointed or
did he step down and now he wants to get reappointed? Is
"reappointed" defined anywhere in the standing order?
1010
The Chair:
I'll ask our clerk to comment on that.
Clerk of the
Committee: There is not a definition section in the
standing order. The word "reappointment" stands.
Mr Martin: I
concur with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands that this
wasn't your typical reappointment. His term didn't run out and
then he was reappointed; he actually stepped down from the
committee and then was appointed later to the committee
again.
Mr Wood: I don't know the actual
facts of this case. I merely draw the attention of the committee.
If it's a reappointment we have no jurisdiction under the
standing orders to review it. I just don't know the facts of the
particular case.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): It may help us if we can research whether there
is any precedent for it. If it doesn't define a reappointment,
perhaps we could research to see, if someone left a committee,
for whatever reason, maybe even at the end of a term, and came
back a year or so later, whether it was treated as a new
appointment.
Mr
Gerretsen: That's the point that I was going to make.
It's analogous to an elected member stepping down and then
deciding to run again in the next election and he gets elected.
Is he re-elected or is he just simply elected at that point in
time? I believe the Olympic Commissioner had a comment on
that.
Mr Morley Kells
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore): He's lucky he got re-elected.
The Chair: I
think we must refer to people by their names and not by their
special titles.
Mr
Gerretsen: I will never refer to Mr Kells as the Olympic
Commissioner in this committee again.
The Chair:
We do have a bit of a dilemma here. We may need a ruling from
someone. I don't know whether this goes to the Speaker of the
House or not; I'm going to consult with our clerk. But we do have
an interesting definition. I would have said, personally as a
member of this committee, that if a person is reappointed
immediately, that's a reappointment. If there's a period of time
in between, it seems to me that you're making a new appointment.
Otherwise you could have six years between and someone else could
be appointed again and you'd say it's a reappointment.
So I'll ask our clerk for
some guidance. I don't know whether we have to seek a ruling from
the Speaker or what we'd have to do. We'll have a momentary
consultation.
To members of the committee,
I'm going to rule the motion of Mr Martin out of order for the
following reason: that this committee can call people, can deal
with an appointment, only if we've received a certificate from
the appointments secretariat. We have not received a certificate.
I'm not talking about appointments or reappointments. We have not
received a certificate and that is the procedure that we must
follow in this committee. We must deal with certificates which we
receive. So on the basis of that specific motion, I have to rule
that motion out of order.
Mr Martin:
Could we raise another point then?
The Chair:
Mr Martin, on another point of order.
Mr Martin: I
believe somebody has made a decision within the bureaucracy that
Mr Wright's appointment is in fact a reappointment. I would
challenge that to suggest that it's not a reappointment, that
it's a new appointment again, after his stepping down, and that
certificate should have come to us so that we might have chosen
him as one of the people we interview.
I would ask that direction be
given to the appointments secretariat to take a look at that and,
if in finding that in fact it was not a reappointment but an
appointment after some time, that they send that certificate out
so we can have a look at it and perhaps invite him to come before
us.
The Chair:
Comment?
Mr Wood: Mr
Martin has made a request to the Chair and I'm quite satisfied
the Chair deals with the request and gets the information.
We have to first find out
what actually happened. I don't know the facts of this case, so I
think we have to find out. Was his service continuous or was it
not?
Mr Martin:
It could be a loophole, you know.
The Chair:
Mr Gerretsen first.
Mr
Gerretsen: I would first of all like to extend my
apologies to both Mr Johnson and Mr Wood in recognizing Mr Kells
as the Ontario Olympics Commissioner. Of course, I recognize Mr
Johnson as the Deputy Speaker and Mr Wood as the crime
commissioner. I would suggest that since Mr Wood is the crime
commissioner, he would be the perfect person to look into this
situation, to find out exactly what happened. How did this
gentleman get reappointed without it going to this committee?
Mr Bert Johnson
(Perth-Middlesex): It's not a criminal matter at
all.
The Chair: I
think there is a motion coming forward from Mr Martin. We know we
could not deal with the other motion because it was clearly out
of order. Mr Wood, if I have heard him correctly, has said that
Mr Martin can make another request as to clarification of this
matter, can ask that the committee ask for clarification, or Mr
Martin can do so himself. I believe it would be in order to ask
for that clarification. It would not be in order to ask Mr Wright
to come before the committee if we don't have a certificate for
him.
Mr Wood: I'd
like to suggest that you, Mr Chair, might write the Public
Appointments Secretariat to establish whether or not his service
was continuous. If his service was continuous, Mr Martin's
information is not correct and obviously his position would be
somewhat different. I think we've got to establish that
first.
