The Chair (Mr Joseph N.
Tascona): I will bring the meeting to order. The
subcommittee has met on two bills, Bill 8 and Bill 9. Anyone from
the government?
Mr Gerry Martiniuk
(Cambridge): Before dealing with the subcommittee
reports, I'd like to make a motion.
I move that, for the purposes
of the selection of witnesses for public hearings before this
committee, in the absence of unanimous agreement in the
subcommittee, the subcommittee or Chair/clerk, upon delegation,
shall select witnesses proposed by the caucuses in the following
rotation: government, official opposition, third party,
government, official opposition, government, official opposition,
third party, government, official opposition and continuing in
that rotation as subject to witness availability.
The Chair:
Before we get to that-
Mr Peter Kormos
(Niagara Centre): Point of order, Chair.
The Chair:
One second.
Mr Kormos:
No, no. I have a point of order.
The Chair:
Just one moment. We're going to have a reference point for that
motion and we have two subcommittee reports. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I
think I know what Mr Martiniuk is trying to do, but the committee
has convened today, and primarily the purpose of the agenda of
the committee is to ratify the subcommittee reports. I would put
to you that this motion is out of order until the committee has
dealt with its primary business, which is the ratification of the
two subcommittee reports before the committee. I'd submit that
the motion is improperly put at this time. It could be properly
put at another time, but at this time the first matter of the
agenda or the purpose of this committee meeting is to consider
the subcommittee reports and that's the business we should be
attending to.
The Chair:
Would you care to comment on that, Mr Martiniuk?
Mr
Martiniuk: Yes. I was not aware that we even had an
agenda for this particular committee meeting. I was properly
recognized. I had the floor. I have proposed an amendment which
deals with the procedure to be followed by the subcommittee and
Chair. That is in my opinion an in-order motion. I would ask for
a seconder, and I don't think the point of order has any
validity.
The Chair:
You don't need a seconder.
Mr Michael Bryant (St
Paul's): I have another point of order, Mr Chair: My
concern is that this motion is going to amend the standing
orders, and of course we can't, as a subcommittee, amend the
standing orders. Accordingly, I think this matter ought to go to
the House leaders for deliberation.
The Chair:
Do you want to be specific about which standing order is being
amended?
Mr Bryant:
I'm looking for the order.
The Chair: I
don't think it does.
Mr Kormos:
Point of order: You've now got two points of order before you
and, with respect, I submit you have to deal with the first point
of order. You've got to deal with points of order as they-
The Chair: I
realize that. I just thought he was speaking and he's come up
with another one.
Mr Kormos:
OK, fair enough.
The Chair:
The motion is in order, but the committee has two subcommittee
reports to deal with. We can defer dealing with the motion until
we deal with the subcommittee reports or we can deal with the
motion right now.
Mr Kormos: I
move deferral.
Mr Bryant: I
support the deferral.
Mr
Martiniuk: I have a proper motion before this committee,
Mr Chair. The second point of order I would like the opportunity
of course to deal with. You've already disposed of the first
point of order. I think it's a matter of hearing from both sides
regarding the point of order. I would oppose any deferral. I
don't see any reason for a deferral. We're here in any event.
The Chair:
The purpose would be to deal with the subcommittee business and
then deal with the motion.
Mr
Martiniuk: But this motion, being an overall general
motion, would automatically affect the subcommittee reports and
any future subcommittee report. I would have thought as a matter
of principle that it should have been dealt with first so that we
could clarify in advance what the subcommittee report does in
fact say.
The Chair:
Perhaps what we'll deal with right here is, Mr Bryant had a point
of order in terms of the motion itself. Do you have anything to
say, Mr Bryant?
Mr Bryant:
Sure. Number one, Mr Martiniuk seems to have just conceded that a
finding on this particular motion would affect other committees
and thereby change the
standing orders and, in so doing, would be amending the standing
orders.
The Chair:
But I asked you before what standing order was being changed.
Mr Bryant:
Sure, that's number one. Number two, I would turn to the clerk
for assistance here. The problem here is that this motion is
being thrust upon us with no notice.
The Chair: I
think you had some notice in our subcommittee. Do you want some
assistance from the clerk on your point of order?
Mr Bryant:
Yes. My question is just: Are we not, by virtue of this
motion-and Mr Martiniuk has said he wishes to bind other
committees-creating a standing order?
Mr
Martiniuk: Excuse me. I rarely object, but I'm not
concerned about other committees. It would bind this committee,
yes, not other committees.
The Chair:
From the advice I have from the clerk, it's not changing the
standing orders. It just affects the way the committee
decides.
Mr Bryant:
In no way would it be creating-
The Chair:
The standing order? No. That's my advice from the clerk, if
that's what you're looking for. Does that satisfy you on your
point of order?
Mr Bryant:
No. Again, I'd like a deferral so I could take time to go through
the standing orders. But if you have ruled that we're going to
deal with it now, all I can do is register my objection that
we're flying by the seat of our pants on this motion.
The Chair:
If you've got a point of order, you have to argue it. The thing
is, you don't have a standing order that is being affected. The
clerk tells you that it's-
Mr Bryant: I
appreciate that.
The Chair:
-being changed.
Mr Bryant:
You have my submission on this.
The Chair:
The standing orders aren't being affected.
Mr Kormos:
On a point of order, Mr Chair: I want to be quite candid. Mr
Martiniuk told us approximately an hour ago that he was going to
produce this. I agree with the Chair that there are no standing
orders as such which govern the process within a committee.
As recently as last week or a
week and a half ago, the Speaker ruled that the committee has
control of its own process. However, the committee is subject to
the Legislature; that is, the Legislature can overrule what the
committee determines in terms of process or virtually anything
else, obviously.
First, this committee
knows-and if they don't, I'll tell them-that it has been a
long-standing precedent, a long-standing practice in this and all
committees of this Legislature over the course of the three
governments I've been here with, from 1987 to 1990, from 1990 to
1995, from 1995 to 1999, and now, when both the Liberals, the New
Democrats and now the Conservatives held power, with varying
degrees of majorities and sizes of respective opposition parties.
There has always been, because of the fact that the committee-to
a certain extent it's intended to override the very partisan
nature of the House. This is where the public has access. This is
where-and it speaks to the intent of this committee's
purpose-there's hopefully a freer flow of ideas and debate, where
there's less restraint by party whip or policy dictates and where
the committee can consider input from the public and make
deliberations regarding a particular piece of legislation or
amendment to it. I think that's a healthy thing.
Part of that precedent and
the practice for a long, long time, far longer than the 11 years
I've been here, has been that irrespective of the number of
members on the government side of the committee, or the official
opposition or the third party side-and as I say, I've seen this
in every combination that could possibly exist in the period of
that 11 years-there has always been the practice that there be
some equity between the three parties. It has always been the
case that the government has a majority. Clearly, the government
can use its majority to defeat any motion or amendment, or to win
any motion or amendment, to a bill.
During the course of the
hearings themselves-and here with reference to nomination or
submission of witnesses or delegations before the committee-the
practice has been that government, the official opposition and
the third party rotate. There are occasions when the selection of
submitters is left entirely to the discretion of the clerk, when
the clerk is relied upon. In issues where there isn't a
polarization of views, from time to time the clerk is relied upon
to use his or her discretion to select submitters and try to
create some evenness or fairness in the nature of presentations.
