Thursday 3 June 1993

Subcommittee report

Committee budget


*Chair / Président: Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)

*Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)

*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)

*Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)

*White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr Sorbara

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Fletcher

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Dadamo

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Wessenger

Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco

Staff / Personnel: Luski, Lorraine, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1010 in room 228.


The Chair (Mr Mike Brown): The standing committee on general government will come to order.

The first business of today is to adopt a report of the subcommittee. I believe all members have a copy of the report of the subcommittee. I would like to point out, though, that there's a typo that makes some significant difference.

Under number 3 on the subcommittee you will notice that it says, "That the committee invite witnesses to appear before the committee on Thursday 24 June 1993 at -- " it should be 10, not 3:30.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You're amending certain --

The Chair: We're not amending.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm sorry, there's a typo.

The Chair: This is just a mistake as to what was agreed to yesterday. We'll have discussion on this as soon as members are satisfied that the actual subcommittee report says what was agreed to at the subcommittee.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What's that again?

The Chair: Mr White, under number 3, second line, it says "3:30." It should be 10 o'clock.

Mr Mammoliti: During the subcommittee meeting yesterday, we agreed to the items that are before us, of course with the understanding that I would come back to my colleagues and find out whether or not this would be acceptable, not only to them, but I had some concerns about the ministry and the minister as well and whether or not the minister could make it and whether or not the ministry might have a problem with these dates and times.

There are a number of suggestions I'd like to make here in terms of amending this. I don't think it's going to be a problem. It means that we're going to have to condense a lot of this. We also talked yesterday about the possibility of other bills coming in front of the committee. Simcoe is going to take up a lot of our time apparently. We need to get this out of the way as quickly as possible, to be quite honest.

For that reason, I'm going to ask the committee to work a little harder perhaps over a shorter amount of time, to try and get the deputants out of the way and get on to other important items that we might want to be doing this summer.

The amendments would include the switching of the ministry briefing with the minister on the 17th, so that the ministry would give us our briefing in the morning as opposed to the afternoon and the minister would come in the afternoon, because he can't make it in the morning. That's the first amendment. The second amendment would include an extra sitting that night from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On the 24th?

Mr Mammoliti: On the 17th. I think all members realize that we need to get agreement from all three House leaders and bring it into the Legislature as well. From what I can understand, they're going to be talking about that this morning, whether or not they're prepared to do it. My understanding is that they are prepared to do it. For that reason, we're asking for these amendments.

On June 24, we originally talked about sitting in the morning and not sitting in the afternoon, because we said that there would be some bell-ringing and it would interrupt in the afternoon. So we agreed on the morning. The amendment I bring forward to the committee today would include the afternoon, because after some discussion with the ministry and with some of the key people on our particular side of the table, we have found that the bells probably won't ring that day and that we want to --

Mr Grandmaître: Is that a guarantee?

Mr Mammoliti: Well, I think if you talk to your House leaders, you'll know that they're going to be discussing this this morning as well, and we would like to include the afternoon. If a problem does occur with this for some reason or another, we can come back and amend it again, but at present our understanding is that the bells aren't going to ring and that it's going to be extended. So we would include our amendments to be the afternoon as well, and again at night, so 7 to 10 o'clock at night on the 24th as well, with the understanding of course that this as well has to be approved in the Legislature. These amendments need to be approved as well in the Legislature.

July 1 it's not possible to sit. This was not a part of our agreement. July 1 is a holiday, and that takes out a day for us in terms of what other days could be available for clause-by-clause. The 10th, of course, of June was not possible because it's the Conservatives' convention and there's a problem with that. So there are already two days which we could have utilized to use up for clause-by-clause, but because of those two days we couldn't do it in June and the first day of July. For that reason, another amendment would include July 8, a full-day sitting for clause-by-clause, and July 15 clause-by-clause. The two days that we'd actually agreed on yesterday we now have dates for, so they'd be July 8 and 15.

The changes --

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Perhaps you could clarify for me, but really I think what seems to be happening here is the work of the subcommittee, and obviously there's no report yet. Unless we have a report from the subcommittee which is in front of us, perhaps the subcommittee should meet again and figure this out, because --


The Chair: Order. The subcommittee met yesterday afternoon. People have just had the opportunity of looking at the report of the subcommittee. It's probably more proper that I would have had someone move the report of the subcommittee before Mr Mammoliti started to discuss what amendments he would like to make to the subcommittee, but other than that I think this is the way to proceed. At the subcommittee, people understood, I think, when they left that meeting, that there was going to have to be some checking with their various caucuses and ministries to see if what was chatted about --

Mr Daigeler: This is obviously more than checking. I mean, this is a totally different report.