Mr Martin: I
know for a fact it wasn't. He stepped down to work in the
campaign and then came back on to the committee again.
Mr Johnson:
I think that's all right then.
Mr Wood: But
I think we should know the facts of that first. When we have
that, then I think-
Mr Kells:
Perhaps we should have started with his background first, then we
could work backwards.
The Chair: I
will do so, but I would like to do that at the direction of the
committee instead of my own volition. Would you like to direct
the committee on that motion?
Mr Martin:
Yes. I will direct the committee, through the Chair, to ask the
appointments secretariat to review that. There may be others who
step down, for whatever reason, political or otherwise, and who
are then appointed again who may not, in the definition of
"reappointment," actually
fit that bill. We may be missing a chance to actually interview
some of these people.
It may be a loophole we've
found here and that would be interesting, wouldn't it? We could
close it up and call on the government to be just that ever so
slightly more accountable to us, the elected representatives of
the people of the province.
The Chair:
I'm going to suggest that we do it in two steps because it seems
to me we're dealing with a specific one, first of all, and that
is Mr Wright.
If you make the motion that
the Chair be authorized to write to the appointments secretariat
to clarify whether Mr Wright's appointment is a reappointment or
a new appointment, we could do that separately. Then if you have
a further motion, I'd be prepared to hear that. Would you like to
put that motion about Mr Wright specifically?
Mr Martin: I
move that the committee inquire of the appointments secretariat
whether in fact under the definition Mr Wright was a
reappointment or not and that if he wasn't a reappointment, then
we get the certificate.
Mr Wood: No,
I'm not prepared to support that. I want to know what the facts
are first. I am prepared to support a motion that asks for the
facts, so if you want to move that motion we're prepared to
support it. If it's more than that, I think it's premature.
The Chair:
Mr Martin, my guess would be that is the best way of doing it. We
have to have the entire committee, I would guess, on that.
All in favour of Mr Martin's
motion then? Opposed? The motion is carried.
1020
Mr Crozier:
I'll wait until we get the answer from the appointments
secretariat. It may be of some interest just because of the
wording and the discussion saying we're going to see how the
secretariat replies and whether the secretariat considers some
circumstances or reappointment, and then we may want to pursue
the Chair's questioning. We may have to go beyond the secretariat
to find out what the real definition of "reappointment" is.
For example, if the
secretariat comes back and says if someone served on that
committee some time before, that it's always considered a
reappointment after a lapse of time, we may want to pursue that.
What the secretariat thinks is a reappointment, we may not agree
with. I'm just putting that on the record now so that at a time
down the road-
The Chair:
That certainly does seem sensible that we'd try eventually to get
that kind of definition. I would be concerned that somewhere
along the line we're going to be into this question again of what
is a reappointment and what is not a reappointment. I want to go
to Mr Spina.
I would ask the clerk, if I
can, first, where ultimately we would go to get a ruling on that,
if he can help us with that, the ruling being on what is a
reappointment and what is not a reappointment. Would that require
a Speaker's ruling, or where would we get that kind of
clarification, from an independent body or person?
Clerk of the
Committee: If ultimately the issue was raised in the
House, I cannot presume to speak for the House and its decision
and Speaker, but it could come to a Speaker's ruling. In the
meantime, however, I would expect the committee would be
interested in the definition used by the Public Appointments
Secretariat.
The Chair:
In this regard then, I think that is very helpful to us, and it
may well be that our committee will have to seek clarification
eventually from the Speaker. It may not be the case if we're
satisfied with the suggestion that comes or the ruling that comes
from the appointments secretariat. We have passed one motion. Mr
Martin indicated he may have another motion which is not specific
to Mr Wright but rather a general question of the appointments
secretariat, what they define as a reappointment and what they
define as a new appointment.
The clerk has suggested that
one of the options that we have as a committee is to get that
information first from the appointments secretariat. If the
committee is not satisfied, the committee could seek an opinion
from the Speaker. Ultimately somebody can raise it in the
House.
Mr Spina you had an
intervention?
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): It seems to me that this whole
argument and discussion is really academic. From what stemmed out
of the last committee meeting, the information that has been
provided to us on the standing committee, it seems to me that
that's really way beyond our mandate.
If someone was reappointed,
legitimately or improperly or whatever, I'm not sure that's a
case for this committee to examine or explore. It's my
understanding that we're to look at the intended appointments and
that is the scope of our responsibility.