But when it's purely a matter of selecting, submitting or
sponsoring delegations, witnesses or submitters to the committee,
it's always been the practice that each party be entitled to
select one. In the committee that oversees appointments to
boards, agencies and commissions, as I understand it, it is still
the practice that each party is entitled to nominate equal
numbers of people to appear before that committee. I just give
that to you for your reference. In the committee that reviews
nominees for appointment to boards, agencies and commissions,
notwithstanding the present structure of the House-the majority
of the Conservatives, the significant size of the Liberals as the
official opposition and the admittedly diminished size of the
NDP.
The House has in fact ruled
on this to a certain extent by virtue of acknowledging the NDP as
an official party, by giving the NDP official party status.
Before, as you know, the threshold was 12, and never before has
the size of the third party or of the official opposition been
determinative.
With the assistance of Ms
Charlton, I point out to the Chair the content of the standing
order 1, referring to conduct of business:
"Contingencies unprovided
for:
"(c) In all contingencies not
provided for in the standing orders," and I acknowledge this is
the scenario here, "the question shall be decided by the Speaker
or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall
base the decision on the democratic rights of members referred to
in clause (b)." I'll refer to that in just a minute, but this is what's most important: "In
doing so the Speaker shall have regard to any applicable usages
and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary
tradition."
That's why I specifically
point out to you the precedent in this committee and in all other
standing committees of this Legislature, regardless of the
relative size of the respective caucuses: government, official
opposition and third party.
It makes reference to clause
(b), and without reading the whole of clause (b), you'll note
that the matters to consider are "the right of members ... to
submit motions, resolutions and bills." This is not a case where
the NDP, for instance, would be asking to submit motions, bills
or resolutions, but just imagine for a minute if it were. The
analogy of this motion would be that I as the NDP member would
have a fettered right to submit, let's say, amendments. The
analogy would be that I would be able to submit fewer amendments,
that I wouldn't have an unfettered right to submit amendments
like the Conservative members-the government members-or the
Liberal members.
Secondly, "to debate, speak
to and vote on motions, resolutions and bills"; thirdly, most
importantly, "to hold the government accountable for its
policies," and I think equally important, "collectively, to
decide matters submitted to the assembly or a committee."
I think the Chair should also
refer to definitions because clearly in this standing order
"`Recognized Party' means a party caucus of eight or more members
of the Legislative Assembly," and that's clearly what the NDP is.
That matter has been resolved. I submit to you that the Chair has
to be guided by this standing order, and, where the standing
order is inadequate, by analogy, but certainly the consideration
of applicable uses and precedents. It has always been the case in
committee that when you have multi-party presentation of
delegations, each party is entitled to an equal number-you
basically go round robin, if you will-in terms of presenting
delegates to the committee.
Look at it this way: Assuming
for a moment that both opposition parties are ad idem-obviously
that's not always the case, but assuming that in terms of the
types of submitters to a bill both opposition parties are
inclined to present the same type of opposition voices, in terms
of witnesses or in terms of delegations, it's always been the
case that the government has had one, let's say, pro-bill
delegation, assuming it was that tight and precise, and between
the two opposition parties there have been two to counter it.
That's always been the case. But the countervailing power is the
government majority. The government members have never in any
number of years talked about that as being somehow inequitable.
That's been an acknowledged right of respective parties. As it
ends up, oftentimes the two opposition parties-heck, I've got to
tell you, in 1987-90, when the Tories were the third party and
the NDP were the official opposition, I sat on this side of
committee hearings and, as often as not, the Conservatives and I
or the New Democrats would be presenting the same or similar
opposition, in that case, to a Liberal bill.
1600
The Chair:
Mr Kormos, we dealt with the fact that the motion is in order and
then Mr Bryant indicated that he had his point of order with
respect to would the standing orders cover it, and I said the
standing orders were not being amended. I'm just trying to
clarify what area you are covering now.
Mr Kormos:
I'm raising a point of order specifically with reference to the
standing orders.
The Chair:
With respect to standing order 1.
Mr Kormos:
Quite right, and what you must consider in determining whether or
not this is in order.
The Chair:
Yes, but I've determined that the motion is in order.
Mr Kormos:
Yes, you determined it's in order with respect to my first point,
with respect to the second point. I've raised yet a third point
of order. So it may be in order with respect to the first point
that I raised, but I'm submitting that it's not in order with
respect to the point that I've raised now.
The Chair: I
think I understand your argument, if you're finished on it.
Mr Kormos:
No.
The Chair:
OK. But I do understand you're talking about 1(c).
Mr Kormos:
Yes, I'm talking about 1(c), but I'm also talking about why the
Chair should be considering 1(c) and why he should be applying it
to this motion to find it out of order.
The Chair: I
understand that.
Mr Kormos:
Yes, quite. I'm trying to point out to the Chair that there's
nothing new about the scenario as it exists. There are two
recognized parties constituting the official opposition and the
third party. Nothing has changed from before the election of
1999. Even though the standing order has never stated that each
party is entitled to submit a delegation or present a delegation
to make submissions, I'm submitting to you that the long-standing
precedent and the long-standing tradition, regardless of the size
of an opposition party, whether it was the Conservatives in
opposition, the New Democrats or the Liberals, in this committee
as well as all other standing committees, has permitted each
caucus when they've done round-robin types of presentations of
delegates to present or submit a delegation.
So although there is no
standing order governing this, there is precedent. My submission
is that in view of the fact that there's precedent which acquires
the status of standing order, this motion then is out of order
because it's for the House to change that. And further, the
reason I refer to paragraph (b) is because that is the rationale
for that precedent, "respects the democratic rights of members,"
and democratic rights certainly have to be rights that are
equal.
You could say by virtue of
this motion I would still have a right to present delegations to
the committee, but how democratic is it to suggest that I can
present fewer than, let's
say, another caucus? In this case, it's the Liberals and the
Conservatives. I submit that there could well be three views,
three perspectives on this bill that the government's trying to
avoid ganging up, if that's their argument. I say to you that
there could be three perspectives.
If I'm being told that I
can't present as many delegates as, let's say, the Liberals or
the Conservatives can-and I'm not suggesting the Liberals should
be entitled to fewer delegates-then the perspective of this
recognized party isn't going to be heard at the committee and
this long-standing usage and precedent is going to be
violated.
The motion can't be
considered at this committee. If it's going to be made, it has to
done in the Legislature. It is a violation-not a violation but it
is in effect an amendment to the standing orders, which can only
be done by the Legislature. It goes well beyond the committee
determining its own process.
On that matter, it's a done
deal because precedent and usage of decades and decades and
decades have set the rule for this committee.
The Chair: I
understand that, but I still believe that the motion is in order.
We're dealing with how the committee conducts its business. When
you read the motion as it is, that's strictly what it's dealing
with. I've read the sections that you're referring to and I
certainly think we are dealing with it in a democratic process
here in terms of how we're going to deal with this if there's not
unanimous agreement in terms of how we proceed with respect to
how this committee conducts its business. So the motion is in
order. Are there any other points of order?
Mr Kormos:
Point of order: The rules provide for a process for a committee,
and I suggest that clearly there's a process. There's a role for
the subcommittee and then reference of a subcommittee decision to
the committee. With respect, there's nothing in the rules that
permits circumventing or restricting or abbreviating the power of
the subcommittee.
What this does is attack the
ability or capacity of the subcommittee to make decisions because
this means that no subcommittee could ever recommend to the
committee that each caucus would be entitled to one delegation in
order, in rotation. By virtue of doing that, this attacks the
very essence of the rules as they describe the power of
subcommittee and then the subsequent power of committee.
