CONTENTS
Thursday 10 December 1998
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay /
Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
MR DOUG GALT (NORTHUMBERLAND PC)
MR STEVE GILCHRIST (SCARBOROUGH EAST / -EST PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
MR PETER KORMOS (WELLAND-THOROLD ND)
MR ERIK PETERS, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
MR RAY MCLELLAN, RESEARCH OFFICER, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Bernard Grandmaître): Good morning, members. The first item on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee, of which you have a copy in front of you, I hope. Any questions on the subcommittee report?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'd like to propose an amendment, Chair, if I could.
The Chair: All we need is a motion before it can be amended. Somebody to move the subcommittee report?
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'll move the subcommittee report, Mr Chair.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chair, with your indulgence, I'd like to actually make two amendments. The first amendment is to section 1, to change "That the committee consider section 3.0l -- Business Transformation Project/Common Purpose Procurement (Ministry of Community and Social Services) on December 10" to "That the committee consider section 3.0l -- Business Transformation Project/Common Purpose Procurement (Ministry of Community and Social Services) on December 17."
We're proposing to change the date from December 10 to 17 for commencement of hearings on section 3.0l quite simply for the reason that the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Jack Carroll, is not available this morning due to personal circumstances which were certainly not foreseeable.
We're not trying to avoid hearings, rather simply postpone them for one week. We certainly apologize to the Provincial Auditor and to the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services for the short notice of this amendment. However, both opposition House leaders' offices were approached with this issue yesterday and indicated that they wished to proceed here today notwithstanding our request for the postponement. If the committee would like, we would be willing to request the House leaders that the committee sit an extra day next week.
Ms Martel: Our House leader was approached about this last night and he said no, that the committee should sit today. I want to reinforce that by the following comment: First, Mr Chair, there was never any request made by any member of this committee, either the subcommittee or the whole committee, to have Mr Carroll, the parliamentary assistant, be present for these proceedings.
In the time that I have been on public accounts, three years from 1987 to 1990 and then the three years from 1995 to 1998, this committee has never made a request of a parliamentary assistant for any ministry that is appearing before the committee to be at the hearings. I don't see why this committee should not sit today merely because the parliamentary assistant is not here. He was not asked to be here; he is not requested to be here under the rules; no one will be asking him any questions during these proceedings, Mr Chair. The questions will be directed to the ministry staff, who I understand are prepared to come and answer questions today. So I see no point whatsoever in deferring this meeting merely because Mr Carroll, who is not a member of this committee and who wasn't asked to be here, can't be here today. He's not going to be answering any questions anyway; that is for the ministry staff to do, particularly the ministry staff who were involved in this particular issue that the Public Auditor raised. I see absolutely no reason for this committee not to sit, not to proceed today.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I fully support the comment brought to our attention by Ms Martel. I really believe that we had scheduled this meeting today and we should go ahead with it.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Having heard what Ms Martel said, I do find good reason for the government to seek to leap today's activity and have it only on December 17, using Mr Carroll's absence as a rationale. That's because it's in the government's interest to have only one day of exposure to this issue rather than two days. But the subcommittee clearly identified two days, the 10th and the 17th, as being appropriate for consideration of business. That's number one.
Number two, the subcommittee, as Ms Martel indicated -- and I'm confident she would have been corrected had she not been bang on in terms of the accuracy -- never contemplated or considered the attendance of Mr Carroll, the parliamentary assistant.
Number three, Ms Martel is quite right in terms of the practice here. The parliamentary assistant is not particularly relevant to what's being queried of ministry staff, who are in a far better position to respond to any intentional or anticipated questions than Mr Carroll ever would be, and to respond to them in a non-political way.
As well, this committee has a long-time tradition of being non-partisan. That is reinforced by the proposition that it's the bureaucratic staff from the ministry who appear here, whose responses to questions are not tempered by partisan obligations. I also would question why the government is insistent upon the parliamentary assistant being here in view of the fact that the bureaucrats are far more in touch with the day-to-day operations of the ministry. We're not talking here about the political end of the development and establishment of policy, but the day-to-day operations.
It would have been nice that Mr Carroll, if he had wanted to be here, could have been here. Understand that I'm not criticizing his absence today, because he's had compelling reasons, but he was never called upon to be here. I wasn't called upon to be here, but I just happened to be here today. I just happened to wander into this committee this morning. Walking down the hallway, I saw an open door and I said, "By God, there's a committee going on. I'm entitled to be there by right," and I figured I'd just drop in; and here I am enjoying myself already.
I understand why the government is doing this, but I find it very unfortunate because it injects a partisanship into this that is unprecedented and infects the long-standing non-partisan role of this particular committee, unique among all other committees.