If someone is being
considered for a reappointment, then perhaps that could be a
discussion as part of, again, an intended appointment. If we have
a man or a woman before our committee who is up for
reappointment, whom any of us has brought forward, then clearly I
could see us challenging that person, asking that person, seeking
the clerk to define the information as to when that person was
here or was not here, when their term ended or did not end. I
could see us legitimately asking for that information as part of
our consideration for, again, an intended appointment. But for
something that is historical, it was my understanding that's
beyond the mandate of this committee. Based on the information
that's been provided to us, through you, I think the whole thing
is an academic discussion and it's beyond the scope of the
committee at this stage.
The Chair:
Any other comment on that?
Mr Martin: I
would disagree. If we didn't get Mr Wright's certificate because
it was deemed by somebody that it was a reappointment when in
fact it wasn't, there was a break in service there, then we're
not getting a certificate that we should have had and should have
had a chance to interview. That's the issue here.
The other, wider issue that
we'll be discussing in a few minutes is that over the last six
months or so since this House sat, there has been a whole whack
of appointments made by your government that in many instances have some very disturbing
political overtones and that I would like to explore, or have
some of those people come before us so that we could talk to them
and maybe, on one hand, dispel all the intrigue and suspicion
that some of us are harbouring at the moment or, in fact, point
to some activity here that was outside of the generally accepted
scope of accountability that we're supposed to have to each other
and to the people that we represent. I'd personally like to get
to the bottom of that. I think it's inherent in the job that we
do and comes with the responsibility that we have as members of
this committee to make sure that every appointment that's made is
done in the best interests of the people of the province. That's
where I'm coming from here and that's what I want us to make sure
that we're exploring.
The Chair:
We're into a couple of subjects, it seems to me. We have already
passed a motion where we're going to ask the appointments
secretariat to provide us with their view on whether Mr Wright
was an appointment or a reappointment. Further, you were seeking
some kind of guidance or discussion of the committee about asking
the appointments secretariat in general what their specific
definition is of an appointment or a reappointment. Perhaps that
would be a motion you may wish to bring forward. Third, I think
we're going beyond that with what you've asked there. That's yet
another subject of whether we want to seek permission, because
clearly the standing order does not permit it, if we want to ask
permission of the government to deal with appointments that have
been made. But if you wish to follow this specifically, we could
not do so.
Mr Wood has suggested, and
you followed that suggestion, that it go to the House leaders.
Your House leader has suggested you come back to committee with
it so that's something this committee will deal with in a while.
But can I ask if you have a motion which would seek from the
secretariat their definition of a reappointment?
Mr Martin:
Yes. I would move that the committee ask the appointments
secretariat to forward to us some definition of "reappointment"
so that we don't run into this situation again in a week or a
month or a year down the road.
Mr Crozier:
I second that motion.
The Chair:
Any discussion of that particular motion? The motion is simply
asking the secretariat would they define for us what they
consider to be a reappointment. We'll have to deal with that
throughout our four years or whatever number of years we're
here.
Mr Spina: I
think for intended appointments a definition like that would be
helpful to all the committee members, but to have it retroactive
is beyond the Public Appointments Secretariat. Even though I
voted for that last motion, frankly, I would rather rescind it
because there is the greater issue that you alluded to in your
comments as to whether or not it's in the scope of this
committee. If somebody wants to change the scope and mandate of
this committee, it's a far different process than we're in a
position to create here as a committee, as members.
The Chair: I
certainly find your comments interesting and relevant. In this
specific case, however, all that Mr Martin's motion is asking for
is for the committee to give us a definition of a
reappointment.
Mr Spina:
The secretariat.
The Chair:
Sorry, the secretariat-thank you very much-for giving us a
definition of what they consider to be a reappointment. Further
to that, we may have some further discussion.
1030
Mr Johnson:
Just a point, and that is that I'm not sure that we should be
asking for the definition of a reappointment. It seems to me that
our context is that we are entitled to examine intended
appointees, so that's the definition we want, not a definition of
something that we don't do.
The Chair: I
think what Mr Martin is looking for, however, is simply very
basic information, according to the secretariat, to help our
committee out to know what is a reappointment and what is not. I
understand your point. I think he's simply asking to get that
kind of clarification. I don't think there's too much to read
into it, although we always do.
Mr Wood: I
think I'd be prepared to support this motion because I think it
is reasonable to understand what criteria are being applied. If
there appears to be a problem with them, we can address the
problem.
The Chair:
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the motion. All in
favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Further business? I'm going
to ask for a motion to adopt the subcommittee report which is
before us, where it says, "Official opposition ... third party
... government ... no selections," in those three cases. Do I
have a motion to adopt that report?
Mr Wood:
Just so I understand what's before us at committee right at the
moment, there was a further report of the subcommittee which is
not included in this motion, that's going to be voted on
separately?
The Chair:
Yes, we'll deal with that separately.
Mr Wood: So
all we're voting on now is this piece of paper?
