Wednesday 25 June 1997

Subcommittee report

Use of Legislative Assembly coat of arms

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette

Semiannual review: Sergeant at Arms

Mr Dennis Clark, Sergeant at Arms

National Conference of State Legislatures


Chair / Président: Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /

Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)

Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /

Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)

Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South / -Sud PC)

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East / -Est PC)

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East / -Est L)

Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)

Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Clerk Pro Tem /

Greffière par intérim: Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel: Mr Lewis Yeager, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1646 in room 228.


The Chair (Mr Joseph Tascona): I would like to convene the meeting of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. The first item is the subcommittee report. I'd just like to read that for the committee.

"Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, June 18, 1997, to discuss the future business of the committee and it has agreed to recommend:

"1. That the following matters be considered at the June 25, 1997, meeting of the committee:

"(a) the use of the legislative coat of arms on members' rings;

"(b) the semi-annual review of the Clerk of the House on changes in the administration of the House and on the provision of services to members, the semi-annual review of the Sergeant at Arms on security at the Legislature, and the annual review of the televising of the legislative proceedings; and

"(c) the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures (Philadelphia, August 6 to 9, 1997).

"2. That, if it is scheduled to meet on August 20, 1997, the committee proceed with consideration of Bill 132, An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario, on that day; that Lillian Ross, MPP, be notified of this meeting; and that notice of this meeting be broadcast on the parliamentary cable television service.

"3. That the consideration of other items of business be deferred until the meeting after the June 25, 1997, meeting of the committee."

Do I have a motion to adopt the report of the subcommittee?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): So moved.

The Chair: All those in favour say "aye."

All those against say "nay."

The ayes have it.


The Chair: The next matter of business we have is the use of the legislative coat of arms on members' rings. There is background material on this, and the presenter is Jerry J. Ouellette, MPP.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Essentially what has taken place, so people understand, is that members were approached by a private company that had asked if members of the Legislature were interested in purchasing, on their own, rings that signified, in the same manner that the pins do, that they were members of the Legislature, and as such, a presentation was made. All caucuses were actually invited to it. I spoke to members from each of the caucuses and invited them.

This individual was proceeding on, and then it was determined that the Legislative Assembly actually owns the coat of arms and all rights that are involved with that. What we're here to discuss today, I believe, is that the coat of arms be allowed to be used and for members to purchase their own rings. That's what we're open for discussion on, if there is any discussion or concerns about how the process is to take place.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Mr Ouellette, it's my understanding that at least one company has already made some kind of presentation to either this committee or to the staff in the building responsible for ordering this sort of paraphernalia.

My only comment would be that as long as what we're doing is promoting a competitive process that would derive the best price for the best quality, I would certainly support the use of this. I think members have indicated in the past that they would like the option of having a ring fashioned with the coat of arms. I think that would be quite appropriate and just as fitting as the lapel pins we currently wear. So as long as it's a process that is well communicated to the industry and derives the best product for the best price, I would totally support a move in this direction.

The Chair: What are you saying? You're moving in what direction?

Mr Gilchrist: In the direction of an RFP process or some kind of investigation of the alternatives. I'm sure there aren't that many companies involved in this field, and certainly I think one would want a fairly high-quality product as befits the institution. Again, recognizing that the members will be paying for this themselves, they would undoubtedly want something that's going to be durable. At the medium to high end of the business, I would be very surprised if among those who make, for example, Stanley Cup rings or Grey Cup rings -- I imagine we'd be looking at a comparable product -- there can't be that many companies. I'm sure we'd have a database available through the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, if we don't already have that information at hand, or the yellow pages.

I would suggest that the appropriate steps be taken to ascertain the names and inform them of our interest in pursuing this, and that at such time as they prepare pricing information and show you the samples, information be sent out to the members and afford them the opportunity then to purchase a ring if they so desire.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Chair, I really just wanted to pick up on what Mr Gilchrist was saying and pursue that through some questions, both to you and/or to Mr Ouellette or the clerk, because I'm not sure who is in the best position to answer these questions.

I certainly am fine with the concept of members being able to use the coat of arms on a ring. I have no problem whatsoever. I personally am not interested in having that done, but if members are, I certainly don't want to stand in the way of that happening.

I do have some concerns around what process we would follow to do that. I understand how this issue came before us. Again, I think it's fine if individual members have taken this on. Or if a particular jeweller has approached some members and said, "Here's something I could do," that's also fine. But I think we have a responsibility to make sure that there is an appropriate process put in place, rather than setting up a situation where we simply decide that jeweller A or jeweller B is going to be engaged to do this.

I'm looking for some help in just being clear about what it is we need to do as a committee. My understanding from the discussion we had at the subcommittee was that, first of all, we require agreement by this committee and presumably ultimately the Legislature to actually do this, because we're talking about releasing the use of the coat of arms. Maybe we need to be clear that that's the first thing we need to do, and second would be the process we would follow.

I'd seek some guidance in terms of what the rules of the Legislative Assembly are. I presume we have some rules that we have to follow with respect to tendering, with respect to putting out a proposal allowing anybody to bid who wants to bid. Or is it a situation where we would be basically saying, "Yes, we approve this happening," and then leave it up to each individual member to go and sort it out with individual jewellers? I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm more comfortable, it's fair to say, with the tendering process.

I want to be clear about what we're being asked to do here. With all the discussions that have happened, I am still not entirely clear except for the first point, which I believe is that we need to give approval for this to happen. I'm prepared to give that approval but I want to do it on an understanding of what happens next.

I'm not sure it's in the interests of the Legislative Assembly to simply have the coat of arms out there to be used in any which way. We would hopefully all agree that there need to be some pretty clear protections. I don't know if the process that was followed when the pins were put together helps us in this case, because I don't know what the process was at the time. Maybe that's something we can get some information on.

The Chair: The clerk is looking into that at this moment. If we can get an answer before the meeting is over, we'll endeavour to do that. Any other comments?