That's not to say that
committee can't amend a subcommittee report. I'd be hard-pressed
to say it would be out of order if, upon movement or motion of
one of the subcommittee reports, Mr Martiniuk then said we
disagree with the manner of proposing delegations in the
subcommittee report and move to amend that report. That would be
a different story. But for Mr Martiniuk to try to create rules of
procedure for the committee that will bind the committee forever
and ever is well beyond the power of the committee. It's one
thing to move an amendment to a subcommittee report, but here
he's trying to create standing rules or standing orders for the
committee and the standing orders don't provide, with respect,
for standing orders for the committee. You've got to do it
piecemeal. You've got to do it one at a time. You can't create an
order that acts as a standing order and leave it at that.
The Chair: I
understand that, but the motion is still in order. I think you've
moved to defer the motion. That's the motion on the floor right
now, to defer the motion until after we deal with the
subcommittee reports.
Mr Kormos:
Quite right, but first I challenge the Chair on his ruling with
respect to that point of order. There has to be a vote on the
matter of the challenge to the Chair.
The Chair: I
just want to explain to the members here that Mr Kormos is
challenging my ruling with respect to whether the motion is in
order or not, and I've indicated that the motion is in order. If
a member of the committee appeals the Chair's ruling, the
question is, shall the Chair's ruling be appealed to the Speaker,
and that should be put to the members without debate. So can we
have a vote on that?
Mr
Martiniuk: What's the question?
The Chair:
The question is all those in favour of the Chair's ruling being
appealed to the Speaker? Those opposed? The appeal is lost.
We'll proceed on the deferral
motion. That's Mr Kormos's motion to defer the motion that's in
front of us till we deal with the subcommittee reports. All those
in favour of that.
Mr Kormos:
Recorded vote, please.
The Chair:
Everyone understands?
Those in favour of deferring
the motion?
AYES
Bryant, Crozier, Kormos.
The Chair:
Those opposed?
NAYS
DeFaria, Guzzo, Martiniuk,
Mazzilli.
The Chair:
The motion to defer is lost.
On the motion, those
opposed to the motion?
1610
Mr Kormos:
Point of order, Chair: We haven't had debate on the motion yet.
Please, let's pretend to have a democratic process here.
The Chair:
That's for your privilege.
Mr Kormos:
No, it's for the Chair to call for debate.
The Chair:
I just called for it. Do you want a debate?
Mr Kormos:
After I reminded you. The mover should debate first.
Mr
Martiniuk: Do I have the floor?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr Kormos:
I'm trying to help the Chair as much as I can.
Mr Martiniuk: I guess one thing
that has changed-Mr Kormos talks about tradition-is that he and
others in his party have taken what was a grand old party to a
very small number. They have found great disfavour with the
public. However, that's not what we're here to discuss.
I am suggesting that it's
entirely appropriate for the committee to give its direction to
the subcommittee on how the subcommittee should conduct its
decisions, particularly where there's a lack of consensus among
the committee members.
In Ontario, subcommittees
exist at the direction and discretion of the committee. They are
regularly asked to assist in the scheduling of government
business. According to standing order 123, the subcommittee is
the body directed "to report to the committee on the business of
the committee." The subcommittee's typical role here in Ontario
is to make organizational decisions for that committee. In that
context, it is appropriate that the committee be able to give
direction to the subcommittee on what considerations to apply
when making the necessary organizational decisions.
As occurs from time to
time, the committee can overturn a subcommittee report. That is
because the subcommittee exists at the pleasure of the committee
and ultimately subject to the committee's will, just as the
committee is ultimately subject to the will of the House.
As Erskine May states on
page 659 of the 22nd Edition: "Committees have been empowered ...
to appoint subcommittees for any purpose within their order of
reference." This includes giving directions to consider various
subjects, to take evidence from experts, to write reports and
conduct hearings in various locations.
Just so, the committee may
give any number of directions to its subcommittees, including a
directive on how to pursue the selection of witnesses. This is
made quite explicit on page 660 of Erskine May where it states,
"Though committees with power to appoint subcommittees cannot
confer on such subcommittees powers in excess of those which the
House has authorized, they may nevertheless make orders
regulating the transaction of business by their
subcommittees."
This surely includes a
direction on how to deal with lack of consensus among
subcommittee members in the selection of witnesses.
The House passed a
directive governing its own practices to better reflect the
proportionality of the caucuses. Just as the House may pass such
a directive for its own practices, so too may the committee pass
a motion governing the proportionality of its own practices as
reflected in the activities of the subcommittee.
A look at the Canadian
House of Commons reveals that their committees have a mechanism
in place to ensure some degree of proportionality in the
selection of witnesses. As Beauchesne makes clear on page 236 of
the 6th Edition, only the federal committees and their
subcommittees may make decisions as to which witnesses may be
called. This provides the federal committees with full
proportionality in the witness selection process. Furthermore,
the federal committees ensure that all of their subcommittees
also reflect the proportions of the full committee.
As section 790 of
Beauchesne states, "The membership"-of subcommittees-"is in the
same numerical proportion to that of political parties
represented in the committee."
This is something we could
and should pursue in Ontario to ensure that our subcommittees
make their decisions in a manner which represents the voices of
the full committee, or can we put in place a motion like the one
I'm proposing today, which simply directs the subcommittee on how
to conduct itself where its members fail to reach a consensus?
The committee is not telling the subcommittee who to select as
witnesses, simply what procedure to follow when agreement cannot
be reached.
The government has four
members on this committee, the Liberals have two members and the
NDP has only one. In terms of witness selection, if the current
motion is adopted, the NDP would still have input on at least 20%
of the selections despite having less than 10% of the elected
seats in the Legislature.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo
(Ottawa West-Nepean): That's generous.
Mr
Martiniuk: I thought it was very generous. Therefore,
the proposed rotation is still weighted in favour of the NDP.
This is the same rotation that the House adopted for itself in
rotation of debates and by all measures appears to be working
well in that form.
The precedent from the
federal House of Commons is quite clear. In his ruling of January
12, 1971, Speaker Lamoureux stated that t he standing committee
is "free to adopt whatever procedure it may deem appropriate in
the circumstances for the calling of witnesses, including, if it
so wishes, a procedure different from that suggested in the
committee clerk's letter. All that is required is an appropriate
motion carried by a majority of its members."
Mr Chair, what I am
proposing today is within the rules governing this committee. It
conforms with the precedents here in Ontario and in other
jurisdictions and, above all, it is a fairer practice that will
better reflect the membership of this committee as we proceed to
public hearings in this Parliament.
Mr Kormos:
Obviously speaking in opposition to this-and I can assure Mr
Martiniuk that he didn't have to remind me that the New Democrats
only elected nine. Indeed, during the course of the election I
saw the polls and I was concerned, but then eventually relieved
at the outcome. I was concerned that we might reach the point the
federal Conservatives did in-what was it?-1993 when they elected
but two members to the federal House of Commons. In that case,
we've done over four times as well as the federal Conservatives
did in the election of 1993.
I don't take any comfort
from the fact that we have only nine members, but at the end of
the day I don't deny it; nor do I not accept the reality that
people in this province elected Conservatives in sufficient
numbers to form a majority government and, again, similarly
elected Liberals in more
than sufficient numbers to form the official opposition. I
respect that because, quite frankly, I respect democracy.