That's my observation from 10 years here. Other people have been here longer, Ms Martel among others. The government's request is pretty transparent.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Mr Kormos doesn't have the advantage of having been at our last subcommittee meeting. I want to put on the record that at that subcommittee meeting I think we have an excellent working relationship. It's a totally non-partisan meeting. As a matter of fact, the order in which we are going to review the various things in the auditor's report was determined entirely by the NDP and Liberal members. I agreed to every suggestion they made at that subcommittee meeting. In fairness, I think we have to go on record. I'll ask you to agree to that. It was totally non-partisan.
We're asking here for a one-week delay so we get the best answers from the right person. It's a very simple thing. Again, I want to extend apologies to the auditor and the Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services. We just want to get the right answers and the best information. We're not changing the order and we've agreed to everything that the Liberal and NDP members asked to scrutinize and in the order that they asked to scrutinize them.
The Chair: Can I ask a question of you, Mr Young? I realize that what you've just said is exactly right, but don't you think that staff can be as adequate as the parliamentary assistant?
Mr Young: Well, then, why would you have parliamentary assistants?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's just interesting, some of the comments that Mr Kormos made. He just dropped in and was enjoying himself. He's accidentally here. I officially got substituted on to the committee. I'm interested in some of his comments, though. He was referring to only one day next week. I've already heard the amendment offering two days. I think we should debate which that other day should be rather than quibbling over it being only one day.
I also object to him making reference to the parliamentary assistant, Jack Carroll, not being relevant. I think he's an excellent member. I think he was entering into borderline personal attacks on a fine, upstanding member of the Legislature. I just don't see that Jack Carroll is not relevant to this discussion. Also, that ministry should be represented in any kind of discussions that would be carried here, whether it's to defend or support or carry messages back to the minister.
He comments about it not having been partisanship before. I think his remarks have made it very partisan, what he's discussing and what he's brought up. I object to his comments about encouraging partisanship at this particular committee. If you want to talk about agreements and partisanship, how about on Monday night? When the agreement was a very short evening, that the opposition wouldn't be putting up speakers, they kept putting up speakers until midnight, for some seven and a half hours. That was very much out of line.
The Chair: This is not to be debated this morning.
Mr Galt: Just a comparison. Just to bring it back in with this committee, I certainly support the amendment put forward by Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Kormos: There doesn't seem to be really a problem here. This committee can commence today. Any questions of Mr Carroll can be deferred until the 17th when he can be here. As a matter of fact, if there's a response from a particular member of the bureaucracy, members might say, "By the way, I will be presenting Mr Carroll with a question with respect to that." They may want to do that so as to identify those areas where they'll be calling upon the PA. I don't think there's a problem. We can begin and then when Mr Carroll is here on Thursday of next week, those questions to be put to Mr Carroll could be put to Mr Carroll. Let's get on with the business here.
The Chair: Are you planning on introducing a motion, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: We've got a motion on the floor by way of an amendment.
The Chair: I realize this, but are you planning on introducing one? After we deal with Mr Gilchrist's motion, are you planning on introducing your own motion?
Mr Kormos: I don't think there will be a need to if the government -- Mr Carroll's going to be here next Thursday. I appreciate the concerns the government members have, but after all, Mr Carroll probably can be here next week.
The Chair: Good.
1020
Ms Martel: Everyone on this committee wants to get the best information and the best answers from the right person. Let's be clear, we're going to get the best answers and the best information from the ministry staff who were involved in dealing with this project. The parliamentary assistant was not responsible either for the signing or the negotiation of the terms and conditions of the contract with Andersen. He would have absolutely no knowledge of what went on here. The people who are going to give us the answers are the ministry staff who have already agreed to appear here today.
I have been on this committee a long time, six years between two different governments. I can tell all of the members of this committee that never, ever have we requested that a parliamentary assistant be part of the proceedings when we are dealing with the auditor's report -- never. There has never been a committee meeting where we have invited ministry staff to come in to respond to concerns about particular details of the auditor's report and the parliamentary assistant was party to that. We have never had a parliamentary assistant sit at the table with the ministry staff and answer questions. That is not how this committee works.
It is ridiculous for the government members to somehow propose today that we need Mr Carroll here because he's going to be answering questions. That's just not true; that's completely false. He won't be answering any questions because he's not going to be sitting here with the bureaucratic staff to do that. He was not requested to be here by any member of the committee. Excuse me, this is not to make a personal attack on Mr Carroll but he is completely irrelevant in terms of the proceedings we are about to have here today and next week. He will not be asked any questions; he will not be expected to answer any questions. If he wants to make comments as a member from the government side and be subbed in and ask questions in the rotation like all other members, he can do that next week.
For the government to come here today and try and get this committee postponed is very transparent. What you're trying to do is shut it down. I resent that because we do operate as a non-partisan committee. What you are trying to do today, to say that we cannot proceed without the parliamentary assistant, who wasn't asked to be here and who doesn't need to be here and who's not going to answer a single question anyway, is completely ridiculous. All you want to do is shut this down today. I resent that because we have never operated in a partisan fashion like you are trying to do here this morning.