Mr Silipo: I would feel more comfortable, then, if what we are doing today is agreeing to Mr Ouellette's request that we give permission for the coat of arms to be used on rings, but I would want that to be done subject to whatever the rest of the process is. I would feel more comfortable knowing what would happen next and not just simply passing a motion that would say, "Yes, go ahead and do this," without knowing what "this" is.

Mrs Marland: I was on the Legislative Assembly committee -- and I think you were, Alvin; or you were here but I don't know if you were on the committee -- when we first decided that the members of the Legislature in Ontario should wear an identifying pin, the same as other legislatures in Canada. Most of us are only familiar with the members' pin that the federal House of Commons members wear. As you see, there are a few similarities between the one we wear and the federal one, which also has a mace on top of the coat of arms.

I can't even remember the year we did work on developing the design for the pin members have today. I'm sure that in the records of Hansard of this committee we can very quickly research how that was done. I remember that a subcommittee of three of us had the responsibility for finalizing the design of the current members' pin, always having in mind that the cost of that pin would be borne by the members themselves, although the original idea was that we could wear it instead of always wearing a plastic dog tag around our neck for everything. That's okay, except in our job we're so often in settings where people are looking around and wondering who the member is and you don't want those plastic dog tags around your neck in photographs and all that kind of stuff.

That's how the members' pin originally came about. I think it would be interesting to research what year it was. I'm quite sure we did put it out in some form of tender, although it's not in the price range of a requirement for tender. I certainly would feel comfortable if we got two or three bids on doing rings.

It's interesting because we have at least four members in the chamber who have had, again at their own expense -- and what we're talking about here, I want to emphasize, as Mr Ouellette says, is "at our own expense." It's just the permission to use the coat of arms. We have three or four members in the chamber today who have had the current members' pin incorporated into a ring. I think for some men particularly -- because it's very big for a woman's ring -- they just prefer the ring to a lapel pin that they have to keep remembering to change from suit to suit.

I support the concept but I agree with Tony that we should make sure we do it properly. Then we won't get into any difficulty. We didn't get into any difficulty once we got the members' pins finalized. I don't think it's a big deal. I think as long as we know that the prices have been -- I would suggest that we have three top companies. What I find interesting is that the new members' pins -- and I guess I have to be careful how I say this -- are not the same as the original members' pins. They are similar but they are not the same. Some people prefer the original pins because the new members' pins are quite a bit flatter in the ring and the detailing. If we, as a committee, decide to go ahead, then what we should do is get the information back from three of the companies.

We have that coat of arms on lots of things. I'm thinking of cufflinks, for example, that the public can buy out here at the gift shop. They are a $90 item, I think, in sterling silver, but anyone can buy them. You don't have to be a member. So we don't really keep a very tight control. We like to think we keep a tight control.

The other question is, of course, that we now have two coats of arms. Tony, you will recall that Speaker Warner introduced, in his tenure as Speaker, the members' coat of arms. I don't know whether we're talking about the members' coat of arms on these rings. We don't actually have the members' coat of arms on our members' pins; we have the Ontario coat of arms on our members' pins. I don't have mine on today. So that's something we have to consider as well, which coat of arms.

The use of the members' coat of arms is controlled very strictly. When we adopted it, it was controlled very strictly. Only members could use it on letterhead and so forth. Government ministries can't use the members' coat of arms. It's not a government coat of arms, it's not a provincial coat of arms; it's a members of the Ontario Legislature's coat of arms. Do you know what I mean, Allan?


The Chair: Just to assist the committee at this time, the role of the committee here today is essentially to decide whether to adopt Mr Ouellette's recommendation and report this to the Speaker. We don't have any jurisdiction to deal with the issue of purchase, if that helps the committee in terms of discussing this matter.

Mrs Marland: I didn't understand what you said.

The Chair: What I indicated was, we can decide as a committee to adopt the recommendation of Mr Ouellette with respect to the coat of arms and the ring, and report what we have recommended to the Speaker, but we don't have jurisdiction to deal with the issue of purchasing the actual rings and tendering it out etc.

Mrs Marland: So we could give direction to the Speaker that we would like them tendered.

The Chair: That we support the concept that Mr Ouellette is putting forth, and then they'll deal with the financial aspect of it.

Mrs Marland: Okay.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): So all we need is a motion to approve it and the Speaker will deal with it?

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mrs Marland made some very good points there, and I agree. First, I notice that it says "the use of the legislative coat of arms on members' rings." Since we have two different coats of arms, are we speaking about the members' coat of arms or the Ontario coat of arms? If it's members' rings, I would much rather see the members' coat of arms on members' rings, if that's the case. I'm not quite sure about that. Maybe I'm not up to snuff with all the briefing on this, but that issue should be made plain: Which of the coats of arms are we speaking about? If it is the members' coat of arms, I presume it's only members who should be wearing it.

If an order is given that this committee approves it, will these jewellers be able to make it and sell it to anybody else? If it's the members' coat of arms, can somebody outside buy a ring from them, in the sense that they want to buy a members' coat of arms ring, and wear it, or is the use of it restricted? These are questions.

I like the idea. I'm sure Mr McLean must have spoken on this already. I think he has his pin on.

In regard to what Mrs Marland said about the ring and the pin, I lost my pin twice. I don't have any now. I hate pins. Thank God they used to supply us with all these little pins so I could replace them. I would forget what coat I put it on. Then I realized I had put it on, the back didn't go on properly and it got lost. The only reason I retrieved mine was the fact that my name was written on the back and somebody called from Ottawa and said, "I found it." Thank God they knew me. The next one -- it's gone. I think the ring is a much better kind of symbol to wear.

I would just like to clarify whether we're talking about the members' coat of arms or the legislative coat of arms.

The Chair: Mr Ouellette, can you clarify for Mr Curling?

Mr Ouellette: What took place, if you look on the eighth page of the handout that everyone received, you will see there that what I tried to do was the same as the pin, to keep consistency, to have it the same, which is essentially the legislative crest. However, the presenter who came forward who wanted to have the rings left the option available to the individual as to how they wanted the sides of the rings. They could have had "MPP" on one side and the trillium on the other, or the mace, or the members' crest, or initials, or the year. So each member could customize the ring as they saw fit. It was trying to keep it the same as the pins, which is the legislative crest, and should individuals want the members' crest on the side, that option was available as well. But that was from that single presenter. What I would recommend is to allow the process to go forward and then have the Speaker -- as stated.

