ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE
COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA VIOLENCE
ET DU HARCÈLEMENT
À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL
Wednesday 11 March 2015 Mercredi 11 mars 2015
Strategy on sexual violence and harassment
The committee met at 1603 in committee room 1.
Strategy on sexual violence and harassment
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Good afternoon, everyone. The Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment will now come to order. This is Wednesday, March 11, 2015. Our first item of business is to move forward our subcommittee report. Do I have a person who can move that forward? Yes.
Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I will. I’ll move it forward—Indira Naidoo-Harris.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you.
Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Your subcommittee met on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, and on Tuesday, March 10, 2015, to consider the method of proceeding on its order of the House dated Thursday, December 11, 2014, and recommends the following:
(1) That the committee begin public hearings in Toronto on March 25, 2015.
(2) That the committee Clerk, in consultation with the Chair, place a notification of public hearings, no later than the week of March 16, 2015, in the Toronto Star, Toronto L’Express, the Ont.Parl channel, the Legislative Assembly website and Canada NewsWire.
(3) That the Chair write to the minister responsible for women’s issues to request a copy of an Ontario Women’s Directorate stakeholder list and the appropriate contact information to distribute the committee’s notification of public hearings.
(4) That, subject to witness response, the committee intends to travel to Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Sioux Lookout during the week of April 6, 2015.
(5) That interested people who wish to be considered to make an in-person presentation during the week of April 6, 2015, contact the committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, March 30, 2015.
(6) That subject to witness response, the committee intends to travel to Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo, Kingston, and Ottawa during the week of May 18, 2015.
(7) That interested people who wish to be considered to make an in-person presentation during the week of May 18, 2015, contact the committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, May 11, 2015.
(8) That, after the request-to-appear deadline, the Clerk will provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of oversubscribed locations so that the subcommittee may prioritize the list of requests to appear.
(9) That if all requests to appear can be scheduled in any location, the committee Clerk can proceed to schedule all witnesses and no prioritized list will be required for that location.
(10) That the minimum number of requests to appear to warrant travel be determined by the subcommittee on a location-by-location basis.
(11) That videoconferencing or teleconferencing be made available to witnesses where possible.
(12) That witnesses be scheduled in 30-minute intervals and be offered up to 15 minutes for their presentation and 15 minutes to answer questions from committee members.
(13) That the deadline for written submissions to be included in the interim report be 4 p.m. on Thursday, April 30, 2015.
(14) That the deadline for written submissions to be included in the final report will be determined at a later date.
(15) That the committee authorize one staff person from each recognized party to travel with the committee, space permitting, and that reasonable expenses incurred for travel, accommodation and meals be paid for by the committee upon receipt of a properly filed expense claim.
(16) That legislative Research Services provide a summary of Amanda Dale’s testimony before committee.
(17) That legislative Research Services provide background material on each of the travel locations listed above.
(18) That, pursuant to the order of the House dated December 11, 2014, the interim report be tabled on Thursday, June 4, 2015.
(19) That, pursuant to the order of the House dated December 11, 2014, the final report be tabled on Thursday, December 10, 2015.
(20) That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the Chair, is authorized immediately to commence making any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the committee’s proceedings.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you, MPP Naidoo-Harris. I apologize for not stating your name at the beginning.
Do we have any debate or discussion on this subcommittee report? Yes, MPP Lalonde.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a point of clarification on point number 6. There are four cities. Mr. Clerk, maybe just clarify for me: What does that mean in terms of three days? What’s our plan?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Sorry, where are you getting the three days from?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): If I may, we agreed that we’re going to travel on three days to three locations, and Ottawa would be handled on a separate Friday at a different time. Is that correct, Ms. Scott and Ms. Sattler?
Ms. Laurie Scott: I don’t think we exactly said that. It was a possibility that we may do a separate day for Ottawa. So there was a possibility for three days or four days in that May break, to answer your question. I think it will come back to the subcommittee if there are changes, or maybe the Clerk would like to—
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Maybe that’s something to discuss. I just wanted a point of clarification.