The Chair:
That is correct. We are voting on a motion that says, "Your
subcommittee considered on Friday, November 12, 1999, the
selection of intended appointments for committee review and has
agreed to recommend that the following intended appointees from
the certificate received on November 5, 1999, be selected for
review...." You will see that each of the political parties had
no selections. Therefore, that is the motion I'm putting
forward.
Mr Wood:
So there will be a separate motion for the subcommittee report
today?
The Chair:
A separate motion for the subcommittee discussion of this
morning. Is there someone who will move that motion?
Mr
Crozier: I'll move it.
The Chair:
Mr Crozier moved that motion. No seconder is required. All in
favour? Opposed? OK.
There was a discussion that took place at the
subcommittee meeting that started a little after 9:45 this
morning. We have to consider that report. Clerk?
Clerk of the
Committee: "Your subcommittee recommends that the
committee request permission to call forward a limited number,
that is, three per caucus, of the appointees listed on a list of
appointments made since dissolution that is to be requested from
the Public Appointments Secretariat."
The Chair:
Discussion?
Mr Wood: I
might say that I was the dissenting vote when that report was
adopted. It's my view that the most effective way of dealing with
these matters, which of course have to be dealt with by the
House, is by way of submission to our respective House leaders. I
do not think the committee, as such, should take a position on it
and I am therefore opposed to the report.
Mr Martin:
Since I was the one who proposed the motion, first of all, in my
almost 10 years here I've always been led to believe that by
unanimous consent the committee could do almost anything that it
wanted, within the scope of the rules of the House, and that we
could ask for circumstances outside of that scope even if we
agreed unanimously and we could bring it forward to the powers
that be.
In this instance, we are a
committee appointed by the House to review all of the
appointments that a government makes so that not only in fact but
in perception this place is acting in the public interest always.
There have been a whole slew of appointments made since the last
certificate this committee received before the elections, just a
mammoth amount of appointments made between then and now, without
any public scrutiny except what the press deemed to do. It seems
to me incumbent on us in some small way, even if only
symbolic-and I suggest that the three that we're asking for per
caucus is simply a symbolic gesture of our going beyond the call
of duty to make sure that we're doing our job here, that we
invite before the committee a sampling of these appointments so
that we can talk to them, get a sense of how legitimately
qualified they are to do these jobs and to make sure that there
was no negative connotation at all to these appointments.
I would suggest that if the
government has been acting in good faith, as I'm sure it will
purport to be doing, and if all of these appointments fit the
criteria out there around the question of qualification, interest
and also the issue of impartiality etc that often goes along with
some of these appointments-a lot of these commissions, boards and
agencies make decisions that affect the lives of ordinary
citizens out there who are perhaps looking for some assistance in
a difficult period, looking for some clarification on some point
of legality where the rules of government apply etc.
It's my view that if the
government members feel that nothing untoward has gone on, and
that all these appointments were very legitimate and very
credible, they wouldn't have any difficulty with us simply
calling forward a sampling. If the Liberals and the New Democrats
decide to call three each, that's six. If you folks decide to
call three or you decide not to, that's your choice, but six or
nine people that we could sprinkle into the new appointments that
we will be calling over the next number of months to have a chat
with so that we can assure ourselves that everything has been
above-board and in the common interest of the people of Ontario,
then I don't see where this is a huge problem.
If this committee decides,
in its effort to do its job effectively, so that it can't be
challenged, to put forward a motion to the powers that be, which
is where we go from here, that we be allowed to do this, I'm sure
that they would consider that very seriously and do whatever it
would take to make sure we're allowed to do our job in that way.
That's the rationale behind the motion that I'm placing here
today, Mr Chair.
Mr
Gerretsen: I believe that standing order 106(e) is
intended to make the process as open as possible. It gives the
general public and the members of the Legislature on all sides an
opportunity to know who the government appoints to the various
boards and commissions. Some of these boards and commissions, as
we all know, play very important roles in the lives of the people
of Ontario, and I've had the privilege of having been appointed
to one or two of these boards in the past-I must say by all three
former governments-at one time or another.
I can also fully understand
that a government, when it is re-elected, needs to make
appointments in certain areas right away, but we have to
recognize the fact that the Legislature didn't sit for another
five months, or almost five months. If you really want to make
the process as open as possible, realizing that this committee
can't do anything further with respect to the people who have
been appointed, a number of things have to happen.
Number one, you have to
have a complete list of all the people who have been appointed. I
know some of the government members will say, "That's available."
I don't know where to get that whole list in one document. Make
it as transparent as possible. Table the list here. It shouldn't
be necessary for people to have to search all this stuff. Get the
list here.