As was stated earlier, they sell cufflinks and things in the gift shop and we have no control over who receives them. Mr Curling, I was trying to keep it the same as the pin, to use the same crest that was on the pin, just for simplicity's sake. Because there were so many members who wanted this or wanted that -- they wanted everything -- I said, "Let's keep it the same as the pin."

Mr Curling: We're saying then that when we make these pins, they will be available to everyone.

Mr Ouellette: No, they will just be available to members.

Mr Curling: Okay. It will be better if it's consistent. You're saying it's the same as the lapel pin.

Mr Ouellette: It's exactly the same, except that the mace was removed from the top because of --

Mr Curling: It's not the same, then.

Mr Ouellette: On the members' pin the mace was on top of the crest, and the reason that was removed was because the jeweller felt it would dig into the individual's hands. It stuck out considerably past the crest.

Mr Curling: Once you start changing it, it's a different crest altogether. That's the concern. I would have liked to see the consistency. Is this Mr McLean's ring?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

Mr Curling: It could be like this. Therefore, if one wants to wear it on the lapel or one wants to wear the ring, it's consistent. The jewellers, for their own design, when they say it's going to dig in, I understand all that, but it has changed it. A crest is something you don't change around. I have a concern about that.

Mr Ouellette: As a matter of fact, you'll find that Mr McLean's ring is different from the new pins. His ring is based on the old pin, which is the members' crest. The new pins that were designed are of the legislative crest.

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, I've got the ring in front of me and it is true that this ring of Mr McLean's is the original members' pin.

Mr Ouellette: Correct.

Mrs Marland: And the original members' pin is the Ontario coat of arms.

Mr Ouellette: Right.

Mrs Marland: What you're talking about is the new members' Legislative Assembly coat of arms that was introduced by Speaker Warner.

Mr Ouellette: The way it was listed to me was that one was the members' crest, which is the pin we hand out to everyone, which is the Ontario coat of arms, I believe.

Mrs Marland: No, it isn't.

Mr Ouellette: The legislative crest is the one that has the Latin writing on the bottom of it.

Mrs Marland: The one that's in the package is the Legislative Assembly coat of arms.

Mr Ouellette: Yes.

Mrs Marland: This coat of arms was introduced by Speaker Warner for the use of members only. As I said a little while ago, only members can use this coat of arms on their letterhead and so forth.

Mr Ouellette: Right.

Mrs Marland: So the new members' pins have this coat of arms.

Mr Ouellette: And that's what the ring was to have.

Mrs Marland: Okay. What I'm saying is that the old members' pins, as with this one, are the Ontario coat of arms.

Mr Ouellette: We're in agreement with that.

Mrs Marland: The thing that distinguishes this from letterhead and makes it really the new members' pin is the mace. I think if we are going to go ahead with this for members, we need the mace on top of it. The Canadian parliamentary association, for example, has an identifying pin. It has the mace on it, and it's the mace on the federal members' pins that tells you that's a member of Parliament. I don't think we're really interested in wearing a ring with a coat of arms on it only; I think we want it to be a members' pin, and the mace designates that.

Mr Curling: I just wondered, if they want to sell the ring beyond the members -- it's not beyond the members?

Mr Ouellette: No.

Mr Curling: Therefore the mace is extremely important to me and I would like to see the consistency as near as what Mr McLean's ring is. I think you told me you took your stuff and you made the ring. There's a consistency there. To change it now, we may be into a different --

Mr Ouellette: But earlier I was of the understanding that you wanted the consistency, to make sure that the Legislative Assembly coat of arms remained as such. By adding the mace, it essentially changes that coat of arms.

Mr Curling: No. If I said that, maybe I was wrong in what I wanted to relate.


Mr Ouellette: So you want to have consistency --

Mr Curling: I want the consistency as it is. You had said that the jeweller said the original one may dig into the individual, but if you look at Mr McLean's ring, there's no digging into the flesh. I don't see it. It's rather large.

Mr Ouellette: That's because of the size of the ring. Unfortunately a lot of individuals who have smaller hands, and especially the females who wanted to put orders in, would not be able to wear that size. The problem that came forward earlier on when I was talking with members is that everybody had their own opinion on how they wanted it designed. That's why the jeweller came forward and said, "We can keep consistency with the crest on the top, and you can personalize your ring on the sides," which included the Ontario coat of arms or "MPP" or the trillium or the mace on the side of the ring, and that allowed everybody the individuality to personalize their own ring yet still have consistency on the top with the Legislative coat of arms.

If the committee decides that they want a specific one laid out -- I don't have a problem; all I'm doing is bringing forward something that members were asking for -- and we find there is some control under this, so be it. Fine.

Mr Curling: Just a quick summary: I am in agreement. If we could have the ring, I would just like to see that consistency. That consistency starts from the first one we had, and then the design of smaller or bigger for female or male accordingly would be up to the jeweller.

Mrs Marland: I'd like to move that the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly approve the proposal by Jerry Ouellette to authorize the use of the Legislative Assembly coat of arms in the design of a members' ring, provided that each member pay any associated costs.

Mr Curling: You missed out one point there, the "members'" coat of arms.

Mrs Marland: I think I did say that.

Mr Curling: You said it afterwards, that it was a members' coat of arms.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): She said the legislative coat of arms.

Mrs Marland: Legislative Assembly.

Mr Baird: The Legislature uses the coat of arms, not just the members.

Mr Curling: For the same thing?

Mrs Marland: Yes, including the mace, if you want to add, "including the mace."

The Chair: Does everyone understand the motion?

Mr Curling: Is that the same thing I was saying, Margaret?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Chair: There being no further discussion, all those in favour? All those against? I declare the motion passed. Thank you very much, Mr Ouellette.


The Chair: The next matter on the agenda is the semi-annual review of the Sergeant at Arms on security at the Legislature. We have the Sergeant at Arms.