I am urging you not to proceed in this way. If you want Mr Carroll here next week for some reason, go ahead, but there's no reason for us not to proceed today -- none at all.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd have to support Ms Martel on this. We have the time; we have the staff here. There may be some reservations as to specific information that Mr Carroll may want to either impart or deal with, which is fair enough. I think he certainly can have notice of questions that may be directed to him. I don't see why we can't begin. We had scheduled two days. This would cut us back to perhaps less than one meeting. Everyone's ready to go. I fail to see why we shouldn't at least proceed. If there's anything that pertains to Mr Carroll, he'll have his opportunity next week.
The Chair: Members of the government, no comments? Good. Then we'll deal with Mr Gilchrist's amendment. I don't need to read the amendment. I will proceed with the vote.
Ms Martel: If the government's going to proceed, I want a recorded vote. This is nonsense. They're trying to shut this down today.
Ayes
Beaubien, Galt, Gilchrist, Grimmett, Young.
Nays
Lalonde, Martel, Patten.
The Chair: The amendment carries.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chair, I have a second amendment as well. The second amendment is regarding section 2. I move that we delete that section for the very simple reason that the House leaders have indicated they'll be discussing committee meetings for the winter recess. The decisions regarding committee meetings during the recess will be made by the House leaders.
We certainly have no problem with the sections that have been chosen or the sequence in which they're indicated, but we don't believe it's a decision that's up to this committee to select specific dates. That that's a decision that has to be left up to the House leaders, so we're moving that section 2 be deleted.
The Chair: Comments, debate on section 2?
Mr Kormos: This is incredibly dangerous turf that the government members are taking this committee on to. Quite frankly, this takes me back before the last hiatus when the government utilized its time allocation motions to displace the as-of-right inquiry into the death of Dudley George from the justice committee, among others, knowing full well that putting inappropriate bills before that committee for unduly lengthy periods of time would have the effect of forbidding or preventing my application for that hearing to take place.
This is clearly pre-election posturing on the part of the Tories. They're doing major damage control. They know that they have a whole lot of exposure on the issue of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and in particular, obviously, the sweetheart deal with Andersen Consulting and the expenditure of literally millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money with no net result -- a piece-off, payoff, grease for their corporate friends. Clearly, they've taken enough heat on the McLean scandal. Well, what's scandalous is not Mr McLean but this government's payout of 600 grand, over half a million, to hush up the fallout and to hush up Ms Thompson with respect to the allegations of sexual harassment.
They're avoiding questioning that would reveal not only their incompetence but their total disrespect for any trusteeship of taxpayers' money when it came to Andersen Consulting and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That's the motive here. The committee is being tainted by partisanship once again. That is unprecedented. All I say to them is that they are out on dangerous turf. How much more damage do they want to do to the process here before they're finished?
Ms Martel: It is clear by the mere fact that the government today has substituted other people for most of its regular members that the whole purpose of today's exercise is to deep-six the ability of this committee to deal with various sections of the auditor's report, particularly those that are incredibly damning to this government, and particularly the sweetheart of all sweetheart deals that it made with Andersen Consulting. I really resent that the government has stooped to these kinds of tactics today and I can only assume it's because of all the heat they are now taking with respect to Al McLean and the hush-hush money that the government's prepared to put on the table as well to cover that up.
If you check with the motion that this committee put before the House leaders last year when we wanted to sit during the break, I am quite certain that motion included specific dates the subcommittee had agreed the committee could meet. I'm quite certain there were very specific dates. It is quite common that committees choose those dates, put them into their motions and send them on to the government House leaders. What the subcommittee agreed to unanimously last week with respect to setting out the dates that we want to meet and conveying that to the government House leaders is completely in order, and everyone in this room knows it.
1030
All we are seeing here today -- first, with the motion where the government members used their majority to shut down this committee from meeting today because we are supposed to hear details about that sweetheart of sweetheart deals with Andersen Consulting, and now this attempt to delete all of section 2, which sets out the week in the break that we were supposed to deal with other issues that the government looks like fools on, particularly with respect to MNR, the fish and wildlife program, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and with other items of natural resources where the government looks like fools -- all that is happening here today is that you folks are trying to shut what has traditionally been a non-partisan committee right down so you don't suffer any further embarrassment. It is as transparent as that.
It is completely inappropriate for the government members to suggest that we have no right or in the past have not set out specific dates for the committee to meet. That is completely untrue, completely false. That's exactly what this committee did when we met in the break last year. We specifically identified the dates we wanted to sit.
I say to the government members, it's ridiculous what you are doing here today. But it was clear for me, when I saw the gaggle who were walking in today who were replacing the normal members of this committee, that all you were going to do today was to try and shut this down. I think it's just ridiculous that you are doing this. It completely undermines this committee. It undermines the auditor and his role on this committee and it undermines the ability of all members to find out what happened with respect to the items that the auditor reviewed, particularly the disgusting deal that was made with Andersen. That's all this is today: an attempt to shut this committee down to avoid further embarrassment for this government, particularly in light of all of the embarrassment this week around the Al McLean scandal.