The Chair: Well, maybe, Mr Mammoliti, you would like to move the adoption or somebody would like to move the adoption of the subcommittee report so that we have something actually on the floor to discuss and then we can move with the amendments.

Mr Grandmaître: So moved.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître moves the adoption of the subcommittee report. Mr Mammoliti, you can continue.

Mr Mammoliti: All right. To clarify this, this is not an intent to pose problems to the committee or try and pull a fast one on you. This is merely an attempt to free up some more time that we might need for the Simcoe issue this summer. My understanding is that this is going to come to the committee, and we may want to travel on it, and we're going to need some extra time. For that reason, and yesterday we had this discussion, we need to condense this particular slot and try and move it as quickly as possible to leave room for things like Simcoe. That's the only reason. There's no other reason.

Interjection: Could you move your amendment?

Mr Mammoliti: I spoke of the amendments. I'd like to move the amendments, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Would you have a copy of those amendments?

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, I do, actually.

The Chair: You have a copy, Mr Mammoliti?

Mr Mammoliti: Yes.


The Chair: Would you like to read those in for us just so that we are all sure what we're discussing before we discuss them?

Mr Mammoliti: You want me to read them again? Okay. I move the following amendments, Mr Chairman:

On June 17 we would meet with the ministry, which would be followed by the critic's response in the morning. That's the first amendment.

The second amendment would be that the minister meet with us in the afternoon, as opposed to the morning.

The third amendment would be a late sitting between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, at which time we can hear from witnesses.

On the 24th, the amendment would be to sit in the afternoon and to hear from witnesses the full afternoon.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): And the morning?

Mr Mammoliti: The morning is not an amendment because we agreed to that already.

The next amendment would be another late sitting from 7 to 10 pm, which would include witnesses.

We then move another amendment for July 8 to be a full day of clause-by-clause. Currently, our proposal doesn't include a date.

July 15 would also be a full day of clause-by-clause.

I move these amendments, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Mr Grandmaître, discussion?

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Mammoliti is assuming that the three House leaders have approved this. Maybe the government House leader has approved this, but I would like to have the assurance of my own House leader that this is acceptable. After our meeting of yesterday afternoon I gave my House leaders the result of our meeting, which seemed to be acceptable. But now the government whip is not baffling us but is really changing the approved schedule. I'm very concerned that I don't know what my House leader will do with these dates.

I thought it was understood yesterday that the afternoon of June 24 would be out of the question, and this morning again it's on the floor to be debated. We all know that in the afternoon of June 24 we can expect bells to ring and it'll be a waste of time. Before I accept any amendments, I would like to talk to my House leader.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I guess I could say the same thing. I have no experience in these matters, of course, so even more than my friend I would really like to consult with the House leader.

The other thing that strikes me is that the deputations are now mostly in the evening. I don't know if that's a problem or not but the way this --

Mr Mammoliti: Actually, Mr Chair --

Mr David Johnson: I don't know who's got the floor here, Mr Chairman, but if I've still got the floor, the way this works out now is that we have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Waste Management Association coming in on the 24th and we have an evening of deputations a week before that, on June 17.

I thought that part of the strategy was to have AMO and OWMA as witnesses up front because they're umbrella organizations. Now I don't know if the strategy is to move them to the evening of June 17 or to have them stay on the 24th, invite the municipalities to come in on the evening. The municipalities or other interested parties -- some parties may appreciate the evening. Other parties may find a problem with the evening.

It seems to me that a good chunk, perhaps 50% of the deputation time, is now in the evenings. I don't know if that's been the practice here or not, but I personally have a doubt about whether that's reasonable and I really wouldn't be able to support that here today, plus the fact that we've actually lost half a day of witness time through this proposal.

Mr Mammoliti: Two hours.

Mr David Johnson: That's a half a day. That's the way it works around here. It's less time than we agreed to yesterday and it's a different part of the day, in the evening. Those are certainly problems that I have with it.

Mr Daigeler: Somewhat following up my earlier point, I think this matter obviously is not ready to come to the full committee yet. I think the subcommittee will have to meet again and figure this out, because this is obviously very different from what was agreed to yesterday.

Just to either help or give my own view to the subcommittee, I am strongly opposed to the idea of meeting in July. Traditionally, July has been when we have booked our holidays; I have done so. I think this sets a very bad precedent and I would certainly hope that we're not scheduling any committee meetings in July.

Mr Mammoliti: The member across would know that there's a process for those who might not be able to make it for hearings. You could always get somebody to take your place. I'm sure that your caucus would be willing to find somebody to take your place. We do that all the time and so do you. If you're going on vacation, while I envy you, I could also say that committee work is very important and the Simcoe issue is certainly very important. I think we could probably be ready to sit in the summer on a particular issue.