Mr Dennis Clark (Sergeant at Arms): I just wanted to start off by saying I'm glad to see so much interest in the mace because I want you to know I guard that with my life.

Mr Curling: Someone took the mace away from the House about 15 minutes ago.

Mr Clark: Don't say that.

Just as a matter of interest, I was listening quite attentively on that because we're doing some prototypes for our new security uniforms, our new standalone security service, and this is one of the finalists we're looking at. Again, it's copyrighted in Ottawa so we got the okay on it.

Mr Gilchrist: I take it it's just a matter of respect, and I trust the French wording will not be in larger typeface than the English.

Mr Clark: It will be the same. Actually, Mr Gilchrist, talking to the manufacturer, it will just be "Legislative" on top and "Service" and "Sécurité" on the bottom, otherwise he says it's too busy.

Mr Gilchrist: So you're telling me it's only going to be in French?

Mr Clark: No, no. It will be bilingual.

Mr Gilchrist: You just said "Service" and "Sécurité" is the only thing on the bottom."

Mr Clark: It will say, "Legislative" on top and -- oh yes, I'm sorry -- "Security" on one side and "Sécurité" on the other side as well. Again, that hasn't been finalized.

I appreciate you all have very busy agendas and I will go through this rather quickly. I certainly appreciate any questions that you have. Just interject as I go along and I'll certainly try to answer your questions. If you want me to slow it down, tell me that too. I appreciate your timetables. At the same time, I appreciate having the opportunity to give you this update.

Just so you have an appreciation of where I'm coming from, in this type of environment -- and I am learning very quickly -- the Legislative Assembly precinct presents a number of unique security concerns. The security system cannot present a fortresslike image to the building occupants, visitors or the general public. However, the security system must be capable of securing specific sensitive areas of the building and must be capable of being upgraded easily to a higher security level if necessary. In other words, what I'm saying is that we've got to strike a balance, and I very much appreciate that.

I would like to move on now. A year or two ago -- and Mrs Marland can help me out on this -- there was a committee struck with three of the caucus members on legislative security. They came up with what I feel were 10 excellent recommendations for the new security service. I don't want to go through all 10 recommendations, but I pulled out the ones that I thought were of high priority to give you a good insight as to where we are going with it.

The second recommendation was the restructuring of the legislative security service. The actual recommendation was, "The committee recommends that the legislative security service should be restructured," along with a security chief or Sergeant at Arms, or whatever you want to call it, in charge. That has obviously been done.

Having said that, we're in the process of transition. As you're aware, there's an OPP detachment here; originally six personnel, it's down to about four now. In that transition they will be gradually phased out, as they are now being, and the new system will come in.

The new system is a standalone security system. It falls under the Legislative Assembly and reports to myself. Of course, I report to both the Clerk and the Speaker on various matters. I apologize if that's a little hard to read, but anyway, I can just go through it. We're just about in the middle of the transition. As I said, the OPP are being phased out, and in that, I've come up with a new organizational structure, with the Sergeant at Arms on top here, and then over here are just your legislative attendant and ushers, who obviously report to me. Under here is where we start with a security systems manager and an operations manager, and that's either an executive assistant or what I call an admin support manager.

Those three persons basically are replacing the OPP. For instance, some of you are aware of Mr Al Hough, the staff sergeant in charge of the OPP detachment here. He has been replaced by an operations manager. He has just come on board as of July 7, or he will be coming on board. The successful candidate has been Mr Ernie Beale, who, just to give you a little bit of background, is an ex-Metro Toronto Police staff inspector. He's got over 30 years' service in a very well-rounded career. That will give us a little bit of a link with the Metro Toronto Police. I'll speak about how important that is in a moment.

Our security systems manager is just that. He will look after anything dealing with systems. We will be looking at a fully integrated security system that will be phased in. Again, this will all be passed through the security committee that the three caucus members sit on.


Moving right along, the communications centre with the radio dispatchers will fall under the security systems manager. By the way, he has been on board now for three weeks. He's got quite a bit of systems and communications background, but the added bonus is that he's a 29-year member of the RCMP who retired at the sergeant level. A lot of his experience was in communications and security systems within the RCMP, so I feel quite fortunate to have him aboard.

This is presently under review. I will try not to get into the small detail as to ranks, but the two group commanders are the staff sergeants, and they have been named. But these people under here, the platoon supervisors and all the constables, a total of approximately 45, are presently being taken aboard right now. The security officers who were here were under the OGPS, which reported to the Solicitor General through the OPP. As I stated, they're being phased out. The applications went out to the OGPS, in other words, the men and women who did work in this building, along with the other government buildings where there are OGPS security officers. We had over 100 applications, so I'm quite confident we're going to get a very good nucleus of security officers here, and the vast majority who are here right now will probably get on, which I'm quite pleased with.

Unless you want, I won't go into the platoon system and how it works in the sessions, for instance, or the men and women who work up in the galleries and what not.

Mr Curling: Are you going to tell us the scope of this afterwards?

Mr Clark: It's up to you, sir.

Mr Curling: This is a basic question: Could you tell me why they phased out the OPP if they are having --

Mr Clark: I believe it was as a result of the legislative security committee. That was one of the recommendations, that they go to a standalone. I suspect it had something to do with communications. When you have a standalone security service, I think the communications link to the supervisors is much easier. With the OPP, in all fairness, they had to report to both the Sergeant at Arms plus their own OPP brass. And it was a combination of other things in which I don't have the background.

Mr Curling: I just wondered, because this building in many ways is Ontario. This is where the legislation is. It's also a big tourist attraction. I think the OPP, with their gallant uniforms and all that, made quite an impression. Again, maybe this is going into a debate that took place some time ago, but I never did get an explanation as to why they would be phased out. I heard a bit of that, that the administrative process and the protocol responsibility were confusing.

Mr Clark: If you want the whole background, I believe M. Morin is on the security committee and he would give you the background, as would Mrs Marland or Mr Christopherson.