Mr Lalonde: I'm completely opposed to the motion brought forward by Mr Gilchrist. I think this committee decided last week unanimously that we would meet during those dates, February 8, 9, 10 and 11. After reading the whole document, the way the contract has been handled by Andersen Consulting, it is a shame that at this point we are not in the position to question the way this contract was awarded and also the way this government has handled this situation. There are some serious points in the contract that we went through and I think it's urgent that we start to deal with it.
Mr Young: We struggled when we chose these dates, actually, trying to balance our calendars etc. I think one of the reasons we struggled is because we don't know what other committees are going to be sitting during the interval. The people in the best position to decide that are the House leaders. They'll know what bills will be referred to what committees. There are 11 standing committees of the Legislature. Outside of the Ombudsman, which is unlikely to sit, that leaves 10 for them to juggle and balance workload and resources for ministries, for government members, for legislative assembly staff etc. They are in the best position to make those decisions when the committee should sit. They could end up even choosing the same days, I don't know, but we just want to leave it in their hands to make that decision.
Mr Kormos: What's most interesting is that Mr Young, who's present today and a member of this committee, is the representative on the subcommittee. What's equally interesting is that Mr Gilchrist is not a member of the committee. He's substituted here today, as he's perfectly entitled to be.
Mr Gilchrist: Like you.
Mr Kormos: No, I'm not substituted. I'm here as of right. It's Mr Gilchrist who's bringing these motions. Mr Young couldn't be trusted with it perhaps, but Mr Gilchrist is clearly here under marching orders. He's substituted on the committee --
Mr Young: Actually, the reality is that I was stuck on the QEW with traffic.
Ms Martel: He's not even a member of this committee. You guys know that. He's in here because he had instructions to --
Mr Gilchrist: I'm here because I'm substituting for Joe Tascona.
Ms Martel: Oh, come on, please.
Mr Gilchrist: Where do you see Joe?
The Chair: Mr Gilchrist, Ms Martel, please. Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I'm sorry, Chair. If I've struck a nerve, I should either stop drilling or somebody should administer Novocaine.
It is clear that Mr Gilchrist is here with marching orders. Mr Gilchrist's mission today -- and it's not a Mission Impossible because they have the numbers and they're all prepared to follow orders -- is to shut down the hearings, at least for today --
Ms Martel: There go the ministry staff; there they go.
Mr Kormos: -- do these things one step at a time. It appears the ministry staff got their marching orders to head home. Mr Gilchrist's mission is to shut this down at least for today. He'll worry about the 17th when it comes to the 17th. We may not even be here on the 17th. The efforts now to shut down the dates of February 8, 9, 10 and 11, as we get closer and closer to an election period, reveal this. The only inference to be drawn is that this is an incredibly partisan exercise. Mr Gilchrist was sent here to shut her down, to shut them up, to close her, and he's going to be successful in doing that.
Mr Gilchrist is paid to do what he's doing. I have no quarrel with the fact that he's following orders. It doesn't diminish my repugnance at what's happening, but I say to his colleagues to be very careful of blindly supporting this motion or any subsequent ones that may come from Mr Gilchrist, because they are, as I say, tainting and infecting this committee in a way that no government has in the past, notwithstanding that governments have always held the majority of members on this committee.
Mr Patten: I have to register my concern as well because what it does is call into question the whole function and legitimacy of this committee and what it does. Number 2 simply says that the committee is requesting "time to meet during the winter recess" and the suggested dates are there. When someone comes into this meeting -- not a member of the committee -- to put a stop to this and to offer nothing else in its place, as Ms Martel said, it's perfectly in order for the committee to recommend and to square those dates with other dates where other committees may be meeting. Sometimes we've negotiated some dates and we may have substituted one date for another, fair ball, but I see nothing out of order.
It troubles me, frankly, especially when we have conferences and talk about the importance of this particular committee to respond to the auditor and what the auditor has identified as important areas that need further examination, and of course our function is exactly that. I find it terribly troubling for the government to come in now, to send in a runner to put a halt to exploring areas, interfering in the legitimacy of this particular committee. It raises questions as to its ability to function with any degree of independence and to look at areas of concern.
I think this committee has operated on a fairly non-partisan basis heretofore, so I find extremely troubling this approach to cut off what has been agreed to in the subcommittee. My understanding was that it was agreed to by all members of the subcommittee. It's coming forward now and a government member, Mr Gilchrist, has been sent in to put a stop to all this. I find this very sad and troubling, so of course I wouldn't agree with it.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Ms Martel might have had me convinced in her argument on the first point. However, with regard to the political twist to this whole issue, I've sat on this committee for about three years and probably 99.9% of the time I don't see the pressure. Somehow Mr Kormos just happened to pop in this morning. This issue was apparently discussed with the House leaders last night.
With regard to Mr Gilchrist reading the amendments, Mr Young was late and Mr Gilchrist took the lead in reading the amendments. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Ms Martel: What did the House leaders say, Marcel?