Ms. Laurie Scott: It was a possibility, but we ended up settling for four days in the week of May, I think, if that’s correct. Right?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): I hope that provides clarification.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, MPP Wong?
Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For item number 2 that was read, I know that other committees have expanded advertisements to include the First Nation paper The Turtle. I know that for a fact, for the finance committee. I’m also very concerned, when I look at this list of advertisements, that we have a very diverse Ontario and a very robust ethnic media and that, within the budget of the committee, allowances include that diverse media. At the end of the day, we are concerned by the fact that—because that’s what I heard from other committees. So if we are to get a cross-section from across Ontario, we’ve got to make sure that that diverse community gets informed about our work here, this good work of the select committee.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, Ms. Scott?
Ms. Laurie Scott: I just wanted to know if you wanted to address—
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Well, in response to that, at the subcommittee level, we looked at putting the advertisement with Canada NewsWire, and we have experience in the past that many diverse and ethnic media do source Canada NewsWire and will take it from there. If we are going to add that, it’s going to change our budget.
Ms. Soo Wong: Okay.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, Ms. Lalonde.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Sorry, Madam Chair. I have a very deep voice today. I guess I just wanted to—
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Sorry. I’m just trying to sort of reflect, if I may say, on a very positive subcommittee report, that I know that my colleagues and—as I understand, it was very amicable and very positive, actually—
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Just a moment, MPP Lalonde.
Excuse me, but this is very disruptive. We can hear you, and it’s very difficult hearing the MPP who is speaking right now. Thank you.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: So I guess what I’m trying to say—and I know it’s nice to see that we can bring things forward in many ways of having amicable and pleasant conversation, but, as I understand, there’s maybe a desire among the opposition to amend some of the subcommittee report. Could I get clarification on that?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, MPP Natyshak?
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Pardon me, Chair; I’m going along with the beat here.
Yes, and I thank Madame Lalonde for raising that point. There are two points of reference—point 18 and also point 13—that I think will need to be amended but be brought back as an item for House leaders to discuss in pushing the interim report tabled to June 24, rather than June 4, because obviously the order of the House requires that those changes be done in the House rather than at committee. So if we can just have some consensus around bringing that issue back to House leaders so that they can make those changes through the House, then I think we’re ultimately fine.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m going to speak. I don’t think we’re opposed, per se, to this request, but I want to make sure, and I want to understand, I guess, that the committee is clear about the impact. I look at June 4 as a date where we have the opportunity of presenting to our colleagues how significant this work was. So I guess from a—I’m not sure. I never know if it’s the Clerk or the Chair—to understand the process of the request of my colleague.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Just for clarity, MPP Natyshak, are you suggesting that the interim report not be handed in on June 4 but rather at a later date, that date being the 24th of June?
Mr. Taras Natyshak: That’s right, Chair. Thank you. I believe that there is some agreement within the House leaders as it is, but it does carry weight if it comes back with some measure of consensus from the committee.
If I might add to the rationale around this, I think we’re weighing what ends up being in that interim report because of the nature of the culmination of that information being put into the interim report. There is about a month of testimony that will be left out of the interim report if we don’t push it back. So do we provide our colleagues in the House with all of the information and ensure that the interim report carries all of the information that we have received? Or do we leave them with just a fragment of the information, or a fraction of the information, that we’ve received, and wait until the final report in December?
I would much rather, and I think members would rather, have our colleagues understand and hear everything that we have learned in that interim report—we’re talking about a matter of three weeks—rather than cutting out some important testimony that may happen in the later weeks of our committee.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): MPP Wong, you have your hand up.