I appreciate the reference
that the federal House of Commons process was utilized many times
during various stages of what really wasn't a debate over the
most recent rule changes which resulted in, among other things,
the New Democrats acquiring official party status.
Firstly, let's understand
that the federal Parliament has in excess of 300 members. It's a
huge number of members and therefore the rules that govern
question period, that govern debate in the federal Parliament
necessarily must be somewhat more restrictive because of the huge
numbers of people. In fact, it's over three times as large as the
provincial Legislature and in theory then would take three times
as long to implement a particular legislative process, a motion,
if the debate were unrestrained.
Now that's not to say that
I am pleased about the so-called proportionality standards that
were used in determining the new order period and debate in the
Legislature or the new order period in question period. I should
indicate they were matters that were imposed upon the NDP. It
certainly wasn't the New Democrats' suggestion that they be
restricted in the course of debate or restricted in the course of
question period. It was the price we had to pay and a price we
paid knowingly to obtain official party status.
We move then from the House
to committee. In 1988, as a newly elected member, as I'm sure
most newly-and I had the good fortune, quite frankly, to be
elected to an opposition caucus. I say that because in the
government of 1987, the Liberal government, there was a huge
number of Liberals elected who were neophytes, who had never been
in opposition. In 1990, there was a huge number of New Democrats,
neophytes, at least to Parliament, who had never been in
opposition, and in 1995, a huge number of Conservatives,
neophytes, who had never been in opposition.
1620
All three of those
parliaments, and I say this very conscious of what I'm saying-the
Liberal government of 1987, the NDP government of 1990 and the
Conservative government of 1995, and it appears to be following
suit again in 1999, because those who were reelected have never
enjoyed the experience of opposition and those that were newly
elected, of course, as Conservatives similarly never enjoyed the
experience of opposition. All three of those governments-Liberal,
New Democrat and Conservative-displayed from time to time and,
unfortunately, as the years progressed, increasingly so,
incredible levels of arrogance. They demonstrated incredible
disdain for the opposition. They just couldn't understand why
opposition members were doing what they were doing. They were
extremely frustrated by it. I have no doubt about that.
To be fair, in the Liberal
government of 1987 to 1990, those government members who had
before 1985 served in opposition-many of them are still with the
caucus-had a far more balanced view about the opposition and
understood what opposition was doing and understood, as I believe
I and other members who have served in opposition do, that
opposition is critical to good government. Quite frankly, a
government is only as good as the opposition that is present.
I find this particular
motion to be yet another illustration of that incredible
arrogance, the abuse of power and disdain for opposition. It is
quite frankly, amongst other things, incapable of being compared
to any rules that might be adopted in the provincial Legislature,
in the House, that are designed to facilitate the flow of
debate.
Notwithstanding that, let's
understand that the rule changes that have occurred
vis-à-vis the standing orders and the rules of the House
through the course of 1987 through 1990 through 1995 and now,
once again, in 1999 have been tremendous. There's been a
tremendous and dramatic shift in the rules of this
Legislature.
I've got to confess that
when the Liberal government of 1987 to 1990 proposed rule changes
which in comparison, historically, seem relatively modest, I was
shocked and concerned back then. I voted against those rule
changes that restricted opposition members' rights. The New
Democrats again imposed rule changes that further restricted the
rights of the opposition. Those very same people who were
elected, neophytes, didn't understand what opposition members
were doing or why they were doing it and they felt so affronted.
My goodness, their egos, such tiny little egos, were challenged
by the fact that opposition members would dare protest a piece of
legislation or object to a bill or object to the introduction of
a bill or the timing of the bill in terms of orders of the day.
They just didn't get it.
Rule changes occurred
again, and I voted against those rule changes. Similarly, I voted
against rule changes that occurred after the government of 1995,
which were undoubtedly prompted by the megacity debate and the
tactics, the undeniable tactics, that were used by opposition
members to draw attention to the megacity debate.
Why do opposition parties
feel compelled to do this? Why are they obligated to do this?
One of the concerns that
all of us should have about this Legislature is that the use of
new rules, the implementation of new standards which increasingly
restrict the role of opposition members and, quite frankly,
denigrate the role of individual members, denigrate the role of
so-called "backbenchers"-because at the end of the day it's
backbenchers of all three caucuses, including government
caucuses, who are impacted-is designed to facilitate the passage
of legislation, and not just to speed up legislation, but to
accelerate it at the speed of light. The rationale for this is
that the faster you get it done and over with, the less public
attention it attracts, the less opportunity the press or any of
the media have to present it to the public, the less informed the
public is and the less resistance there is out there in
communities to the legislation.
As a matter of fact, it's
rather strange that I would adopt the reasoning of one Sir Karl
Popper, the British philosopher and mathematician, who was a very
conservative fellow, I
must say, and who died recently. Popper's theory of refutation is
an extremely valid one and one which all of us should take heed
of when we present arguments or propositions. His position was
that when you test a theory, you test it by trying to refute it,
by subjecting it to criticism. Can it withstand this criticism?
Can it withstand these objections etc?
My concern about a
government that wants to grease legislation up and slide it
through is that maybe the legislation doesn't withstand scrutiny,
maybe the legislation doesn't withstand the public overseeing or
overviewing it.
If the argument could be
made that we have such a harried legislative agenda for the fall
of 1999, it should be heard. The fact is that as of a week ago
this Legislature sat all of-what was it?-three and a half weeks
in a whole year. In a period of a whole 12 months, this
Legislature sat some three and a half-maybe by now it's up to
four-weeks. That reveals to me that there isn't much of a
legislative agenda at all. In fact it appears that there's
relatively little on the government plate that has a sense of
urgency to it, if anything has a sense of urgency to it.
You know, or you ought to
know, and my experience here tells me, that delay actions by the
opposition are all but eliminated. Trust me. I look for them on a
daily basis. I would seize upon any opportunity I could if there
were loopholes or angles, as such, in the rules that would permit
usage of procedural motions or what have you for the purpose of
mere delay.
I don't understand why the
committee would want to restrict the number or type of
submissions that are made to it. This committee has the capacity
to be the most democratic element of government or parliamentary
process, because this is the process whereby the public comes
here, ranging from lay people from neighbourhoods that we all
live in, just plain folks, all the way up to professors and
experts and consultants and lobby groups and, I suppose, special
interest groups. This is their chance to come forward and express
views on proposed legislation and to suggest what its impact is
going to be on them or upon their neighbours or upon colleagues.
That seems to me to make this committee perhaps the most
important part of anything that occurs within this legislative
precinct.
At the end of the day the
government always has the majority in the committee. The
government can ensure that its motions or amendments are passed,
can ensure that opposition motions or amendments fail. The
government wields the majority. It is rare that there is a
government member with sufficient courage to vote contrary to how
they're whipped. I've had occasion from time to time to talk to
government members who acknowledge that they don't believe in
what they're voting for but are voting that way because they've
been whipped into voting that way. It's a sad acknowledgement. It
requires a little bit of courage on the part of a government
member and some small amount of sacrifice, because it means
you're subject to punishment. The sacrifice is a monetary one,
because I know how whipping occurs. The leverage that's used is
that you lose your Vice-Chair job, your committee Chair job, your
deputy whip, your parliamentary assistant, the whole nine yards.
These of course raise MPPs' salaries, from the base salary of
$78,000, by $4,000 and change and on up to I think $10,000,
$11,000, $12,000, depending on which position you hold.