1040
Number two, what is wrong
with going back to some of these people and letting the committee
satisfy itself that these are good appointments or not such good
appointments? I know there were Liberals appointed on that list,
I know there were government members appointed on that list, and
there may even have been some New Democrats appointed on the
list. Heaven knows, there may even have been some people
appointed, out of about 95% of the populace out there, who don't
belong to any party whatsoever but who go with whatever
government they want of particular type, of whatever stripe.
Let's hope that's the case, that some of these people have
absolutely no party affiliation at all, because they really
represent the majority of Ontarians out there.
If there is an attempt by
the government members, who can out vote the rest of us any time
they want, to stop this
process from taking place, I think the general public, the media
and the other members of this committee can only come to one
conclusion, and that is: What are you trying to hide?
I am a firm believer that
any government, of whatever political stripe, intends to appoint
the best people possible to a particular position. It's to the
government's advantage, it's to the system's advantage and it's
to the advantage of people who benefit from the decisions the
boards, commissions and agencies are making. I don't think there
is anything wrong, by the way, if all things are equal, that
you're more likely to appoint somebody along your own political
stripes than somebody else. But the first issue is: Is the person
competent to serve in that position? Surely we would all agree on
that.
If these people who have
been appointed are, in your opinion or in the Lieutenant
Governor's opinion through the cabinet, competent to serve in
that position, then what have you got to hide by not making the
list available and not allowing each caucus to choose three
members to come forward so they can be questioned?
I would urge the government
members to open up your minds, allow the winds of change to blow
through, make the system as transparent as possible and don't
stonewall the minority members on this committee. Vote with us
collectively so we can say to the appointments secretariat, "Give
us the list." Let's choose three names on each side. I know there
are some very interesting names that you people will probably
want to interview before the committee and there may be some
interesting names that we would want to interview as well.
Let's make sure that for
the people of Ontario, regardless of party affiliation, we really
have the most competent people to serve in these positions.
Mr Kells:
Well said.
The Chair:
We are discussing that subcommittee report and we will need a
motion to adopt that subcommittee report from this morning.
I should, for the
clarification of Mr Gerretsen, because the subcommittee met
previous to this meeting, say that I am writing a letter to the
appointments secretariat requesting a list of the appointees.
That's quite legitimate that we can request that list from
them.
Mr
Gerretsen: I would like to congratulate you on that.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has assured me, and it's quite accurate, that this is a
public list, at any event. Mr Martin specifically asked me to
write a letter to the secretariat asking for a list of all those
appointments.
Mr
Crozier: I support what Mr Martin and Mr Gerretsen, in
particular, have said. Therefore, I won't repeat it. It seems to
me what we're really discussing here is the method by which we
may reach the point of perhaps reviewing some appointments that
were made prior to last week. Mr Wood has expressed the
suggestion that it be done through the House leaders. Mr Martin's
motion asks that we simply go to the secretariat, I think.
Yes.
I wouldn't want us to lose
this motion, or at least, this avenue, just because we have a
difference of opinion on how we should go about this. So I would
also ask that the government members support this. We go through
the secretariat. If the secretariat says they don't have the
authority to, or in their opinion we can't, then we can go to the
House leaders. But I wouldn't want us to dismiss one avenue
before we at least see whether we can be successful.
The Chair:
Any other comments from any other member of the committee on the
subcommittee report? The motion was to adopt the subcommittee
report. Is there any further discussion at all?
All of those in favour of
adopting the subcommittee report?
All of those opposed?
The motion is lost. Further
business?
Mr Martin:
It seems to me that there have been a number of commissions
appointed by this government that have been beyond the pale,
outside of the normal, new commissions such as the crime
commission, and there was the gasbusters at one time, and there's
the commissioner here for the Olympics.
Mr Spina:
He's a PA.
Mr Martin:
Those appointments have never been tabled as appointments by the
government so that certificates would come forward and we could
then question: What are these commissions about? What are the
terms of reference? How do these people fit the bill in terms of
their appointment?
I'm wondering if there's
some ruling here. Can a government just put commissions and
boards and agencies together and start appointing people without
some formal approval by the Legislature? Can they go out and call
themselves commissions and commissioners and travel the province
and do hearings etc, without any formal approval by government?
We have a number of them floating around the province. Some of us
don't know exactly what their purpose is, except we know that
it's political in nature, but not how it serves the common
interest, the common good of the people of the province.
I'm not sure where to go
with this, but it seems to me there are a couple of questions
here. One is the government's ability to just willy-nilly set up
commissions, perhaps a caucus's ability to just set up
commissions and then present themselves as somehow bona fide,
legally speaking for or able to go out and gather information and
meet with people on behalf of the government. I would suggest
that there's a fair amount of fuzziness, a lack of clarity and
probably confusion about this kind of thing that's going on.