Mr Beaubien: However, when we talk about making it a political issue, like I said, I think you almost had me convinced on your first point, but I wonder who's trying to make this into a political arena when we're talking about dates here. I don't care when we sit, but I certainly agree that the House leaders should decide when we should be here or not. Why should I come to Toronto when the House is not sitting for a two-hour meeting per day? I'd rather fill my day with two, four or six hours per day.
Ms Martel: We didn't say two hours per day.
Mr Beaubien: Consequently, who's trying to make this into a political arena?
Ms Martel: Ask Terence what we agreed to last week, how we were going to do this.
1040
Mr Gilchrist: Perhaps I can clarify things here. If in fact it is troubling to the members opposite, they've had a chance to pander to their audience now and make their cheap shots. Hopefully, Mr Kormos and Ms Martel have another system. It is specifically a reference to the dates that I'm expressing a concern about. If it is the pleasure of the committee that that section stand without reference to specific dates, I'm prepared to amend my motion so that it simply deletes the clause "on February 8, 9 10 and 11, 1999," because it is not within the purview of this committee to require the House leaders to present a motion for any committee to sit during recess. It is absolutely the practice of committees to sit, but it is solely at the discretion of the House leaders, who then present a motion which is duly passed in the House.
I am quite comfortable, as I said in introducing the amendment in the first place, with the sequence and with the fact of meeting during the intersession. My only concern is with the date. If it makes it more palatable to the members opposite that section 2 will stand, my amendment would then be to simply delete the clause that says "on February 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1999." I'm prepared to do that.
Ms Martel: We're prepared to agree to that because it was the government member himself, who is the whip to this committee, who agreed to the date, so I could never figure out why Mr Gilchrist was coming in there to try and change that now.
There is nothing wrong with us putting in specific dates as to when this committee could meet. We did that last year when we asked the House leaders for specific times. So there was nothing wrong with the motion as is. Given that the government has the majority here today and the best we're going to do is allow section 2 to at least go forward without a date, then I am prepared to accept that, but I see no reason whatsoever for the amendment in the first place.
Mr Patten: I was going to make the same point, that the committee is simply recommending these dates. It's requesting time to meet during the winter recess on the suggested dates. With or without the dates, the dates have to be confirmed in any case. They will be discussed by the House leaders. As has happened in the past, we've had to juggle a few dates here and there, no problem. This is not saying we will meet; this is saying the committee requests time to meet and identifies the dates. It is not our final decision to make, so I fail to see why we need any amendment at all, Mr Gilchrist, on that particular issue. If there are concerns, they'll be brought up at the House leaders' meeting.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Mr Galt: Put the question.
The Chair: Will you be tabling your amendment to your motion?
Mr Gilchrist: I'll withdraw the original motion and simply move that we delete the reference to the dates.
The Chair: So the original motion has been withdrawn.
Mr Gilchrist: I instead move that section 2 be amended by deleting the clause "on February 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1999."
Mr Lalonde: Mr Chair, can we hear the complete amendment now?
The Chair: You just did.
Mr Lalonde: The whole motion.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 2 be amended by deleting the clause "on February 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1999."
The Chair: The ayes? The nays, against? It carries.
Ms Martel: I have a third motion that I'd like to move to deal with this.
The Chair: Very good. Is it an amendment to the subcommittee report?
Ms Martel: Yes, it would be. It would read as follows, Mr Chair: "That the committee consider section 3.01 -- Business Transformation Project/Common Purpose Procurement (Ministry of Community and Social Services) on Monday, December 14, 1998, and if necessary on December 17, 1998, that at 10 am we be briefed by the Provincial Auditor on what he saw during his detailed audit of this ministry and the contract with Andersen Consulting, and that at 10:30 we have an open session with the ministry staff" who were here today but who have been sent home.
I assume that the government is going to support this, because Mr Gilchrist, who has been sent in here to make sure this committee doesn't sit today, did, during the course of his remarks, say that the committee was prepared to meet next week. Of course, all of us are very concerned that this committee won't meet next week because the House won't sit next week if things continue the way they are in the House with respect to the Al McLean sexual harassment scandal. That is why we wanted to make sure we sat today, but the government used its majority to deep-six that. So I am moving that we sit on Monday and on our regularly scheduled meeting day, Thursday, to deal with this particular item from the auditor's report.
The Chair: I think what you're doing, Ms Martel, is that this committee's requesting the House leaders' permission to sit on Monday.
Ms Martel: I'm not sure why we would need it, Mr Chair.
The Chair: House leaders usually accept or --
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): Procedurally, for the committee to meet outside of its regular meeting day, they need to request meeting time. So your motion would read, "The committee requests the House leaders to authorize the public accounts committee to meet on Monday, December 14."
Ms Martel: Then, Mr Chair, we have to ask the House leaders. I still assume, given what Mr Gilchrist said today, that the government members on this committee are prepared for this committee to meet twice next week, that the government House leader, Mr Sterling, is not going to in some way, shape or form not allow this to happen.