1630
It's unfortunate that that
is the primary motivator. I would understand fidelity as a
stronger motivator than literally hard, cold cash, especially
when at the end of the day even a PA's additional salary-what is
it, $12,000 or so?-in the total scheme of things isn't a whole
lot of money. It is a lot of money, but it isn't in the total
scheme of things, when you talk about compromising what you
believe in to retain that PA position. That's one of the things
I've found perhaps saddest about my 11 years here. I am intimate
with all of the tactics that a caucus and its whips and its
leader and its executive and its members can utilize to try to
whip a member into shape. Trust me. I'm very intimate with every
single one of them, but I carry my scars with some pride. I'll
concede that, yes, I know well what it means to be demoted from
one level down to another down to another so there's nowhere left
to demote you to. I understand that. But the real test is if you
can maintain your integrity and do what undoubtedly every one of
us felt compelled to do when elected as members, that great pride
that any of us have.
I speak to Mr Mazzilli,
who's newly elected. He's in a privileged position. Only 103
Ontarians have the chance to do what he's doing at any given
point in time. I say that to him. He's a Conservative, but I have
regard for him irrespective of the fact that we probably disagree
philosophically on so many issues. He's one of but 103 Ontarians
out of 11 million who are privileged to represent their
communities, their constituencies here at Queen's Park. It's an
incredible honour. It's an incredible trust. I suppose the
decision to be made-because it doesn't take long to realize what
the pressures are.
I'm convinced-and I've said
this in so many places so many times-that people of all party
stripes come here full of vim and vinegar, ready to do things
differently from the way their predecessors had done them. They
weren't going to be like the rest. They were going to be bolder,
they were going to be more outspoken, they weren't going to be
co-opted by the system here. I'm confident that's true for
Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats.
I've also witnessed the
metamorphosis that occurs, as often as not within hours, if not
mere days, once all the perks start getting dangled, once the
pressure to fraternize, to belong to the group develops. It's
difficult sometimes being a minority of one. There are some
people sitting on the government side of this committee now who
know what sort of pressures can be put on them, what sort of
downright bullying sometimes can be utilized to try to whip them
into shape.
There are some members on
the government side who I suspect have been subjected to the
efforts to whip them into shape, whip them into line, "Tone down on
this issue; keep it quiet; play this down; don't raise that," and
who have similarly said: "No, go pound salt. I'm here to do a
job. There's something I believe in and I'm going to do it."
I found it interesting when
I was a government backbencher to see my colleagues sitting on
the government side of committee. Some of them had been in
opposition. I found it interesting but I also found it tragically
humiliating and embarrassing, because I saw them conduct
themselves, once they were in power, with a sense of arrogance
that I had never suspected of them, that was seemingly newborn,
that I had never thought they could ever possess, an absence of
humility and a hubris, which, as we all know, is a very dangerous
thing.
I think there might be some
opportunity to resolve this. I would request the committee's
consent for a five-minute recess, please, at this time while
reserving my right to maintain the floor.
The Chair:
You have three minutes more to speak.
Mr Kormos:
But I am asking for a five-minute recess.
The Chair:
Is there unanimous consent for a five-minute recess?
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): No.
The Chair:
No, there is not. You can continue.
Mr Kormos:
Thank you. I will, then, advise my Liberal counterparts that if
one of them were to leave the room, the remaining Liberal, with
respect to this issue, may request an adjournment prior to the
vote of up to 20 minutes, as of right, and that will facilitate a
recess. I see the Chair is going to utilize the time restraints
on my speaking to this motion. I would ask my Liberal colleagues,
if they're so inclined, to utilize that right. It would be
necessary for one of them to be absent from the room, because the
purpose of the recess, of course, is to seek out one's colleague
prior to a vote, and I suspect that a vote is going to be imposed
upon us very shortly.
I am very disappointed in
what has gone on today. I thought the committee was a place where
backbenchers could have a little more authority and role and
where there would be a little broader-based exchange of views and
perhaps some more lively debate about an issue than is permitted
in the House. It appears that the government members do not share
my view in that regard. I find that disappointing, but I also say
this: They were elected to power in 1995; they were elected to
power in 1999; the very nature of the beast indicates that at
some point some of them are going to be in opposition. They will
then have an opportunity to reflect on what they've done to the
rules here and to reflect on whether or not it was worth it as
they try to perform their very important roles and fulfill their
obligations to their membership or to their constituencies when
they're but members of the opposition.
I'm obviously voting
against this motion. I think this is not a matter for committee
to decide. The House leaders went through a lengthy negotiation
process. Quite frankly, if this were going to be developed as a
principle or as a rule, it should have been part of the subject
matter of the House leaders' process when they discussed House
rules, when various concessions were made by the opposition
parties, especially the New Democrats, to arrive at what we have
now, with New Democrats having official party status.
I've become increasingly
concerned about the committee. There are only two days to discuss
this bill; only one day and a couple of hours to hear submissions
from witnesses. At the end of the day, there aren't going to be
that many, in any event. Most of the public isn't even going to
be aware that the bill is passed, yet at the end of the day
people are going to be imprisoned or risk imprisonment as a
result of this legislation. That's what makes the bill so
tremendously important.
I know the government
arguments, and, quite frankly, I'm prepared to let them make
them; and I have counter-arguments. But this bill is one that has
the capacity to put people in jail. That makes it, in my view, a
very important piece of legislation. This bill has the capacity
to deprive people of their liberty in a supposedly democratic
country and province. That means that it should bear the closest
scrutiny, and the government is denying that close scrutiny by
this motion.
The Chair:
Any further debate?
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): Something has arisen. I know Mr Bryant was
expecting to discuss this motion, so I do have to ask for a
20-minute adjournment at this time.
The Chair:
We'd have to put the question first.
Mr
Crozier: Oh, when you put the question?
The Chair:
There's no further debate.
1640
Mr
Crozier: OK. Well, I'll continue to debate. I'll have my
say, and if he's not back, I'll have to do that if the question
is put. Sorry.
I am not arguing, in my
view, so much the content of the motion but back to what some of
the discussion was when we were considering whether the motion in
fact was in order. I would vote against this motion because I
honestly think it's something that should be dealt with by the
House leaders. Before a legislative session starts, there's a
great deal, I am told, of negotiation that goes on between the
three parties. Perhaps this year, this session, there was more
discussion than would normally take place, because there was a
dramatic change in the representation of one of the parties.
For example, and I doubt
that it's a coincidence, this motion would seem to me, in its
content, to very much mirror the order of questions in question
period. I don't know whether it's exactly that way, but it
appears to me to mirror that in content. That was the result of
negotiation among the three parties. Statements are no longer
given in the House in the same order, and I acknowledge that,
similar to how this proposes to change the rotation, if you like.
But that too was done through negotiation that took in probably a
number of other areas of the overall operation of government and
the opposition parties.
The rotation of debate in
the Legislature is different than it used to be. The three House
leaders, I assume, sat down and came to this conclusion. Mr
Martiniuk may be able to
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression that
there was any negotiation or consultation among the three parties
in this case.
It seems to me to be
setting a very dangerous precedent when the committee goes to the
extent that this motion goes. In fact, there may be other
submissions on what the rotation should be, but I'm not arguing
those merits. I just think this is a very important issue, one
that goes, yes, to the traditions of the House, where there are
certain decisions that are first discussed by the House leaders
as a group.