The second point is, when
people are appointed to these commissions, if they are even
semi-bona fide, shouldn't we have a chance here to interview on
their appointment, at least a sampling of the folks who get
appointed?
The Chair:
I will ask Mr Pond to give us a definition of what a commission
might be or to help us with this particular matter as to what
agencies, boards and commissions we have jurisdiction over as a
committee.
Mr David Pond: Doug may wish to
speak to this as well, but you'll note, Mr Martin, in standing
order 106(e) the phrase used is "agencies, boards and commissions
to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of
the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in
right of Ontario is a majority shareholder." There is no
definition in the standing order of agencies, boards and
commissions, but traditionally the agencies, boards and
commissions which have fallen under the purview of this committee
are those which are scheduled by Management Board.
You know the scheduling
system Management Board uses and has since the 1980s: All
agencies are classified in one of four schedules and are also
defined as either operational, regulatory or advisory. Agencies
or other entities created by the cabinet outside of that system
have not traditionally been considered to be agencies, boards and
commissions over which this committee has any jurisdiction. And
there are a few; you're quite right about that.
Mr
Gerretsen: So we can't question the Olympics
commissioner.
The Chair:
I'll ask Mr Arnott if he has a further-
Mr Kells:
I think you should.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Mr Gerretsen, do you have a comment?
Mr
Gerretsen: The only point I was making is, I take it
from that that we cannot question another member of this
committee for his appointment as Olympics commissioner. I've got
a few questions that I would like to ask him on the record.
Mr Martin:
There's been a lot of innuendo out there about the Olympic
commissioners and how much money they get and the lavish
lifestyle and everything. We were just wondering if Mr Kells was
involved in that.
Interjections.
Mr Kells:
I think my reputation is being besmirched.
The Chair:
Mr Kells, did you wish to you comment?
Mr Kells:
All I'm saying is "ouch."
Mr Martin:
How many communities has he visited?
1050
The Chair:
We've heard a definition of what is traditionally under the
jurisdiction of this committee. This committee may wish to seek
permission somewhere to look at further appointments, but we have
been told by Mr Pond what our present mandate is. You may seek to
widen that mandate to deal with such things-as you refer to
them-as the crime commission because they use the word
"commission," which I think is an appointment not by the cabinet
but directly by the Premier for a specific purpose, and the
Olympics commissioner, which I believe is not a scheduled agency;
it is an appointment by the Premier of a specific individual
within the government caucus.
If you wish, you may, in a
motion of this committee now or some time in the future, seek the
mandate to do so. We would have to follow a procedure to seek
that further mandate or seek clarification whether our present
mandate includes such agencies, boards and commissions. I
understand what you're saying. We have heard a clarification
already of what our mandate is at the present time.
Mr Martin:
Just to indicate to the committee how important this is, there's
also another part of the job of this committee, which is from
time to time bring an agency, board or commission before the
committee for review, to ask what they're doing, to ask about
their expenditures, a whole whack of things. If I'm led by the
legislative researcher's comments, those are outside the purview
of this committee as well.
The Chair:
He said traditionally that is the case.
Mr Martin:
It seems to me this would be something that's worth exploring.
I'm not sure how you go about it. I know the government members
will vote down anything we bring forward that would-
The Chair:
I don't know that we can be presumptuous about how anyone might
vote in this committee, Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
I would put on the table that we didn't set up any crime
commissions.
Mr
Gerretsen: There was no crime then.
Mr Martin:
There was no crime then, that's right.
Mr Spina:
Royal commissions?
Mr Martin:
Yes, we did, and they were all within the purview of the standing
orders and had the right of government to do it. They were
subject to all the checks and balances of this place.
Interjection.
Mr Martin:
Royal commissions are. They fit the bill. Perhaps we could ask
legislative research to talk to us a bit about royal commissions
and where they fit in the whole scheme of things.
Mr Pond:
Royal commissions do not normally come under the purview of this
committee. There are other bodies-for example, the Environmental
Commissioner doesn't come under the purview of this
committee.
Mr Martin:
But they are governed by some arm of the Legislature in terms of
the money they spend and their terms of reference and their
accountability.
Mr Pond:
Certainly.
Mr Martin:
I want to know, outfits like the crime commission and the
gasbusters-what others? There was a whole whack of them.
Mr
Gerretsen: The crime commission has always caught my
fancy.
The Chair:
You're out of order, Mr Gerretsen. It's Mr Spina.