Your security unit here will have a distinct uniform. We're working on that now. It will be similar to what they have now, maybe a different colour, but there will certainly be a uniformed presence, which I feel is important.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Clark, I'm very pleased to see that we will have a more structured, discreet and focused effort. I must say, though, that I'm somewhat taken aback by the complexity of the chart. I wonder if you could tell us very briefly how you would expect an access coordinator to fill 40 hours a week, an administrative and photo ID clerk to fill 40 hours a week, and another administrative clerk and an executive assistant.

Presumably the operational aspects, the uniform aspects -- in fact, if you even do the dry-cleaning centrally and don't make the officers do it themselves, which would seem a really reasonable thing -- the paperwork involved in running a business that has, just on a quick calculation, 40 people, I would guesstimate, based on my private sector experience, might take three man-hours a week. That's what it took in a Canadian Tire store to run 160 staff, to run the payroll and do all the administrative functions. If the tools in terms of computer access, computerized payroll and what have you are not being placed at your disposal, and your suggestion is we need more manual intervention, then I think we should hear about that.

I personally see this, though, as the start of an incredible empire. The line staff I have no problem with, making sure this building is kept secure. I have an extraordinary problem with administrative people behind the scenes who in most cases probably will be doing functions that duplicate what Ms Speakman and her staff are doing in terms of payroll and everything else. I wonder if you could give us some detail about those behind-the-scenes people and how you think they can fill a workweek.

Mr Clark: Absolutely, sir. No problem. First of all, a lot of the background and administrative work is done by OPP support not stationed here. They are in the other buildings or in their headquarters. For us to be a standalone, just to get back to the total security personnel, I'm looking at it not as an empire; I'm looking at reducing it. I feel that with technology, as we move along, my mandate is to reduce the number of security personnel, whether it be admin or front-line officers, through technology. As I go through our presentation here, hopefully I can answer some of your questions. If I don't, by all means come back.

Mr Gilchrist: Fair enough.

Mr Clark: Right now, we have an access coordinator. For instance, the admin and photo ID clerk, Mr Wayne Butt, shares that half-time as a legislative attendant. The locksmith service is just on a contract. The communications operator, they have five FTEs down there, person-years, and I'm reducing that to four, because I feel I can cover off with one of the members. So, on the contrary, I feel I'm going the other way.

Mr Gilchrist: Let me stop you there. I took from your presentation that this was what you were moving towards. So you say that five is not the accurate number, that it should be four?

Mr Clark: This is my proposal that I'm working on right now. That has changed to four. Like I said, the executive assistant to the Sergeant at Arms, do I need that or do I need an admin support person? This is just a proposal that I'm putting together. I have mentioned the ones we do have in place: my operations manager and my security systems manager. I'll come back to that, sir.

Mr Ouellette: Can we have a copy of that handout so we can actually see it? It was rather difficult to read a lot of the information.

Mr Clark: I can make handouts, keeping in mind that this is all proposal.

Mr Ouellette: It's just a proposal, but we can't read all the fine boxes that were displayed there.

Mr Clark: Okay.

Mrs Marland: I guess we are on the record. I was going to say it may be that we don't want this carved in stone and being handed around until we get it out and going. I don't know. There is that aspect.

Mr Ouellette: It's on Hansard already.

Mrs Marland: That's right.

Mr Clark: You can certainly have all the copies you want, keeping in mind this is a proposal that I'm working on as of this date and it will change. I think that's important to know. It's also important to know that there will be no changes until it has passed through the proper channels and the security committee, on which there is a member of your caucus.

Mr Curling: Are you seeking approval of these recommendations from us? From what I read here, it says it's a semi-annual review of what is happening, but then you're saying that it's a proposal, that this may change. So you would have to come back to us and say, "Here is our recommendation." This is not the final recommendation then.

Mr Clark: These recommendations that I'm showing you are actually approved by the security committee that Mrs Marland, Mr Christopherson and Mr Morin are on. They have been approved. To me, that's my mandate to put this into action.


Mr Curling: But the chart --

Mr Clark: The chart is simply what I'm working on now, how the organization may be structured.

We'll go to the next one. Can you read that? No? There are 10 recommendations. I just picked out the ones I think are more prevalent.

Recommendation 3 was: "The committee...recommends that:

"(a) backup security services for the legislative grounds should be provided by the Metropolitan Toronto Police," Division 52, "as agents of the restructured legislative security service, and that the proposed Speaker's advisory committee on security give further consideration to the particulars of this recommendation."

On that, what I'm presently doing is a draft memorandum of understanding with Metro Toronto Police, Division 52. I'm working with Superintendent Jim Parkin and their legal adviser, Mr Rusty Beauchesne. That MOU will set the groundwork as to when and if we call in the Metro Toronto Police for any law enforcement duties. One of the reasons for that is, obviously, with the OPP going, we will no longer have peace officers on staff; we will have special constables. Therefore, it is necessary that we have an understanding with Metro Toronto that if they are required, they will do any actual peace officer duties.

They will also look after, as they do now, the exterior of the grounds. I do have some concern on that as far as patrolling the grounds is concerned. Right now the security service, meaning right here, does not patrol the exterior. I am looking carefully at that in light of all the car break-ins, the incidents we had during the filibuster and so on.

I haven't had a chance to look at the second part yet. It says, "(b) a security protocol be established between the legislative security service and the providers of security for the Premier...."

Right now, the OPP do any VIP bodyguarding. What we may look at in the future is having the OPP bring the Premier to the front door and then we take over from there. But that, again, is down the road. It's not a major priority right now.

Mr Ouellette: I have a question on that. With these arrangements made with the OPP or Metro, what is the cost for this? Is there any cost to us, or is there billing for it, or how is it being handled?

Mr Clark: For the services themselves?

Mr Ouellette: Yes.

Mr Clark: Regular police services will be no cost.

Mr Ouellette: When you say "regular police services," do you mean patrolling of the yard?

Mr Clark: If we have a large demonstration and somebody is arrested, we have the authority to arrest and detain. We will call Metro Toronto; they will come and pick them up. Something like that will be at no cost. However -- again, this is under review and within a memorandum of understanding that we're trying to work out -- if we ask them to come in and do a sweep of a room or something like that, and if it's our call, then yes, they may charge us.