If Mr Martiniuk so chooses,
I would like to know if in fact the House leaders have discussed
this in one of their House leaders' meetings. If they have not,
then I know I have to vote against this because I honestly think,
and personally believe, that this is an issue that should be
discussed by the three House leaders, and then that direction can
be brought back to this committee and we can vote that way. I
don't see where it would do any harm. I think it would add to the
importance of this motion if the three House leaders had an
opportunity to discuss it as part of those overall negotiations
that go on through this Legislature.
I will now defer to my
colleague, if he so chooses.
Mr Bryant:
I'm going to be brief because most of my points have been covered
by Mr Crozier. I just wish to say that if we had had sufficient
notice of this motion, our position might have been more informed
and there might have been an opportunity for the House leaders to
discuss this among themselves and perhaps either an amendment of
the motion, which might have been agreeable to the government, or
support from the official opposition or from the third party
might have been forthcoming. But as a result of this, there was
not time to do that.
We have rules governing
this committee which require that if somebody substitutes for
another member, half an hour notice has to be given for that
substitution. That's in order that the order of the committee is
preserved. Surely the same decorum and conventions and notice
periods ought to be provided at least with respect to providing a
best effort at giving enough notice for motions of this sort.
This is a matter which, I
am pleased to hear from the Chair, does not amend a standing
order. It is a motion which is in no way going to bind any other
committee. It does come close to standing order 111(a). It
doesn't amend it or affect it, I agree, but it clearly is in the
nature of that standing order and as such ought to have been
discussed among the House leaders and not been forced upon this
committee.
As a result, because of the
process and because of the lack of notice and because of the
failure to direct this to the House leaders and follow the
convention that has been followed to date among those House
leaders, I will be opposing the motion. That's all I have to
say.
The Chair:
Seeing there is no further debate, I'll put the question.
Mr Kormos:
Recorded vote, please.
AYES
DeFaria, Guzzo, Martiniuk,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Bryant, Crozier,
Kormos.
The Chair:
The motion is passed.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair:
As the next order of business of the standing committee on
justice and social policy, we have a subcommittee report on
business. This has to do with Bill 8. I can read it or the
committee can ask me to dispense.
Mr Kormos:
Mr Chair, if I may. No, I'll not say anything at this point.
The Chair:
Does someone want to read this into the record?
Mr
Martiniuk: "Your subcommittee on committee business met
on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, and recommends the following with
respect to Bill 8, An Act to promote safety in Ontario by
prohibiting aggressive solicitation, solicitation of persons in
certain places and disposal of dangerous things in certain
places, and to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate certain
activities on roadways, 1999.
"(1) That the committee
meet for the purpose of conducting public hearings on Monday,
November 29, 1999, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm.
"(2) That witnesses be
allotted 10, 15, 20 minutes, depending on the number of requests
received.
"(3) That interested people
who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 8
should contact the committee clerk by 5 pm on Thursday, November
25, 1999.
"(4) That the committee
will post information regarding the hearings on the Ontario
Parliamentary Channel.
"(5) That the deadline for
written submissions be 5 pm, Monday, November 29, 1999.
"(6) That amendments be
tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon, Tuesday,
November 30, 1999.
"(7) That the subcommittee
authorize the clerk in consultation with the Chair of the
committee to schedule witnesses from the names of members of the
public who contacted the Clerk's office directly and to make all
arrangements necessary for public hearings.
"(8) That the committee
meet on November 30, 1999, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm for
clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
"(9) That at the beginning
of clause-by-clause, each caucus be allowed 20 minutes for
statements; however, should the committee meeting start late, the
remaining time until 4:30 pm will be distributed equally. The
rotation will commence with the government, followed by the
official opposition and then the third party."
The Chair:
Any debate on this?
Mr Kormos: I'm going to move an
amendment. I move that paragraph 7 be deleted.
1650
The Chair:
Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr
Martiniuk: I don't understand the reasoning. Perhaps Mr
Kormos would favour me with his reasoning? I'm asking the
question. I don't understand why that should be deleted. Nothing
we've done to date would affect the meaning of that clause 7 that
was agreed to in the subcommittee.
The Chair:
Mr Kormos, do you care to respond?
Mr Kormos:
No, thank you.
Mr
Martiniuk: We'll be opposing that amendment.
The Chair:
No further debate on the motion?
Mr Kormos:
I moved an amendment.
The Chair:
That's what I'm dealing with. Is there any more debate on the
amendment? No further debate?
On the amendment to the
motion, all those in favour of the amendment, which is to delete
paragraph 7?
Mr Kormos:
Recorded vote, please.
AYES
Bryant, Kormos.
NAYS
DeFaria, Guzzo, Martiniuk,
Mazzilli.
The Chair:
The motion to amend is lost.
On the standing committee
motion as read, is there any further debate?
Mr Kormos:
Of course, I feel compelled to speak to this in a way that I
wouldn't have otherwise.
I was present at the
subcommittee, of course. I was present along with Mr Martiniuk,
who spoke for, I'm confident, the government, and with the member
capably there for the official opposition.
I appreciate it was a time
allocation motion. I simply want to remind the committee before
it approves this that this bill was introduced, underwent
literally a few hours of debate in the Legislature. It's not a
lengthy bill, but what it does is to empower not only arrest but
imprisonment. It creates new offences. At this point I'm not
going to argue whether or not those new offences are justified,
but the mere fact that it does that, that it creates new
offences, in my view makes it worthy of serious
consideration.
I was pleased today to read
in the paper that the federal government, for instance, in an
omnibus justice bill, responded to the issue of the
cruelty-to-animals sentencing provisions and in this package
amends various sections to permit judges to impose more extensive
sentences, something the provincial Legislature discussed a
couple of weeks ago in private members' business. Dr Galt, a
Conservative member, in private members' business had the support
of all three caucuses.
So it doesn't amend an
existing statute which has already established the criminality of
certain types of behaviour. It defines new offences. That means
it's a watermark sort of point. Again, the consequences for
violation include not just fines but also imprisonment. For the
life of me, I couldn't think of any consideration by any
Parliament of the creation of new offences which subject people
to arrest and imprisonment upon conviction that had received such
short shrift by way of debate as this does.
Although the bill is modest
in terms of its length, you're talking about extremely important
things, and whether or not the objectives are laudable is aside
from the point that you've got a provincial statute here pursuant
to which people could go to jail and conceivably will go to jail.
For that to be the subject matter of debate in the Parliament for
but a few hours, I find to be incredibly irresponsible.
The government knows I
don't agree with it on the bill. That's not the point. We
received short shrift in debate, and I appreciate that the
committee has no power to override the time allocation motion,
but let's make it very clear that it wasn't the subcommittee that
decided that this will be the subject matter of but two days of
committee discussion. It was the time allocation motion which
killed debate on it in the House, and what that means is that but
a handful of people are going to be able to make submissions on
this.
Because of the short time
frame-take a look at that. The bill has to be reported back,
apparently, by December 3, which means that the only two possible
dates that it can be heard in committee are next Monday and
Tuesday. Advertising of that can only take place commencing,
let's say, tomorrow on the legislative broadcast channel.
It was futile for the
subcommittee to even consider the prospect of advertising across
the province so that members of all communities across the
province would have an opportunity to at least make written
submissions, because this will be subjected to but four or five
days of even legislative broadcast advertising.
This is a bill that the
government would argue is not criminalizing any behaviour,
because of course the government doesn't have the jurisdiction.