Mr Martin:
If I might just-
The Chair:
If I may, just a moment. I did give the floor to Mr Spina. I will
come back.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Chair. This whole discussion is again academic. Mr
Pond has clearly described what is within the mandate of this
committee. Frankly, what Mr Martin would like to have, I think,
if I read into what he's saying, is the right of this committee
to challenge the entire cabinet of government-of any
government.
Mr Martin:
What's wrong with that?
Mr Spina: That's the prerogative
of being the government in power. Frankly, you're going way
beyond that. Anybody who is without fault, let him cast the first
stone, and we all have stones, so this whole discussion is
academic. Unless there's a motion, I would ask that you rule this
no longer in order, Chair, with due respect.
Mr Martin:
I'll put a motion, then. It's in keeping with what I think is the
mandate of we who have been elected: to make sure that whatever
happens under the aegis of good government in this province has
checks and balances attached to it, and systems of accountability
such as royal commissions have when they're appointed.
We've seen a number of
commissions, boards and agencies set up by this government go out
and do some things that are sketchy, at best, certainly
politically motivated, that in my view do nothing but confuse the
public as to who they represent, who they speak for, what their
role is, how they fit into the structure of this place, who
they're accountable to and all those kinds of things.
I would make a motion that
this committee ask for some clarification as to-I'm looking for
words here. I'm looking for some vehicle to challenge the
government on the establishment of agencies, boards and
commissions that fall outside of the purview of this committee so
there is no confusion around what their mandate is and who
they're accountable to. I guess the motion is that this committee
explore this phenomenon.
The Chair:
I have Mr Crozier and then Mr Wood.
Mr
Crozier: Go ahead, Mr Wood. You've now made a motion. I
support the motion. I want to raise something.
Mr Wood: I
want to express some distress that in all this discussion of
commissions the Red Tape Commission hasn't been mentioned.
Mr Martin:
That's another one.
Mr Wood:
Exactly. Nobody mentioned it. So I do hope the opposition will do
its research better.
Mr Martin:
He seems to be on a lot of them. Maybe he's behind it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Wood. Mr Wood has been helpful enough to
refer to the Red Tape Commission.
Mr Wood: I
also wanted to make a further comment on this, which is basically
the same as my comment on the earlier motion. I think this is
something best pursued through the House leaders, and that's the
direction which is the most effective. Therefore, I'm not going
to support this motion.
The Chair:
Anyone else wanting to speak on this specific motion? If not, I
will call the question.
All in favour of the motion
of Mr Martin? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr
Crozier: We think you're more understanding that the
House leader of the government.
Legitimately, I would like
to ask how it is we go about fulfilling the first part of the
paragraph of standing order 106(e) that Mr Pond read, in which we
are empowered to review and report to the House on observations,
opinions and recommendations of the operation of agencies, boards
and commissions, once we define what they are, and, seriously,
how we might as individual parties bring before the committee
some agencies, boards or commissions that we would like to look
into.
What's the process for
doing that? Do we simply say we want to call a particular agency,
board or commission before the committee, or do we have to have a
consensus or do we have to have a majority?
The Chair:
I'll ask our clerk to help us with that.
Clerk of the
Committee: In general, in the past, the committee has
operated by consensus in pursuing its agency reviews with
generally, at a given period of time, one, two or three agencies
selected per caucus to be considered within the time available
for committee hearings. That process generally has occurred
through the subcommittee, through recommendations from the
subcommittee to the full committee.
1100
The Chair:
I should say further-and members who have been on this committee
longer than I, or at least more recently more than I, would help
us out if I am wrong in this-what essentially has happened with
this committee is that it has become very preoccupied with the
appointments process-that is, dealing with appointments which are
sent to this committee for consideration-and that in recent times
we have not dealt with agencies, boards and commissions as
agencies, boards and commissions. I have sat on this committee
years before where we have indeed done so. It may be a matter for
further discussion of the committee when we have some time to
think about it whether the committee would like to see us move in
that direction again, perhaps when the House itself is not
sitting-it's very difficult when the House is sitting to do so,
but when the House is not sitting, to review some agencies,
boards and commissions.
I know that when the
government was looking to sunset or to scrutinize carefully some
agencies, boards and commissions, and the opposition was
interested in looking at those as well, we did deal with some of
those. We had research reports that came forward. We sometimes
visited that commission. I can think of the Ontario Food Terminal
as one. Then a report came from the committee and the government
dealt with the report as it saw fit. That may be something the
committee wishes to explore.
I think the three House
leaders-I can say specifically the government House leader, and I
don't think I'm misquoting him, has expressed a hope that the
committee system could be enhanced in such a way as to make the
committees more meaningful than perhaps they might be at the
present time. Again, I would have to hear directly from the
government House leader in that regard.