Mr Curling: What about the horses? I see many horses come around when we have demonstrations. Is that an extra cost?

Mr Clark: No, sir. That's their prerogative.

Mr Ouellette: The patrolling of the yards, as you mentioned, is there a cost for that?

Mr Clark: No, there isn't. In the memorandum of understanding, right now the way it reads, they'll do periodic patrols. Again, I have a little difficulty with that when we're sitting late at night, because the cars are vulnerable out there and obviously in this vicinity people know that. I'm looking at possibly our security officers doing exterior patrols, especially at night.

Mrs Marland: The way they used to.

Mr Clark: Yes, I understand that.

Mr McLean: There have been more radios and telephones stolen in the daytime.

Mr Clark: This is where we get into some of the technology we're moving towards. Recommendation 5 was entry and exit protocol.

"The committee...recommends that the entry and exit protocol for precincts should be reformed along the following lines:

"(a) the number of public entrances to the Legislative Building should be reduced, but not so as to...affect wheelchair access or access to people with disabilities;

"(b) most visitors should be allowed into the Legislative Building only from a dedicated visitors' entrance;

"(c) a more sophisticated entry and exit protocol...should be developed...; and

"(d) there should be a review of the after-hours access policy...."

Also following along from that, recommendation 7 has to do with video surveillance:

"The committee...recommends that:

"(a) surveillance structures that are maintained within the precinct be consistent with the dignity of the institution.

"(b) the proposed Speaker's advisory committee should review the propriety of further installations."

You can see that the Speaker's advisory committee is very important to this, because as we move along, we will be passing any recommendations through them.

Mrs Marland: So you're not making any decisions about which doors and which access and what video without coming back to the three members of caucus?

Mr Clark: No. What we will do is, and it's under review now, put forth a number of options we're looking at, and it will pass through the necessary channels.

Mrs Marland: I'm asking specifically about the three members of the three caucuses, the three caucus reps. Will that be coming back to them?

Mr Clark: I've got to be careful how I answer that, because if I'm changing one lock on a door, I'm not sure you want to be bothered.

Mrs Marland: No, I'm not being that specific. M. Morin, M. Christopherson and I don't want to be involved in changing the lock on a door, but when we make a major decision in this building about what we are going to change specifically, whether it's going to be the main front door facing down University, if that's going to be the main access for the public, those major decisions and how we engineer that, we as the representatives of the caucus would want to know what that is, take it to our caucuses and come back and say, "Yes, the consensus of my caucus is that that's the way to go."

Mr Clark: Any major upgrade or renovation will be passed through the security committee.

Mrs Marland: Upgrade and renovation?

Mr Clark: To security systems. That deals with X-ray scanners or anything like that, anything that is going to be, as I say, an upgrade to security. I'll give you an instance. The photo ID system we have downstairs, we're looking at purchasing a new one because, for one reason, that computer is going to crash in the year 2000. We're looking at a fully integrated security system. With that, you'll get your photo ID and a proximity card, if we go to proximity doors, where you just swipe the card to get in, as opposed to a number of keys.

Getting back to Mr Gilchrist, as we move along with this, I feel there have to be some cost-efficiencies, and they will probably be in terms of manpower, personpower, in that maybe through attrition we can reduce.

Mr Ouellette: You mention the key passes and things like that and the fact that the system is going to crash in the year 2000. I wonder how you know it's going to crash by the year 2000. Also, a number of ministries out there are currently using encoded passes. Will this system allow the members or individuals the ability to have one pass card to handle their ministry as well as here, or are we going to have cards for each and every building?

Mr Clark: Excellent question, sir. In fact, we discussed that this morning at a meeting. In answer to your question, I don't know. I would like one card. I obviously don't want to have the members' employees look like people at the airport, where they have about five tags on here. I know the environment here. It would be nice if we just had a swipe card you kept in your pocket and you just swiped it, but I don't have an answer for your question right now. It's certainly under review.

One of the systems we will be looking at, just to give you an idea, is improvement of the perimeter lighting. I feel that at night-time, just walking around here, it's inadequate. Again, any upgrade that has to do with changing of the building or anything like that, we're working quite closely with the renovation and restoration branch, as well as the security committee, so we're being very careful as we move along.

Other systems under review are upgrading the scanners, X-ray machines, access control and alarm-monitoring systems, enhancement of CCTV and monitoring systems. I'll give you a for-instance there. We do have CCTV cameras outside, and I notice they all face towards the building. That's fine, but I'd like to know who's coming at us too. It would be things of that nature that we'd be looking at, keeping in mind what I said before, keeping the dignity of the building in perspective, a new photo ID system, possible upgraded duress alarm systems, motion detector sensors, electric strike locks in window positions, door switches. You won't even see them. You won't even notice a lot of this. In fact, what I'd like to do is put broad assistance in place that you won't even notice, for the benefit of the members.


Mrs Marland: I just have one question, because I didn't get to see this yesterday.

Mr Clark: That's right too.

Mrs Marland: For the benefit of my colleagues, we had the first meeting of the security committee yesterday. It was late starting, so I wasn't able to stay to the end, all the way through this.

The CCTV monitoring cameras outside that you're referring to, some of those are new, were installed last year. When you talk about enhancements, do you mean adding more of them? When you said they're all pointing towards the building, I thought they were able to be electronically controlled.

Mr Clark: No, I think there's only one that can rotate, which surprised me also. The good thing about technology is that with a lot of the enhancements we can go from this size to this size. We can almost do more with less, less visible showing.

Basically that's where we are now. Like I said, I'm right in the midst of the transition. There is a lot going on. There are obviously lots of minor details that I won't bore you with. In a nutshell, that's our new legislative security service.

Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly, if in fact the work has been done, I wonder if you could share it with us; if it has not been done, I wonder if you could take it under advisement to pursue it and report back. I don't see anything in there about any studies about the potential tradeoff between, for example, putting in a secure access system at all but one of the doors and how that would impact on your staffing requirements. I would imagine the payback would be fairly rapid if it meant, for example, reducing the staffing complement by one on every shift, having every door but the front door accessible only to employees and members and only with a swipe card or fingerprint-scanning technology. Given that sooner is better than later if we're talking about cost savings, have such studies been done? If so, can you share them? If they haven't been done, how soon could such a review be undertaken?