The provincial government doesn't have that jurisdiction, does
it, to create criminal offences? But nonetheless, let me be
generous. That creates quasi-criminal offences in that they are
offences which can subject the individual to arrest and
imprisonment-arrest, detention and imprisonment, I should put
more precisely-and its public hearing process is going to consist
of but one afternoon and maybe an hour or two the subsequent day
of submissions. Those submissions are going to be incredibly
restrictive.
This committee is going to
have lost the opportunity to hear from any number of people who
may support or oppose the bill, but also any number of people who
may have things to say about the bill such as its
constitutionality. I'm only here as a representative of the
people of Niagara Centre but far be it from me to suggest that
challenges about the constitutionality of this bill might prevail
because it does invade federal jurisdiction. It's already been suggested by way of
press commentary by lawyers that that certainly would be a
target.
I'm concerned that this
committee isn't going to have a chance to hear from the relevant
cross section of community members who are perhaps concerned
about the ills or the conduct this bill is designed to restrain
or prevent or prohibit, or about the impact of the bill on our
downtowns, let's say, or about the enforceability of the bill or
whether or not this bill will require an allocation of policing
resources that in any way does justice to the community.
We've obviously got
neighbourhoods here in the city of Toronto, where just a few days
ago, it's clear, a young man could be beaten to his death in full
view of members of the public, and here's a bill designed to
allocate police resources to squeegee kids and/or panhandlers,
beggars and/or people who throw away their condoms in public
places-used condoms only, mind you, not new ones. Surely this
committee might want to hear from members of the public who have
concern about the fact that a rapist could terrorize Scarborough
over a period of weeks. The police, notwithstanding all of the
limited resources available to them, found themselves frustrated
as they tried to track down this perpetrator and women felt
themselves vulnerable day after day, night after night.
1700
Surely this committee might
want to hear from people who would express concern that the bill
is going to call upon police forces to use their resources to put
panhandlers under surveillance so that the offence can be
detected or to put persons who use condoms publicly under
surveillance of one sort or another, to find out whether in fact
they're disposing of those used condoms-first of all, I guess
they have to determine whether or not the condoms are used and
whether they're disposing of them in an inappropriate manner-or
street drug users who would shoot up on the street and throw away
their syringe, again in places to which the public has access.
You've got no quarrel from me about that sort of stuff being
beyond objectionable and annoying, and in the case of syringes
certainly downright dangerous, but there might be some commentary
from any number of people out there in this huge province about
the effectiveness of this bill, that it's truly dealing with the
issue.
I'm not going to deny that
there are areas in this community, and perhaps others, where
neighbourhoods find themselves encumbered or plagued by syringes
disposed of in places that their kids or other members of the
public have access, or they slip-slide on their way to work as
they step on used condoms. Again, I haven't encountered any, but
I haven't gone looking. Obviously other people have. The Attorney
General went looking and we're told he found one. Whether the
mine was salted or not, I'm not about to suggest that, but I
can't for the life of me think of what civil servant or member of
that minister's bureaucracy or political staff would have been
called upon to salt the mines that the minister's photo op could
be more effective than it would have been had he gone searching
through an alleyway without stumbling upon a new or used syringe.
I don't know whether the press reports included the used condom
or not.
I find it incredible that a
community in northern Toronto, in the Finch area, is clearly
terrorized after the death of a young man by the perpetrators of
that public beating death. Chair, you've read the press reports.
You understand what happened just a few days ago. A young man was
beaten to death, not shot from a distance. The reports indicate
that a young man was beaten to death, pummelled to death by one
or more people in public within the sight and in the presence of
any number of other people. I can't imagine what could be more
frightening to a community than to know that that has taken
place, or more tragic to an individual and/or their family. I'm
confident that Toronto cops are doing everything they can to
track down the perpetrators of that crime and to make sure that
charges are laid and that due process follows.
But, my God, we've then got
an Attorney General downtown doing photo ops with squeegee kids
and panhandlers, and there are people being murdered. I don't
understand the proportionality there. I don't understand the
obsession with squeegee kids and panhandlers when clearly there
are huge collections of neighbourhoods, communities living in
fear of violence. We read of swarmings and
swarming-purse-snatching types of incidents and we're telling
cops, "Go out there and bust yourself a squeegee kid today." I
don't understand the lack of perspective that's contained in this
bill.
If squeegee kids are
annoying-and, look, I happen not to find them annoying. I
understand that other people do, and I don't object, I don't
challenge other people when they say they find it annoying. But,
Lord, to be confronted by a squeegee kid who says, "Squeegee your
window, mister?" is a far cry from being attacked in a public
place and being beaten to death, literally, with fists and
weapons and boots. I think there are people in the community who
in response to this bill might want to raise that very point.
Some government members
have from time to time expressed concern-and I, quite frankly,
don't disagree with them and I'll carry that concern one
further-about how so often it seems-at least the press publicizes
them, and that's why they're publicized, because they're the
notorious cases-that crimes, let's say, of incredible violence
result in modest or seemingly modest sentences or sentences that
are abbreviated or interrupted by early release or parole boards
or what have you.
We've got drug traffickers
out there. We've got pimps out there. We've got in this city
alone, and you know it, the phenomenon of contemporary slavery,
where women are brought here from other countries-Russia appears
to be one of the countries, East Asian countries-many of them
young women, and some we've discovered from what the press
reported as young as 14 and 15 years old, and are held
effectively in slavery while they're forced to dance in erotic
clubs, and I have no doubt prostitution is part and parcel. We've
got pimps like that out there who should be targeted and hit hard for long jail
sentences. Yet we aren't saving the cells for those pimps, we
aren't telling police to get out there and giving the police the
resources to go out there and shut down the pimping that goes on
or the drug trafficking that goes on or the swarming that goes on
or the home invasions that go on. This bill is telling cops to go
out there and bust a squeegee kid, go out there and observe a
panhandler to see if he or she might be drunk or stoned such that
they violate the terms or the provisions of the bill.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I
thought we were just reviewing the submissions from the
subcommittee and not debating the bill. My friend seems to be
going into the bill.
The Chair:
He's got a couple of minutes left.
Mr Kormos:
How many minutes, Chair?
The Chair:
Three minutes.
Mr Kormos:
It's always three minutes, isn't it? My timing is impeccable.
I think you get my drift,
as it is in this case, gentlemen on the committee. I find it
incredibly unfortunate that we're restricted by the time
allocation motion. I think we're doing the public a disservice, I
think we're doing the cops a disservice and, quite frankly, I
think we're doing this Legislature a disservice.
Having said that, I
acknowledge the committee has no choice but to submit itself to
these time restrictions. I have no hesitation-and the committee
has no power. That's exactly what I said: The committee is
subject to the House. Other people didn't agree with me about
that earlier. The committee has no power. I wish that Mr
Martiniuk were here to move a motion to say, no, the committee
can control its own process, to heck with the time allocation
motion. But he's not making that motion right now. His sense of
autonomy has dissipated and disappeared.
That having been said and
done, I'll be supporting the report, but only under what I
consider some peculiar duress.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Kormos. Are you finished?
Anyone else? Any further
debate on the motion? No further debate. I put the question: All
those in favour of the subcommittee report motion? The motion is
carried.
The next order of business
is the subcommittee motion on Bill 9. Mr Kormos, would you like
to read that into the record?
1710
Mr Kormos:
I move, pursuant to the subcommittee report on committee business
which flows from a subcommittee on committee business meeting of
Thursday, November 18, 1999, with respect to Bill 9, the Police
Records Checks by Non-profit Agencies Act:
(1) That the committee meet
for the purpose of conducting public hearings on Monday, December
6, 1999, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm and on Tuesday, December 7, 1999,
from 3:30 pm to 5 pm.