Ms. Soo Wong: My question to the member opposite who is asking to push it back to June 24 is, what happens if the House is not sitting? Because the House will probably rise, if everything gets done, and Ms. Scott and I have a past history. If the House rises in the second week in June, and you’re tabling June 24, what happens?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Just for clarity, I’m going to ask our Clerk to step in and to explain to us what happens.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you. I was going to ask. No one answered my question and I needed clarification on the impact of this decision, like I said.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Just to start from the beginning again: Procedurally, if you want to remove item 18 as a committee, that’s fine. You would then have to amend the subcommittee report or do a separate motion after the subcommittee report that you guys write to the three House leaders requesting that the interim report be moved back to June 24. There also can be a clause in that request, if there is agreement with the House leaders, where you would table the interim report with the Clerk.
You deposit it with the Clerk. It would then become a public document, just like it would be if the House was sitting. Then, what you can do—there is a past precedent where in that same motion in the House, there would be a line that the Chair would then stand up on the first day back in the fall session and report that the interim report was done on June 24. Nothing would change in terms of the actual report. It would still be a public document on June 24. It would still get delivered to all the members of the committee. But then it would just be reminded to all of the members in the House in September that that happened on June 24.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): So technically there would be no one to accept the report and it’s just going to end up in everyone’s inbox?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): It’s deposited with the Clerk. Yes, that’s right. It just gets deposited with the Clerk, and then it’s the same process as if the House was sitting. Everyone would get a copy of it and it would be a public document.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): MPP Lalonde.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Can I call you William?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Sure.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Thank you, William, for this. I guess for me, like I say, I think we’re very receptive to this suggestion. I just want to make sure that we are all aware that our concern—and I think it is a valuable concern—is that our report, as important as it is, may get lost when we’re not sitting. We may not get the same attention for this report as we would if we had been sitting June 4 and having the feeling of bringing it in the House and bringing it to our colleagues.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, MPP Natyshak.
Mr. Taras Natyshak: If I may, just from my experience in this place, limited as it is, when the House is not sitting and something as special as this special committee report is tabled during the doldrums of summer, when not much is happening in the Legislature, the media tend to grab onto items that come out of nowhere. I think, as a stand-alone item, it may actually receive more exposure than it would have if it was tabled on the second-last day before we recess.
These are considerations that I’m just putting out there. What I am concerned about, certainly, is ensuring that all of the information and all the testimony that we hear is captured in that report, and that we table a full report.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): MPP Naidoo-Harris.
Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I think that some of the information in this report will be very valuable and I think that the people of Ontario will be very eager to hear what’s in there.
My concern would be, yes, that if it is tabled over the summertime, it may get play in the media; however, people are busy with other things. I think the valuable information that will be contained here will be something that people will want to hear about as soon as possible. I think the more we reduce the delay, the better for everybody concerned, because I think, certainly on behalf of some of the women who are out there who are eager to find out what we’ve done and what we’ve been able to accomplish, this is important stuff and they would want that information as soon as possible.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): MPP Dong.
Mr. Han Dong: Maybe this is a question to Will. If we table it on June 4, I think the House is still sitting. We may have some opportunity to talk about it. We may get a question to debate in the House or debate at the committee. I’m assuming that there will be committee sessions after the 4th on this report.
If it’s tabled on the 24th, while the House is not sitting, do we have any opportunity to discuss and to take a look at its draft form prior to the 24th?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): The current mandate allows the committee to meet at the call of the Chair. The House doesn’t necessarily have to be in session for you guys to be meeting. So if you wanted to or needed to sign off on a final draft or have another report ready in the session—a lot of this time would be taken up, obviously, by printing, translation and things like that during the last couple of weeks, but if there did need to be a meeting called to have a final look at the draft—
Mr. Han Dong: Even when the House is not sitting, a meeting could be called?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): That’s right.
Mr. Han Dong: I don’t mind. I live nearby. Okay, that’s good to know.
Another point—first of all, I’m not against it; I’m indifferent. The 4th or 24th, I think there’s a good argument from both sides. But for June 4, we do have an opportunity to invite, other than the media, some of the stakeholders we will meet to come to the Legislature and include them in the introduction of this interim report. I thought that would be a good consideration, but I’m indifferent either way.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you. MPP Scott.