Mr Clark: Nothing has been done on the studies. What we're doing now is just collecting all the information, sir. That's exactly what we will be looking at, doing those studies and seeing what the cost-efficiencies are. When we go to a new system, we'll certainly share with you -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- through the security advisory committee.

Mr Gilchrist: Could I just ask a question either to you, Chair, or to Mr Clark? This advisory committee, is it empowered as a subcommittee of the Legislative Assembly committee and therefore constrained to do nothing without the sanction of this committee, or is it allowed to do things on its own independent of any other legislative body?

Mrs Marland: Maybe I can answer that. The advisory committee is not from the Legislative Assembly committee. The security advisory committee has been made up of a representative of each caucus. In my case, I was asked as chair of caucus to be responsible for this role on behalf of our caucus. I don't know how the other two caucuses appointed their representatives. Gilles obviously is a logical one because he's also Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gilchrist: But the question is, is it your understanding that the word "advisory" is literal, or has anything been said to you that would give you the impression that, for example, you could make decisions about security issues without reporting back to the Legislative Assembly committee?

Mrs Marland: I see my reporting avenue as being back to my caucus, because I'm a representative of my caucus, I'm not a representative of the Legislative Assembly committee. In fact, when I was asked to do that on behalf of our caucus by the Premier's office, I wasn't even a member of the Legislative Assembly committee.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe that in fact the establishment of this committee was one of the recommendations that we adopted as an assembly, if my memory serves, out of the security report. I think that technically it's an advisory committee to the Speaker, because the Speaker is the one who has responsibility, ultimately, for the security, not this committee. That's my understanding.

Mrs Marland: That's true, you're right.

Mr Silipo: It was a way to ensure that the Speaker, in arriving at decisions around the security -- obviously with the Sergeant at Arms, but it's ultimately the Speaker's responsibility -- would do that with the advice of representatives of the three caucuses. As in the case of the Conservative caucus, in our case it's Mr Christopherson, who is the chair of our caucus.

Mrs Marland: He's your caucus chair too?

Mr Silipo: Yes.

Mr Gilchrist: That's fine.

Mrs Marland: The main point is that the Speaker is the only person who's solely responsible for the security of the legislative precinct, and he solely is responsible for his budget to do that. But I think this is a good reporting vehicle, and particularly this is this committee's first introduction to our new Sergeant at Arms.

Mr McLean: Does Barbara Speakman have anything to do with the security now?

Mr Clark: No, she doesn't, sir.

Mr McLean: Did she then hand over the files of the studies she had done with regard to perhaps putting a swipe in the north doors?

Mr Clark: I believe I've got most of them. She handed quite a few over to me, and I've gone through them.

Mr McLean: I know there was some costing done with regard to that.

Mr Clark: I do have those studies.

The Chair: Just as a matter of procedure before I give the floor to Mr Curling, is it the intent of the committee to go beyond 6 pm tonight?

Interjection: No.

The Chair: Then Mr Somerville and the clerk won't be required. We'll deal with their semiannual reviews the next meeting date. Depending on what happens with respect to Bill 132, with respect to a tartan for Ontario, the next date would be August 20.

Mrs Marland: What bill is that? I didn't hear you.

The Chair: Bill 132. It's a private member's bill of Lillian Ross with respect to a tartan for Ontario.

Mr Curling: It seems to me that the Sergeant at Arms is just bringing this up for our information, really. There's not much the Legislative Assembly committee can do. You've informed us, and other committees will make the other decisions.

My only other comment would be that I hope with all these changes that are happening, which I know are for the good, this building does not become unfriendly, because it is intimidating enough now, in some respects. Having said all that, I think the security outside has done an excellent job with demonstrators. They're quite cooperative and remain quite friendly. The Speaker speaks loudly about that too in the way he performs his duties, by saying that people do have a right to demonstrate and not be intimidated by this building, even when they come inside here.

The changes you are putting forward, although you say some of them cannot be seen easily and all that, will not make it unfriendly in the long run but quite receptive to all those who want to participate in here, of course in adherence with the law.

The Chair: If there are no further questions on the semiannual review of the Sergeant at Arms on security, I thank you very much, Mr Clark, for attending.

Mr Clark: Thank you, sir.

The Chair: We're going to be dealing with the private member's bill on August 20. We also have the semiannual review of the Clerk and also the annual review of the televising of the legislative proceedings.



The Chair: There's only one other matter, if the committee wishes to deal with it. It's number 4, the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Is there any interest in dealing with that?

Mrs Marland: Are you talking about the conference?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I am interested in us discussing that very briefly now if we can.

Mr Curling: Can I just ask as a point of order, is the Clerk of the House making any kind of presentation now at all?

The Chair: He will be.

Mr Curling: Okay, I didn't hear that. All right.

The Chair: What we didn't finish today under number 3 we will finish hopefully next date.

Mrs Marland: In light of the difficulty with the budget for the operation of the Legislative Assembly, it isn't necessary for this committee to consider sending delegates to this annual meeting and exhibition, the National Conference of State Legislatures, in Philadelphia from August 6 to 9 of this year. I've just looked through the program, and frankly I don't see a necessity for us to send anyone to that conference.

Mr Baird: I would just concur with Mrs Marland's comments. If there was a specific reason why we would want to go, I think it would be a good idea, but there doesn't seem to be, in my judgement, a specific reason; if there was something like legislative security or standing orders, where there would be some benefit members could bring back, but in my judgement there isn't.

I was wondering if we could find out and if you could endeavour to research this and report back to us as an agenda item at the next meeting as to whether other committees or others at the Legislative Assembly outside of this committee are going.

The Chair: The question is, are there any other --

Mr Baird: Other committees or others --

The Chair: -- persons, excluding this committee, who would be attending this conference?

Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Tonia Grannum): From the province of Ontario?