If the issue does come up, I understand that it's very important to all three parties. If that means we need to sit and make time to be able to debate that issue and hear from deputants in different cities across the province on the issue, then that's a debate and a discussion that'll take place later, but at the same time very important. I would remind the member, again, that while I envy him while he'll be on vacation at the time, he can probably get somebody to take his place.

Secondly, we had discussed this yesterday in the subcommittee in terms of sitting a couple of days in July and it wasn't a problem with other subcommittee members to sit a couple of days, actually a week, in July. We've asked for a week to sit in July. This is cutting it down. It's cutting it down from 12 days to 2.

The Chair: To help you a little bit, Mr Mammoliti, the discussion at subcommittee, to clarify it, was that the committee asked for a week in the intersession, not necessarily July.

Mr Mammoliti: If you remember correctly, in the subcommittee I had said that I'd want to deal with this and we'd want to deal with this as quickly as possible and that we'd be looking for dates in early July to be able to get rid of this. I did mention that in subcommittee. This is now taking and getting rid of three days in the summer break and condensing that to two. At the same time, I understand the argument of the member across that it cuts the deputants' time and we don't get to hear from two hours' worth of deputants. I recognize that and I realize that, but at the same time, in subcommittee yesterday I said that we're going to have to look at perhaps cutting the list short after my discussions with the ministry, if there was a problem. There is a problem and I bring it to you in good faith today and I tell you that it's not malice; it's something that we feel strongly about. We want to get this on and get it off the table as quickly as possible so that we can deal with other bills.

If we have a concern about House leaders, I have been assured that the House leaders are talking about it this morning. If the committee feels that it needs to talk to somebody, perhaps we should move to another item on the agenda this morning so that it perhaps frees some time up for a couple of people from the opposition to go and speak to their House leaders and come back. We may want to drop this issue at this particular time, deal with another issue, and then come back with it after, perhaps, a couple of people have gone to speak to their House leaders to verify whether or not their House leaders would agree with this proposal.


I don't see the purpose of us sitting here and debating this for two hours. I don't think it's that much of a big deal, and if it's just because you don't have an opportunity to speak to your House leaders, go and speak to your House leaders and we can deal with another item right now while you're out and dealing with them. Or perhaps we can take 10 minutes for you to go and speak to your House leaders, so that gives us an indication how you stand on this. There's no sense in us sitting here and calling for the vote on a question and hammering you over the head with this. We want to be realistic and accommodating as best we can. So maybe we'll give you that time to go and speak to your House leaders.

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, it seems like the member of the government side is now putting the blame on the opposition: We haven't talked to our House leaders. We've spoken to our House leaders -- well, I've spoken to mine, anyway -- with the proposed schedule that's in front of us this morning, and now Mr Mammoliti is before us this morning. I thought our responsibility or our duty this morning was to accept the proposal of the government of yesterday, and this morning it's a totally different schedule. I'm not willing to debate it for hours and hours. I think he's absolutely right and I think we should adjourn and go back to our respective House leaders and have another meeting of the subcommittee.

I move adjournment.

Mr David Johnson: Maybe before we do -- that's certainly fine. I'd appreciate the opportunity to speak to my House leader and see what's going to happen on June 24. All we're hearing here is rumours. People over here are saying that's so, but I think I really owe it to my House leader to talk to him to see if that's the information he has.

The other thing I find a little bit puzzling -- and I don't know what the approach has been here -- certainly from my background, people want to make deputations. That's what I've always been elected to be there to hear, not to try to figure out how to restrict them or cut them back or limit them or take the first number who come in and say, "Sorry, we don't have time for the rest." The approach that I've always taken in the past and that I think most municipalities take is you try to accommodate everybody and allow enough time for everybody who's interested to be able to make a deputation.

Is there a different approach here? Because what I'm hearing is that we really should make them speak faster or speak shorter or cram them into the evening or something like that. Is that the way we have to operate here? I don't know; I'm asking. It just seems to me to be the wrong approach.

The Chair: The good thing about being the Chair is you don't have to answer the questions.

Mr David Johnson: I'm seeking your guidance on this one, Mr Chair, or perhaps to the clerk or whoever. But it seems to me we've got the cart before the horse here somehow.

The Chair: I actually had Mr Mammoliti on before you, Mr Hayes, but if you wish to trade, that's --

Mr Mammoliti: Very quickly, to give a chance for Mr Hayes to respond, I think that we need to realize -- even though I've been here a short time as well, I've come to realize that night sittings are actually more accommodating for deputants. A lot of them work during the day and can't make it. So while there might be some who feel more comfortable coming during the day, the majority of them, if given the opportunity, will tell you that the night sittings would be their preference. I'm not worried about that particular argument, because I know that will be the outcome if we ask them.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I think what Mr Mammoliti is doing here is trying to express the concerns that we do have. I think we do have a very full plate to deal with, and if you take a look at this schedule, I could easily say, well, I don't like it myself, personally. But I do know that we do have a lot of work to do, and as far as rushing people and trying to press them to be quicker or give them less time, that's certainly not the purpose here at all. From what Mr Mammoliti is saying here, there are some people, including the minister -- and I think you people know that the ministers always just can't change their schedule for committee; I know Mr Grandmaître can relate to that. What we're trying to do here is try to meet the challenge we have with all of the work that we have to do.