(2) That witnesses be
allotted 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending on the number of requests
received.
(3) That interested people
who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 9
should contact the committee clerk by 5 pm on Thursday, December
2, 1999.
(4) That the committee will
post information regarding the hearings on the Ontario
Parliamentary Channel.
(5) That the deadline for
written submissions be 5 pm, Friday, December 3, 1999.
(6) That amendments be
tabled with the clerk of the committee at the earlier of (a)
submissions being completed or (b) 5 pm, Tuesday, December 7,
1999.
(7) That the subcommittee
authorize the clerk in consultation with the Chair of the
committee to schedule witnesses from the names of members of the
public who contacted the Clerk's office directly, and to make all
arrangements necessary for public hearings.
(8) That the committee meet
on December 7, 1999, following public hearings for
clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
(9) That at the beginning
of clause-by-clause, each caucus be allowed five minutes for
opening statements if they wish.
The Chair:
Any debate on this motion?
Mr
Mazzilli: I move an amendment to part 2: "That witnesses
be allotted 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending on the number of
requests received, and that time be allocated equally among the
stakeholders, example, volunteer organizations and police
services or police services boards."
The Chair:
I just want to understand this amendment. Paragraph 2 currently
reads, "That witnesses be allotted 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending
on the number of requests received." Are you adding, "and that
time be shared equally by stakeholders, example, volunteer
organizations, police services or police services boards"?
Mr
Mazzilli: That's correct, the intent being that all
stakeholders be allowed to split the time to give evidence to the
committee, or how this may or may not impact their
organization.
The Chair:
I understand the motion to amend paragraph 2 is: "That witnesses
be allotted 10, 15 or 20 minutes depending on the number of
requests received, and that time be shared equally by
stakeholders, example, volunteer organizations, police services
or police services boards."
Mr
Mazzilli: That's correct.
The Chair:
Do you want to speak on that?
Mr
Mazzilli: As I brought out at the subcommittee meeting,
I think it's important for the subcommittee to hear from
different stakeholders and that time be allotted or equally split
among them. There are generally two groups that I suspect would
be impacted by this bill-at least two-and that would be volunteer
organizations, police services or police services boards and
perhaps municipalities, but police services boards generally do
have representation on that. Those are my points on that, and I
ask that that amendment be carried.
Mr Kormos:
I'm prepared to adopt that into my motion, subject to the wording
being, "that positions be allocated equally among stakeholders; for
example, volunteer agencies, police services boards," and leave
it at that. I say "for example" because I suggest to Mr Mazzilli
that taxpayers are stakeholders, and where would you classify
them? They aren't so easily slotted.
You and I talked about this
at subcommittee. Mr Mazzilli is adding something, and I am
adopting it as part of my motion, basically reflecting something
we talked about at the subcommittee. I acknowledge that, but I
say "for example" because it's not restricted to. Taxpayers are
stakeholders here as well. If Jane Smith or John Doe wants to
come forward as a taxpayer-they're neither a volunteer agency nor
a police services board, yet they're very much a stakeholder. I
suspect that in your suggestion-this is what I'm getting from
you. You and I have never had a problem communicating yet. What
I'm getting from you is that you're saying you want fairness. You
want equal representation of all stakeholders.
I submit to you that we
have to leave some discretion to the clerk. We talked about this
in subcommittee. That means that should taxpayers come forward,
they are yet a third stakeholder distinct from either police
services boards, Big Brothers, Big Sisters or other volunteer
agencies, which is what we had in mind. You couldn't object to
that, could you?
Mr
Mazzilli: Mr Chair, I will object to that. Taxpayers are
certainly a group out there, but police services are taxpayers
and volunteer organizations and volunteers are taxpayers. In my
submission, what Mr Kormos has proposed is covered within the
umbrella of police services and volunteers or volunteer
organizations.
The Chair:
I understand that. I'll just ask you for a clarification. Mr
Kormos, have you got a further amendment to his amendment or are
we going to leave it as is?
Mr Kormos:
No, I don't have to go through an amendment here. I'm prepared to
adopt his language in the motion, but let's make it quite clear.
We're trying to create fairness. Surely you're not calling for
anything more than fairness. You don't want this to be stacked,
do you? You want simple fairness. What more could any of us
request? Is that right, Mr Mazzilli?
Mr
Mazzilli: That's correct, and that's why I've agreed to
a 50-50, equally split time among the stakeholders. It's
important to get both-
Mr Kormos:
Fairness, fairness.
The Chair:
I think I understand that Mr Kormos-
Mr Kormos:
Right, Mr Mazzilli?
The Chair:
-can support your amendment, because it is an amendment to the
motion we have on the floor.
Mr Bryant.
Mr Bryant:
Since we're delving into the minutiae of the wording of this, I
presume that you're not trying to restrict this to two categories
of stakeholders, in which case should we not say after the word
"stakeholders," "including but not restricted to" the
stakeholders you have just mentioned?
Mr
Mazzilli: The two groups I mentioned are probably the
stakeholders most affected by this piece of legislation, but
certainly not restricted to them.
Mr Bryant:
Fine.
The Chair:
Do you have-
Mr Bryant:
No, no.
The Chair:
It is just an interpretation issue?
Mr Bryant:
As long as the Chair and all parties agree on what we're trying
to get at, fine.
The Chair:
We're just dealing with the amendment at this time.
Mr Bryant:
OK.
The Chair:
Just a clarification: Paragraph 7 indicates, "That the
subcommittee authorize the clerk in consultation with the Chair
of the committee to schedule witnesses from the names of members
of the public who contacted the Clerk's office directly, and to
make all arrangements necessary for public hearings." In the
event that we are not contacted by one of the two groups-for
example, if the volunteer organizations don't contact us-we're
obviously not going to be able to share the time equally. I'm
looking for some direction on that.
Mr
Mazzilli: If the committee or subcommittee was not
contacted by any groups that wanted to be represented, then the
time would not have to be shared equally.
The Chair:
I think you're going to deal with the specific language to that.
Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos:
Please, Mr Mazzilli, something like fairness is just a simple
proposition. What we're talking about is that the clerk should
make every effort to ensure that the interests of police services
boards as compared to the interests of volunteer agencies are
represented equally, or as equally as possible.
Mr
Mazzilli: That's right.
Mr Kormos:
That wasn't hard, was it? No. It wasn't hard, was it, Mr
Mazzilli? It's fairness. Quite right, fairness.
The Chair:
What's the end of your discussion?
Mr Kormos:
Fairness. That the clerk make every effort, which means she has
to base it on what's presented to her to provide equal
representation.
The Chair:
I'll add this-this may be the only way to deal with it. After the
word "that," put in "if applicable." That's the only way I can
see this working. Would you be agreeable to that?
Mr
Martiniuk: Yes.
The Chair:
So it would read, "That witnesses be allotted 10, 15 or 20
minutes depending on the number of requests received and that, if
applicable, time be shared equally by stakeholders, example,
volunteer organizations, public services or public services
boards." Is that all right?
Mr
Mazzilli: The word "applicable" applies on consent.
The Chair:
I'm going to put the motion on the amendment. All those in
favour? Carried.
The motion, as amended, all
those in favour? Carried.
Seeing that there's no
further business, the committee will adjourn until Monday,
November 29, at 3:30 pm.