Mr Baird: From the Legislative Assembly.

Clerk Pro Tem: From our Legislature.

Mr Gilchrist: Or from the ministry level as well.

The Chair: We can undertake to do that.

Mr Baird: Terrific.

Mr Curling: Are we saying -- maybe I'm a bit tardy on this -- that the conference before us, which is August 6 to 9, and the content therein is not relevant to what we want to do, so we won't participate, there's nothing on the agenda? Is that what I'm hearing? There's nothing on this agenda that would be of interest to us, and that's why we're not participating. Is that the reason?

Mr Baird: That's my argument.

The Chair: That's the position taken by Mr Baird. That's his submission.

Mr Curling: I cannot even make an intelligent decision on that, because it wasn't raised in caucus or anything and it's the first time I'm seeing this. I presume this has been floating around for some time.

Mr Baird: I was only made aware of it today.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Likewise.

Mr Curling: Immediately, one look at it, we feel it's not relevant to us?

The Chair: The subcommittee discussed it. There has been attendance in the past. The cost, if it was fully paid for each person to attend, would be something in the range of $2,000.

Mr Curling: It's because of the cost, you said. Is it the cost that impedes us from going?

The Chair: No. It's a decision of this committee as to whether it wishes to have someone attend, and then it would have to be approved by the House.

Mr Curling: I'm hearing that it just arrived today. I just saw it today.

The Chair: It has only been on the agenda today.

Mrs Marland: I hadn't seen it before.

The Chair: It wasn't on a previous agenda, no.

Mr Gilchrist: Is somebody making a motion one way or the other?

Mr Curling: What was that?

The Chair: It's 6 of the clock right now.

Mr Curling: I just want to have an understanding, Mr Gilchrist, of what the hell we're talking about.

Mr Gilchrist: That's why I'm asking the question if somebody wants to make a motion so we can vote, recognizing that it is now one minute to 6.

The Chair: Anything else on number 4?

Mr Curling: I won't pursue it any more. I don't mind one way or the other on the motion, but the reason why is that you say there is a cost factor and there is nothing relevant to us at this conference, that's why we won't be attending?

The Chair: Mr Baird has indicated what his position is. If you want him to repeat it, he can.

Mr Curling: No, no.

The Chair: Mrs Marland indicated what her position was with respect to this conference. It's for the committee to decide.

Mr Curling: I know that, Mr Chair. That's why I asked when it arrived here. Mr Baird has acquired a quick, fast read of it.

The Chair: It has been on our agenda as of today.

Mr Baird: If we're going to take this junket, the taxpayers' money shouldn't pay for it.

Mr Curling: Oh, so that's why; it's a junket, he said.

The Chair: He's obviously not going to be in favour of it.

Mr Gilchrist: I would concur. It's a four-day event, and looking through there, there's arguably only one or two sessions that have any relevance to the Legislative Assembly committee as we're constituted. I don't think anyone would countenance spending money on a four-day conference with travel to the United States to attend one or two sessions.

In fact, I would perhaps suggest that, at the end of that conference, you or the Clerk might undertake to see if there's a written transcript we could order free of charge or for a nominal amount of money, and all of us would have benefit of all the discussions that took place.

The Chair: You're asking us to find out if there's a transcript and what the cost is, for the conference. Any other discussion on this? Tony Silipo?

Mr Silipo: No. I was going to suggest that we adjourn, Chair.

Mr Baird: I have another very short point.

Mr Silipo: It's just a suggestion. I haven't moved it, Mr Baird.

Mr Baird: This is an issue I have noticed; it's a non-partisan one. I was going to ask if it would be possible to have the issue looked into and then perhaps circulated to all members of the committee. I've noticed in recent months and was wanting to get an idea of what changes have been made in the last year with respect to the entrance used by visitors at Queen's Park.

To my knowledge, and this is just my knowledge and experience, visitors used to come in through the front door, where they would have access to the public relations information desk, the gift shop, ample waiting room, both seated and non-seated, and a permanent coat check. I now notice that visitors are being directed to walk around on the grass to the side door here at the west door and congregate behind roped lines in the hallway. We have in this heritage building a beautiful coat check built right into the wall, a gift shop, a parliamentary information desk where people can get public relations information, a gift shop, a waiting room where people can sit.

The Chair: Mr Baird, the clerk has a response if you want to listen to it.

Mr Baird: Okay. I'll just conclude. As well, outside here in the hall there's a pressed wood chipboard desk with some Tupperware containers that litter the hallway 24 hours a day, as well as some cheap coat racks. We have such a beautiful entrance for visitors at the main door, and I just wondered why, if we could investigate that.

The Chair: The clerk may have a response that you want to listen to.

Clerk Pro Tem: Members of the public are still able to come through the front door. What has been happening is that there have been large groups coming in, so security has felt it's easier to control the large groups or demonstrators who come into the building if they come in through the west door, because there's a security desk right there. They can rope it off if there's a problem with a large group. They put the coat check there, sign them in, send them up to the chamber if they're going to the chamber or control them going into the overflow room. But it's usually when they know a large group of people is coming.

Mr Baird: They're doing it every day, and it just seems to me to be absolutely silly. We have a beautiful front entrance. Visitors should be welcome to come right in the front door. We've got a great parliamentary public relations office right there at the front door to greet them, a gift shop, there's a security desk at the front.

Clerk Pro Tem: Lately it has been because of Bill 99, the public hearings.

Mr Baird: No, it has been like that for months.

Clerk Pro Tem: I know, but there was Bill 103, then Bill 104, then Bill 99. But what we can do is look into that and get a response.

Mr Baird: Great. I just think we want to be welcoming, and it seems there are all those amenities right at the front entrance. People go to the front door when they come here, and they're directed to go around the side. I've seen senior citizens sitting on the floor outside the committee rooms here and on the first floor just because they have no place to sit down. There's comfortable seating for them at the front entrance. It just seems to be not very welcoming if there's not a good reason for it.

The Chair: Thanks very much. Point taken. We'll adjourn the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for August 20, 1997.

The committee adjourned at 1801.