Ms. Laurie Scott: If we delayed to June 24—I’m listening to all the arguments; I can go either way also—we’ll have to come back after we rise to finish report writing, which is fine with me, because there will be rough drafts presented and then we’ll have to discuss, because we want to do these reports as a consensus agreement with the committee. I’m fine with that, but maybe for other members, it might affect their scheduling. So I just want to clarify that this will require, if we delay it, coming back.
Tabling it is not public, right? It doesn’t become public, then, until the fall, just so we all know the rules. If we change it to June 24, it is not public until we come back and until it’s tabled? Am I correct in that? It actually isn’t public until it’s actually tabled—
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): What’s not actually public?
Ms. Laurie Scott: The report.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): It would become public. If you deposit it with the Clerk, it would become public.
Ms. Laurie Scott: On June 24?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): On June 24, yes.
Ms. Laurie Scott: Okay. Thank you for that.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): If I may just add a comment? We determined that if it is published on June 4, we’re looking at about 50 to 60 different witnesses who we will have heard from at that point who will be included in the interim report.
Yes, Ms. Sattler.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Never having gone through this process of having an interim report and then a final report, I wondered if we could hear a comment from either the Clerk or the researchers about the difference between the two reports. I understand in the interim report—as we discussed at the subcommittee—it’s going to be a summary of what has been heard. There are not going to be recommendations; the final report will include the recommendations.
Will the final report also have a summary of the testimony that was received after the interim report? Because I think that is really our concern, that the testimony provided after this cut-off date of April 30 won’t be captured in the interim report. Does the final report re-summarize testimony? How does that work?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Our Clerk can speak to that.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): That’s up to the committee. As you guys are report writing, you would make those kinds of decisions as a whole. If that’s something you wanted to do, it’s something you can do. If it’s something you don’t want to do, it’s something you don’t have to. That’s a decision you guys will make at the report-writing stage.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, Ms. Lalonde.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: To bring sensitivity to my colleagues, I think we feel, although a little concerned, that we want to collaborate. We really want to make sure that this moves on in the right direction. I guess my next question is, what is the next step at this point, Madam Chair?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): You mean in terms of having this happen?
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes, in having this discussion.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Procedurally, essentially all you would have to do is agree as a committee to withdraw or remove item 13 for now, because you’re going to presume that that deadline is going to change. Unless you know right now what you want that deadline to change to, it can be something revisited by subcommittee. You’d remove item 18 and then you would add an item stating that you would like to write to the three House leaders requesting an extension on the interim report to, if this is the day you’re agreeing to, June 24, 2015.
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Is it having to bring a motion? Is that what it is? They would bring a motion?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): You’d be amending the subcommittee report, yes.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Do you have a motion you would like to bring forward at this point?
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes, exactly that, and if the committee will indulge myself, I’ll get that written up tout de suite—take a little recess, and we can—
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Mr. Natyshak, how much time do you need?
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Five minutes. The printer’s right over there.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): We are recessed for five minutes.
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Chair.
The committee recessed from 1625 to 1636.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Welcome back, members. We have two motions before us and I would ask that the first motion be put forward.
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much Chair, and the committee for their indulgence.
I move that item number 13 and number 18 of the subcommittee report be removed.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Let us take a vote on that. Those in favour? Those against? It’s carried.
Mr. Taras Natyshak: Chair, I move that the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment write to the three House leaders requesting an extension of June 24, 2015, to table its interim report.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Those in favour? Motion carried.
Members, we’re back to the subcommittee report, as now amended. I would like to have someone move this.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): No, you don’t need to move it. It’s already moved. It’s just if there’s further debate.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Sorry. Is there further debate? Mr. Hillier, I saw your hand first.
Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you very much, Chair. I just would like clarification on point 8; that is on oversubscribed deputants or delegations. My understanding is, typically, what we do is select people making delegations to committee by rotation. It’s not specifically laid out. It says it will be prioritized, the lists of people. I just wanted to seek some clarification if that is indeed what is intended in point 8, that there would be selection by rotation.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): The Clerk will speak to that.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Maybe it’s just different wording that I used when I drafted it but it’s similar to what the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs does if it’s oversubscribed for pre-budget. I get a list of every witness that’s oversubscribed in each location, send it back to each of the three subcommittee members, and then they send back to me from their list the people who they want off of that list.
Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. So equal—
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Right. Yes.
Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. I just wanted that clarification.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): MPP Sattler?
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you. I just wanted clarification from the Clerk on item 2. Are those one-time ads, like in the Star and L’Express, or is it weekly ads? What is the frequency?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): The Star is a one-time ad, L’Express is a weekly, and then the other ones would stay permanently on. So the website, Ontario parliamentary channel—sorry, Canada NewsWire is a one-time as well.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: So Toronto Star and Canada NewsWire are one time, the week of March 16?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Yes.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: L’Express is weekly over how many weeks?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Weekly for that week as well. It’s all aimed for that week. The week of March 16, L’Express is published on the Tuesday, so it’s only produced once a week.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Okay, but there’s only one ad.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Correct.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: There’s one ad placement for that single week.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Right, and then the Ontario parliamentary channel and the Legislative Assembly website—the ad would run permanently on that until we’re not hearing from witnesses anymore, and then we would pull the ad.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Is that the practice of other committees?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Yes.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: That you run a single ad, and then—
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Oh, sorry. Which part of the question—sorry.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Running a single ad and soliciting input.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Like in a newspaper?
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Yes. Because of the cost, the budget usually only allows you to do—I mean, you can do it in other locations if you want, but my understanding was that we were working with a budget and that was what best fit the budget. You can have discussion about it; that’s up to you. But that’s the way that would work. The Toronto Star is a daily—one day on March 16. L’Express is Tuesday the 17th. Canada NewsWire, I believe, is 24 hours, so it stays on the one day that we post it, and news outlets can pull off of it. Then, the Ontario parliamentary channel and the Legislative Assembly website would stay. You also have to remember we’re doing the e-mail-out of the women’s directorate stakeholder group as well, which would be an ad that we would email out to all of their stakeholder groups.
Ms. Peggy Sattler: Okay.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Are there any other questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Scott.
Ms. Laurie Scott: I’ll just ask for some clarification. Thank you, Madam Chair. On number 12, we had discussed for sure when travelling that witnesses be scheduled in 30-minute intervals and be offered up to 15 minutes for their presentation and 15 minutes to answer questions from committee members. It might just be a subcommittee duty also. Usually, if we’re just two hours every Wednesday here, we’re only going to see four people. So I just wondered—when we’re on the road, this totally makes sense. I wonder if there’s room in the subcommittee so that we may look at when Toronto witnesses appear that they be 20-minute rotations so we can see more people. I’ll just ask for that clarification.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Our Clerk is suggesting that this is a good issue for subcommittee and it can be discussed there.
Ms. Laurie Scott: Okay. Great.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Any other questions or comments?
Mr. Randy Hillier: One more comment, Chair: The comment may or may not be best suited with this motion about the subcommittee, but it may impact the subcommittee report. We know that the Premier announced last Friday that a legislative agenda will be rolled out which will be dealing with this subject matter, and I’m just wondering if we can get some clarification from whatever ministers will be—we’re not sure what ministers will be tabling legislation or when they’ll be tabling it. I’m just wondering if that will impact the work of the committee in any way.
My question is, would it be prudent and wise to have the ministers who will tabling legislation and deal with this policy field in the committee at some time, just to give us some background as to what they’re proposing and if it will have any effect on the delegations that we hear and the report?
Why I bring that up: There is a standing order that says that the committee does not delve into a subject matter while it’s also being considered in the House. I think it’s standing order 71(d). I’m not sure if that legislation will impact, but maybe if the ministers could provide some clarity on that to the committee, it might assist us and not have us go down dead ends or into obstacles.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you, Mr. Hillier. Our Clerk is going to speak to that.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Just with respect to the standing order that you quoted, 71(d) states that “No bill shall be considered in any standing or select committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House.”