So we do have that
potential opportunity, and it is done, as our clerk has said,
through a consensus of the committee. Ordinarily, the
subcommittee has gotten together and decided whether it wishes to
pursue such a course of action.
Mr Gerretsen, you wanted to
speak, and Mr Wood next.
Mr
Gerretsen: The only comment I was going to make is that
the mandate seems to be quite broad. It talks about "to review the operation
of an agency, board or commission." I think it would be in
everyone's interest to find out how some of these agencies,
boards and commissions operate, to see how improvements can be
made, to see whether they are still relevant. We may have
disagreements about the types of programs that each party might
want to institute if they were in government, but I think surely
there can be no disagreement that if taxpayers' dollars are being
wasted in one way or another or are not being utilized as
properly as they should be by a particular board, agency or
commission, it would be to the benefit of us all to look at that
and see how things can be streamlined further so that we can all
get better use of the taxpayers' dollars.
I don't even look at that
as a partisan issue, quite frankly. There may very well be
boards, agencies and commissions out there that we would all be
better off without, after taking a look-
Mr Spina:
School boards?
Mr
Gerretsen: Well, you know, you're talking about school
boards. No, I don't think school boards are one of them. I
believe that rather than tackling the big issues that you may
want to tackle but never get anywhere with, it's probably better
to start off small by looking at some of the smaller agencies,
boards and commissions that you can actually do something about
proactively. It's to everyone's benefit.
Mr Spina:
Are you saying you can't do anything about school boards?
Interjections.
The Chair:
I have Mr Wood.
Mr
Gerretsen: What do you want to do about school boards?
Do you want to abolish them, Mr Spina? If you do, then say so, so
that you are on the record that you want to abolish all the
school boards.
Interjection.
Mr
Gerretsen: I take that to be a yes. Thank you.
The Chair:
Order. The only person who has the floor right now is Mr
Wood.
Mr Wood: I
certainly think it's worth considering what agencies, boards or
commissions we might want to review.
There is another matter
that all the members might want to think about, and that's the
new rule whereby each committee member gets to present a bill for
consideration, which the committee then drafts. I think all
members might want to give a little thought to that, because that
might be a productive use of some of the committee's time.
The Chair:
Mr Arnott is going to speak to that specific mandate the
committee might have. I think there are some good suggestions
coming around here as to what this committee might do. I
recognize we are all busy people, particularly those who have
additional responsibilities, but there are some good suggestions
here. I've seen the committee work exceptionally well in the past
in that regard.
Clerk of the
Committee: I believe Mr Wood has made reference to new
standing order 124(a), which does provide that each permanent
member of a certain committee may put forward an item for
consideration by the committee, and that committee may, in making
its report to the House, append a draft bill, which the Chair of
the committee would introduce in the House. However, the starting
point of that standing order says, "Each permanent member of a
committee set out in standing order 106(a) and (b)," which limits
the operation of that standing order to two committees of the
House, the standing committee on justice and social policy and
the standing committee on general government. It would not apply
to this committee, as the House adopted the changes to the
rules.
The Chair:
It may well be, because I was intrigued by that possibility, that
at a future meeting this committee may seek to have the same
rights as other committees have. I'm quite intrigued by what Mr
Wood has had to say on this, because what may emerge from such a
committee is a genuinely multi-partisan bill, which I think would
be very helpful. So we may wish to seek that.
Mr Wood: I
thank the clerk for his clarification. As it was described to me,
I didn't realize this was confined to the two policy committees
only. I think that's something all of us might want to think
over: Should only some committees have that right, or should that
be given to all committees? You might even want to speak to your
House leader about it.
The Chair:
Yes, we would want to do that. It may be something for future
discussion in this committee, that we may wish, as a committee,
to seek from the House leaders the opportunity to have the same
right as another committee, should the majority of this committee
deem that to be appropriate.
Any other further business
before the committee concludes its business?
Mr Martin:
I just wanted to add to the previous discussion that in fact in
the last government we did bring the Ontario Northland
Transportation Commission before this committee and had a review
because they were closing down norOntair. They're now in the
process of closing down the Ontario Northland Railway. It may be
something we might want to consider doing again, bringing those
folks in and finding out why all forms of transportation to
northern Ontario are now being closed down by this government.
It's an example of a commission that was brought before this
committee during the last government's term of office.
Having said that, it seems
to me that this committee works best when we're able to work
through consensus. Certainly what happened here this morning is
no indication to me that that's going to be easily achieved.
The Chair:
That's an interesting observation, but hope springs eternal that
this committee will function as it deems appropriate and as
effectively as possible. Any other business to come before the
committee this morning? If not, I will entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
Moved by Mr Wood to adjourn. All in favour? Opposed? The motion
is carried. The meeting is adjourned.