Mr Kormos: Ms Martel's motion is certainly not out of order. If this committee is stating that it will meet on Monday and then Thursday, and it's obviously, if the clerk indicates, only capable of doing so as a result of the House leaders' agreement, it obviously implies that there will be consent on the part of House leaders. I don't believe it has to be stated in the motion, in the amendment.
The Chair: I'm being told that the committee can't meet outside our scheduled meetings and that we need permission.
Mr Kormos: I hear what you're saying, Chair, but implicit in the committee passing this motion is the understanding that the House leaders have to agree. We know what's going to happen. Norm Sterling is going to shut her down, but let's make him do it if he's going to do it.
Mr Gilchrist: In fact, we're pleased to meet a second day. Our preference would have been the second slot on Thursday, but we're quite prepared to make it an earlier day. I would just indicate to the members opposite that Mr Carroll's private member's bill is being debated on Monday in one of the other committees, so if Tuesday is an acceptable alternative then that would be fine with us. We're happy to request our House leader as well to accommodate that change. If Tuesday is acceptable to Ms Martel as an amendment to her amendment, then we would be pleased to support that.
Mr Kormos: This is a busy place and members have all sorts of obligations. If Mr Carroll can't fulfill his responsibilities as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services while he's being paid to the tune of 12 grand a year in addition to his minimum wage of $78,006 a year, then perhaps he should reconsider his priorities. I find it very, very interesting that now Monday is somehow inconvenient for Mr Carroll. The minister has two PAs; perhaps another one would be appropriate.
Mr Young: Mr Kormos is well aware that members have a multiplicity of duties in this Legislative Assembly, and if Mr Carroll's private member's bill obligates him to be in another committee, I'm sure Mr Kormos in his heart of hearts understands that Mr Carroll's bill, which deals with alternative fuels and agriculture-based fuel mixtures, is an excellent initiative and is important. I think it's very important.
I did want to comment, although it would seem that we're past that hurdle, that Monday mornings are not good for most members. That's when many members meet with constituents; others are travelling from quite far.
Mr Kormos: Try Sunday night.
Mr Young: Others are meeting with municipal officials or local agencies etc.
1050
Ms Martel: Mr Chair, can I confirm that the committee that will be dealing with Mr Carroll's private member's bill is actually meeting Monday afternoon, not Monday morning?
Mr Young: Mr Carroll has to come from Chatham.
Ms Martel: Excuse me, I've just come from Sudbury, okay? I'm sorry, Terence, give me a break, all right? I come in Sunday nights to be here on time.
The Chair: Can somebody answer Ms Martel's question?
Ms Martel: I want to know, is it true that --
Interjection.
Ms Martel: So it's just Monday afternoon. So in actual fact there's no reason for this committee not to sit Monday morning, because Mr Carroll could be present here Monday morning; he does not have a commitment until Monday afternoon.
Mr Gilchrist: What's wrong with Tuesday?
Mr Young: What about the other members? People have commitments.
Mr Beaubien: For the record, on Monday I will not be available because we are having groundbreaking ceremonies for a new auto plant in my riding which will employ 300 people. Consequently, if somebody is sitting in my chair, I just want you to know that's the reason why.
Mr Kormos: Send your constituency assistant. Do what other busy MPPs do.
Ms Martel: Send someone else in.
Mr Beaubien: It's between 2 and 4, Mr Kormos, and I'm sorry but that takes priority.
Mr Gilchrist: It is extraordinarily unfortunate that the other side is being as partisan as they are. Just this week alone, we had the hearings on the Greater Toronto Services Board. Last week, all three parties' House leaders had originally agreed that Monday would be the date that we would have the clause-by-clause consideration. That was completely inconvenient for me, as the province's representative on the Rouge Park alliance. Despite my protest, that was the original schedule. It was then determined that because of a conflict for both the Liberal and NDP members, who wanted -- not had to, but wanted -- to sit in on the justice committee for the consideration of Bill 79, clause-by-clause, could we change the deliberations on GTSB to Tuesday and Wednesday? We did that.
But Ms Martel would have us believe in this room here today that this is a very one-way street. Earlier this week we completely accommodated the request of the Liberal and NDP parties to change the date, when our ministry and our staff and our members had already set up a date on Monday, to dates that were more convenient for them. It is extraordinarily improper, I submit to you, that Ms Martel is making this such a partisan issue, particularly in this committee. We proposed Tuesday. If Tuesday isn't convenient, the second slot on Thursday would be equally convenient to the government members and certainly would allow Mr Carroll to attend, as well as the other members of this committee, two of whom have already indicated they have other commitments on Monday.
Ms Martel: I want to make it absolutely clear to the committee once again that we are here now trying to find another date to sit next week only because, Mr Gilchrist, you came in today and shut down the regular sitting for today. That's why we are in the position we are right now, trying to find some kind of date next week. So don't talk to me about accommodation and how accommodating you are. We're looking for another date because you were sent in here specifically to shut the sitting down today. We would have sat today and we would have sat next Thursday, except that the hired gun was sent in here to shut it down so the government couldn't further be embarrassed by its disgusting contract with Andersen one more time.