We’re not considering a bill at this select committee, so that standing order wouldn’t actually apply to this scenario that you’re mentioning right now. With respect to if the committee wants to have the ministry—if hypothetically down the road a piece of legislation is drafted, it would be the committee’s decision whether or not you want to invite that ministry in to speak about the piece of legislation, if you think it’s going to help you with your work and your work towards a final report with this committee on the subject matter we’re dealing with.
Mr. Randy Hillier: I understand, but in that, it also says “procedural motions,” so I was wondering: That motion that gives mandate to this committee, would that also be captured by 71(d)?
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): You’re fine with 71(d). You could continue to meet.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Again, it was an action plan. It was not a piece of legislation that was put forward.
Mr. Randy Hillier: That’s right. Well, there’s that unknown of just what—it is an action plan. I don’t know if there will be—
Ms. Laurie Scott: If they bring in legislation, that was the—
Mr. Randy Hillier: —if there will be legislation brought in shortly or six months from now, or who knows?
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Yes, MPP McMahon.
Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I appreciate your question, Mr. Hillier. I think it’s an important opportunity to clarify what the mandate of the committee is, as set out and agreed upon in the House, so I appreciate you raising it. I think we do still have some clarity around that. I think, as the Clerk has outlined, if there is such an opportunity, if legislation is brought forward, there are conversations in that regard and we decide to bring witnesses forward, then we can decide as a committee at that time if that’s an appropriate thing to do.
But to reflect, if I may, Madam Chair, very briefly on the mandate of the committee, I think there is sufficient momentum in this room and around the province to do exactly, Mr. Hillier, what I know you want to do, as we all do, which is to hear the voices of women and women’s organizations across the province that will inform and shape our work moving forward. That is the very relevant, respectfully, very important piece of work that we are going to undertake here by travelling around the province and going to where people live.
I know you share in that spirit the desire to hear from women and women’s groups, which I think we will do, which will complement the action plan. I hope that’s helpful, but I appreciate you raising the point.
Ms. Eleanor McMahon: And of course, it’s an all-party conversation.
Mr. Randy Hillier: The answer is fine. I was just—because there is a series of unknowns, I don’t know what the agenda is, what the rollout will be and how that may or may not impact the workings of the committee.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Do we have any more discussion or debate on this? Well, committee members, are we prepared to vote on the subcommittee report, as now amended? Yes?
All those in favour? It’s carried. Thank you very much.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): We have a little bit more business. Our next order of business is to examine the budget. I’m going to ask MPP McMahon to move it.
Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that a budget of $210,000 for the Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment be approved, and that the Chair be authorized to present it to the Board of Internal Economy.
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Do I have a seconder? Yes, MPP Natyshak.
All those in favour? Oh—
Mr. Randy Hillier: Just one question: The budget that I have is called version 2 and it’s $200,000. Is there—
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Version 3 includes the travel expenses.
Any more discussion? Are we all in favour? Motion carried.
Members, I just want to bring to your attention that if you have any questions or research that you require addressed, our two researchers, Carrie Hull and Erin Fowler, are here at your disposal, so please reach out to them.
Our next meeting is scheduled for March 25, at which time we are going to begin our public hearings.
The committee adjourned at 1649.
Wednesday 11 March 2015
Strategy on sexual violence and harassment SV-29
Subcommittee report SV-29
Committee budget SV-34
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT
Chair / Présidente
Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)
Mr. Han Dong (Trinity–Spadina L)
Mr. Randy Hillier (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington PC)
Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Ottawa–Orléans L)
Ms. Harinder Malhi (Brampton–Springdale L)
Mrs. Kathryn McGarry (Cambridge L)
Ms. Eleanor McMahon (Burlington L)
Mr. Taras Natyshak (Essex ND)
Ms. Peggy Sattler (London West ND)
Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)
Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris (Halton L)
Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr. William Short
Staff / Personnel
Ms. Erin Fowler, research officer,
Ms. Carrie Hull, research officer,