Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 1301 in committee room 1.

Subcommittee report

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. We’re here to talk about Bill 64, An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Everyone has on their desk a copy of the report of the subcommittee on committee business, and we’ll ask for someone to move.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d be prepared to make the motion.

Your subcommittee on committee business met on Wednesday, September 21, 2016, to consider a method of proceeding on Bill 64, An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and recommends the following:

(1) That the committee hold two days of public hearings at its regular scheduled meetings times on October 19 and 26, 2016.

(2) That the Clerk of the Committee, with the authorization of the Chair, post information regarding public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly website and the Canadian NewsWire.

(3) That interested parties who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation contact the Clerk of the Committee by 12 noon on Wednesday, October 12, 2016.

(4) That, in the event all witnesses cannot be scheduled, the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, October 12, 2016.

(5) That the members of the subcommittee prioritize and return the list of requests to appear by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, October 12, 2016.

(6) That groups and individuals be offered five minutes for their presentation followed by up to three minutes of questions from each caucus.

(7) That the deadline for written submissions be 3 p.m. on Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

(8) That the research officer provide a summary of the public hearings held on Bill 172, An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act to establish the advisory council on work-integrated learning which was introduced in the second session of the 40th Parliament.

(9) That the research officer provide a summary of public hearings on Bill 64, An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

(10) That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized, prior to the passage of the report of the subcommittee, to commence making any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the committee’s proceedings.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Wong?

Ms. Soo Wong: There’s another motion—

Interjection.

Ms. Soo Wong: Give me a break. You should know better than that—cheap shots.

Mr. Chair, I have a motion.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong, is this an amendment to the subcommittee—

Ms. Soo Wong: Yes. Can I read that on the record?

Interjection: Yes.

Ms. Soo Wong: I could. Right. Okay.

I move:

(1) That the committee meet on October 5 and 19 for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 64; and

(2) That the Clerk of the Committee post notice of public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and the Canada NewsWire; and

(3) That the deadline for requests to appear be 4 p.m. on October 3 for the October 5 hearings and 4 p.m. October 14 for the October 19 hearings; and

(4) That witnesses be scheduled to appear before the committee on a first-come, first-served basis; and

(5) That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentations followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members; and

(6) That the deadline for written submissions be 3 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any discussion on Ms. Wong’s amendment? Mr. Clark?

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to speak against the amendment. This is Ms. Sattler’s bill, and it was an agreement by the House leaders that we would deal with Ms. Sattler’s bill and also Mr. Wilson’s service club motion. I took the lead in subcommittee, and I’m pleased to put it on the record that the motion that I moved from the subcommittee was the preferred dates that Ms. Sattler wished for.

I also want to bring to the attention of the committee that this amendment does break—I appreciate that there are new staff in the House leader’s office, so they might not know that we’ve had previous agreements where, rather than having first-come, first-served, we have that collaborative discussion between the three parties. This motion tried to deal with the requests in the way that we’ve dealt with them in the past, but again, I want to support Ms. Sattler.

I will not be voting for the amendment. I will be voting for the report of the subcommittee. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thanks, Mr. Clark. Ms. Sattler?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m also opposed to the amendment. I will be voting against this amendment. The Liberal House leader’s office reached out to my caucus and asked what my preferred dates were. I had indicated that my preference was the 19th and the 26th. The subcommittee agreed that those should be the meeting dates. If the Liberal House leader’s office had those specific dates in mind they shouldn’t have asked my opinion on which dates worked best for me.

I also share the concerns that were raised by MPP Clark about the first-come, first-served basis of the scheduling of witnesses. If there are only as many witnesses as there are opportunities to speak, that’s fine; however, the bill proposes a multi-stakeholder minister’s advisory council on work-integrated learning. There are a huge array of opinions that have to be solicited in response to the formation of that advisory council and we want to ensure that that range of perspectives is brought to this committee during the public input.

I am concerned that the first-come, first-served basis of scheduling witnesses may end up excluding some of those organizations and viewpoints that we need to hear from. I think MPP Clark has stated that this is a departure from the way that committees normally operate, and I am opposed to this process that’s set out in this motion.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thanks, Ms. Sattler. Ms. Wong?

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to be on record that it is my understanding that in spring, all three House leaders agreed that this particular bill, Ms. Sattler’s bill, would be coming forward. So there was lots of time—this is now October, okay?—to arrange any kind of public hearings to go forward. If you knew in spring about your upcoming meetings, that’s your responsibility. That’s the first piece.

The second piece is that we have had, on other committees that I’ve sat on, a first-come, first-served basis. As a former Chair of SCOFEA, it was on a first-come, first-served basis, so this is not an exception to the rules and I challenge Mr. Clark’s comments that this is exceptional. This is not exceptional because other communities have done first-come, first-served. And the Clerk could advise us that this has been so in the past.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thanks, Ms. Wong. Ms. Sattler?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I just wanted to respond to the comments from MPP Wong about the timing of these hearings. I, of course, was very excited to learn that this bill would be moving forward in the fall—before October 31—for public hearings and was continually contacting my House leader’s office to find out if there was any update on the timing.

The cabinet shuffle, I was told, meant that this was pushed off because there is now a new minister of Training, Colleges and Universities—now known as Advanced Education and Skills Development. The decisions around the dates that this bill would be brought forward were delayed, my understanding is, because of the new minister coming in and getting up to speed on that portfolio.

So from my perspective, I’ve been wanting to have these hearings for a very long time. I was asked what my preference would be. I said the 19th and the 26th. The subcommittee supported that in the report of the subcommittee. Now, obviously, the Liberals have a different view of things.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Clark.

Mr. Steve Clark: All I have to say in response to the comments by Ms. Wong is, there are many examples of how committees have dealt with private members’ bills and there are many examples of how committees have been able to work together as three parties to ensure that the voices that need to be at the table are at the table.

My comments stand. I’m going to be voting against this amendment. I strongly hope and ask that the committee members support the original motion that the subcommittee presented.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any further discussion? Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): I’m just going to verify something here. The way that the motion itself is written is a little unusual, which is fine, but in terms of how it relates to the one we have in front of us, what I’m understanding is that point 1 would replace point 1; point 2 is the same as point 2, which is fine; point 3 would take the place of point 3 and point 4, if I’m understanding that correctly; point 4 would replace point 5; point 5 would replace point 6; point 6 would replace point 7; and I’m assuming there’s no problem with 8, 9 and 10, if I’ve got that correct. I just want to make sure that that’s the gist of the amendment.

Ms. Soo Wong: Yes. We have no problem with 8, 9 and 10.

Mr. Steve Clark: This is an odd amendment. I agree with you, Clerk.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any further discussion on this? We’re first voting on the amendment moved by Ms. Wong. Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? I declare the amendment carried.

Any discussion on the main motion, as amended? Shall the motion, as amended, carry? Carried.

All right. Thank you very much.

The committee adjourned at 1313.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Chair / Président

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville PC)

Mr. Granville Anderson (Durham L)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. James J. Bradley (St. Catharines L)

Mr. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville PC)

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Mr. Michael Mantha (Algoma–Manitoulin ND)

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Peggy Sattler (London West ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Trevor Day

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Heather Webb, research officer,
Research Services