So yes, I think we should sit Monday. We are in the position of trying to find a date because of your actions today, not because of anything the opposition should do. I don't see what the problem is to sit Monday. Mr Carroll, who doesn't need to be here anyway -- and everyone knows that, and that was so transparent for you to use as an excuse today for us not to sit -- in fact could be here, because the committee that he has to appear before for his private member's bill doesn't sit until Monday afternoon. There's absolutely no reason the parliamentary assistant, who's not going to answer a single question anyway about this entire matter, cannot be here. He can. I think we should stick to Monday, because now we're trying to find a way out of the mess that the government members created this morning because they didn't want the ministry to come here today and have to answer embarrassing questions about this contract.
Mr Kormos: Perhaps we'd better go to the beginning. I noted already that Mr Gilchrist is a substitute, as is proper. He's substituting for a member who presumably can't be here because that member has other obligations. Mr Galt is substituting today for a regular member of the committee who presumably can't be here because that member has other obligations. It's entirely appropriate. Mr Gilchrist came here. It wasn't Mr Young who made the motion amending the subcommittee report, deleting, eliminating, killing, quashing today as a day for consideration, as Ms Martel has pointed out, of the incredible multi-million dollar piece-off of Andersen Consulting by this government. He wanted to shut it down.
His obsession with avoiding Monday and accepting Tuesday causes one to become suspicious about exactly what is the schedule and legislative agenda for next week. What is this government's agenda? I tell you something, I've got a feeling that the heat on the $600,000 payoff, the hush money over the Al McLean deal, because it's starting to spook government backbenchers -- they're getting big heat back in their ridings and some of them are starting to crumble under that heat. Clearly today, Thursday, is going to be yet another question period where the government is going to face intensive probing about exactly what was going on with that deal.
Who are they silencing when they pay an extraordinary amount by way of settlement and when they pay not only the successful plaintiff's legal fees -- because she was successful, because it was settled, wasn't it, in her favour -- extraordinary in itself, but they also pay the unsuccessful defendant's legal fees, Mr McLean's, extraordinary as well?
I've got a feeling this Parliament may not sit beyond Monday. I've got a feeling that if the heat is maintained on the McLean hush money deal Monday will be a wrap-up day, and that's Mr Gilchrist's obsession with deferring this or having it commence on Tuesday. They clearly will go to any lengths to shut it down today.
Mr Carroll is not relevant to the questions that were to be put to bureaucrats from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. He wasn't relevant to the briefing by the Provincial Auditor.
Ms Martel: He wasn't asked to be here.
Mr Kormos: He's never been asked to be here. He isn't a member of the committee. The subcommittee representative, Mr Young, never suggested during the subcommittee considerations, I am told, that Mr Carroll would be critical to the timing or the scheduling of these meetings. It was never a consideration. I'm not blaming Mr Carroll for not being here today. He has urgent matters that compel him to be elsewhere. I understand that and I'm not criticizing him for not being here. But that's OK because he doesn't have to be here in any event. We could have started today, and if there were any questions of Mr Carroll or a need for Mr Carroll to elaborate on anything that was said by the ministry staff who have all been sent home, or anything that was said by the Provincial Auditor or anything that was said by way of questions put by opposition members or even government members, they could have been put to Mr Carroll on the 17th, when we're told he could have been here.
I think that this government is considering shutting down this Parliament on Monday. They clearly can't do it today, but I think they're assessing the situation. They're waiting to see what happens vis-à-vis press coverage and public mood regarding the McLean hush money scandal. They're prepared to come in here on Monday and wrap things up to avoid being tainted and the further exposure of being confronted with the Andersen Consulting deal which would have happened this morning -- very, very volatile stuff. Where the government wants to hold itself out as being the save-taxpayers'-dollars government, in fact it has been, when it comes to their corporate buddies, just blowing money like mad, and when it comes to their backbench good old boy buddies, even more so inclined to spend money simply to keep people quiet.
1100
Do you blame me for being suspicious of Mr Gilchrist at this point, after what has transpired this morning? Is anybody who is here not sensing an odour of less than straightforward dealings here?
Mr Young: You're mixing your metaphors.
Mr Kormos: That's OK. It stinks, Mr Gilchrist, it reeks. You unfortunately are the person, as the hired gun this morning sent here to shut this down, who is bringing that stench in here. It's sad that it's happened at public accounts. As I say, in 10 years here public accounts is the one committee that's had a history of being non-partisan. For it to be abused and distorted in this way is reprehensible, and it will have its price.
If they think they're going to hide by shutting the Legislature down on Monday, let me tell you, where I come from and I'm sure where Ms Martel comes from, and quite frankly where Mr Lalonde and Mr Patten come from, and anywhere in this province, the deal with Andersen Consulting has left a bad taste in people's mouths and the deal with Al McLean has left an even worse taste in people's mouths. There's no escaping for these guys. I suppose they can run, but they can't hide. I wanted to mix that metaphor too, but I didn't dare. You know what I had in mind.
Mr Galt: It was interesting to hear the ramblings of Mr Kormos and some of the comments of Ms Martel earlier. Mr Kormos talking about shutting the place down, I just can't imagine anything more ridiculous than his song and dance here. The probability is that we may end up having to go longer because of the obstruction the opposition is carrying out. One good example of why we're here this morning is because of the opposition leaders insisting that their members get an opportunity to come here and grandstand, and that's exactly what's been going on for the last hour, the opportunity, particularly for the NDP, to grandstand and carry on.
Although Ms Martel was not embarrassed, I was embarrassed as a member of the Legislature at some of her comments earlier. Having been a House leader and having been a member of this committee, she says, for six and a half years, she doesn't know how to put a motion forward as to how you change days that was a recommendation rather than a demand for a certain day. I was quite embarrassed on her behalf. I would think that with her experience in this Legislative Assembly she would at least know how to put a motion on the table for a committee such as this. I just feel badly for her. It's most unfortunate that she would embarrass herself here, although it's not obvious on her face or in her comments, but certainly I think the rest of us around this table felt sorry for her. It's most unfortunate.
There's no question, Chair, why we're here. It's an opportunity for the opposition to grandstand, and they've been doing just a fine job of it, by the way.
Mr Gilchrist: Much as it has always been my impression that the more we let Mr Kormos talk the more support for our government goes up, I think perhaps it would be appropriate to bring an end to this ramble from the non-committee member and the official sub.
Considering that it is the House leaders who will be making the decision when this committee sits, I'm quite prepared to vote on Monday. We will support Monday, and if Ms Martel is embarrassed when her House leader or the Liberal House leader or our House leader finds that they cannot get their members subbed in or represented on Monday, then we may very well see a different motion. But I am quite prepared, to bring this interminable ramble on the part of the verbose members on the other side to an end, to support Ms Martel's motion. I think I speak for all the government members in that regard.
Mr Young: I want to sum up and reiterate that as a government member on the subcommittee, in the spirit of non-partisanship, I sat back while the NDP member and the Liberal member chose the sections of the auditor's report they wanted the committee to look at. I also sat back while they chose the exact order in which the committee would look at those, would scrutinize those. In the spirit of non-partisanship, Mr Gilchrist has amended his motion to reiterate and underline those choices and that order. All we're trying to determine right now is to allow, empower or agree that the House leaders, who are best equipped and have most of the information on all of the other standing committees, decide the exact dates of when you review this.
Mr Kormos: I can tell you right now, Chair, that the NDP House leader is not going to block this committee sitting on Monday morning, and I suspect that my colleagues Mr Patten and Mr Lalonde will say the same about their House leader, but Mr Gilchrist has clearly telegraphed to us what is going to happen, and that is that if it is unsuitable for the government, the government House leader will do everything he can to block this committee sitting, notwithstanding the committee's expressed intention.
Number two, if the government can't manage to get members here on a Monday morning when the minimum wage in this Legislature for elected members is $78,006 a year, when I see at least two, possibly more, parliamentary assistants here, which increases the salary by another 10, 11, 12 grand a year, and in view of the numbers that the government has and in view of the capacity that any caucus has to substitute members before this committee, if that's the excuse it's going to use, that its members are travelling on Monday morning, then some of these people had better reflect on the significant income they make and whether they're prepared to fulfill their responsibilities as MPPs. I find that a really silly argument to propose, but I also find it very interesting that we would have that telegraphed to us that the argument that is going to be used by the Tory House leader is, "Oh, we can't get out members out Monday morning," therefore they'll block this hearing.
If they block the proceedings of this committee on Monday morning, everybody will know why they're doing it: because they don't want to be embarrassed further by their sweetheart deal with Andersen Consulting, costing the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars on the heels of what we know now about their payoff, the hush money over the McLean-Thompson deal.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions? I'll put the question.
Mr Young: Could you read the motion?
The Chair: I need the actual wording of your motion.
Ms Martel: I move that the committee request time from the government House leaders to meet on Monday, December 14, 1998, at 10 am to consider section 3.01 -- Business Transformation/Common Purpose Procurement (Ministry of Community and Social Services).
The Chair: Very good. Any other comments? So I'll be asking for the vote, the ayes and nays.
Ms Martel: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Beaubien, Galt, Gilchrist, Grimmett, Lalonde, Martel, Patten, Young.
The Chair: Now the report, as amended, the ayes and nays.
Ms Martel: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Beaubien, Galt, Gilchrist, Grimmett, Young.
Nays
Lalonde, Martel, Patten.
The Chair: No other business?
Ms Martel: Obviously not, Mr Chair. The government shut that down, didn't they?
The Chair: Thank you for your co-operation this morning. This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1109.