I think Mr Mammoliti has made a very good suggestion, that if there is concern here with the House leaders, take a few minutes and go and speak to your House leaders. I don't see any problem with that at all. I think it's a reasonable request that we are making here today.

The Chair: Before we proceed, I think I should bring to members' attention standing order 118(a):

"Standing and select committees may be authorized by the House to meet on Monday evenings to hear submissions from the public, provided that the motion authorizing a committee to meet is made at the unanimous request of the committee and with the agreement of the House leader of each of the recognized parties in the House."

So the standing orders, to my reading of this, permit us to sit Monday evenings.

Mr Grandmaître: How about July 8 and 15?

Clerk of the Committee: They're all Thursdays: June 17, June 24, July 8.

Mr Mammoliti: Is that the only thing that's stopping us here, the fact that we haven't talked to the House leaders? Is that the actual issue here? If your House leaders were to say to you, "I don't have a problem with this," would you have a problem with it?

Mr David Johnson: As I understand, Mr Chair, what you've just read there -- which was what?

The Chair: Standing order 118(a).

Mr David Johnson: The standing order doesn't permit June 17 or June 24, with the consent of House leaders or anybody. It simply doesn't permit a meeting on those evenings. Is that correct?

The Chair: I think we're in a quandary here. My sense, Mr Johnson and Mr Grandmaître and Mr Mammoliti, is that the committee is attempting to do the work. They have just seen Mr Mammoliti's proposal. None of the parties have had the opportunity to talk about it and see if it can be accommodated, even though I see goodwill here to accommodate the work of the committee.

Several members have suggested an adjournment. I don't think that's a terribly bad idea. Perhaps though we could move forward from this item, deal with the budget and the advertising, which again also impacts on this.

Mr Mammoliti: Would it be too much to perhaps ask whether we could pass this tentatively, or whether that's possible, until the House leaders agree or disagree? Could we pass this tentatively until they have their meeting? And if they agree, then we know that it's a go.

The Chair: I would have difficulty entertaining at least some of the motion as the Chair, because it contravenes the standing orders. Because it contravenes the standing orders, as the Chair I wouldn't be able to accept that.

As you know, in this place, all things are possible with unanimous consent. So if there is agreement among all parties and all members, then we may be able to do something that would accommodate you, but at this point I can't violate the standing orders of the House.

Mr Mammoliti: To accommodate the problem that's just arisen then, could I change my amendment from July 8 and July 15 to July 5 and July 12? That's Monday nights.

Mr David Johnson: That doesn't address the standing order.

Mr Mammoliti: Sure it does.

Clerk of the Committee: That doesn't address the 17th and the 24th. That's the problem.

Mr Mammoliti: The 17th and the 24th is the problem?

Clerk of the Committee: That's right, because July 8 and July 15, under the calendar as it stands now, the Legislature is not meeting.

Mr Mammoliti: But if the House leaders agree to have the committee sit between 7 and 10, then it doesn't contravene the standing orders. The House leaders have the power to agree to that. I'm saying maybe we should agree to this tentatively until the House leaders speak later on this morning.

The Chair: You should understand, if you read this section closely, that it says "provided that the motion authorizing a committee to meet is made at the unanimous request of the committee and with the agreement of the House leader of each of the recognized parties." So we're talking about unanimous agreement here in this committee and we're talking about unanimous agreement of the House leaders.

The second problem, as the clerk points out, is that your motion speaks to time that will not be within this session of the House. We could obviously meet Monday nights or any nights that the committee decides to meet and has approval of the House leaders during the intersession. That wouldn't be a problem. What is a problem with scheduling days is if the House were in session, which it may be, but that's not anything that the Chair is privy to or that any member of this committee knows at this moment is going to happen.

My suggestion is that maybe we should adjourn or recess and some members should chat with the appropriate people.

Mr Mammoliti: I think there's a little more argument that should be given to not adjourning. I think we should come up with some sort of a resolution here. I don't think we're here to try and ram something down your throat. We're trying to get something -- if I may, I've got to speak in the Legislature and I want to step out. Mr Mills will be taking my spot and he can continue the debate. I know he is very familiar with the arguments.

Mr Grandmaître: Do you have any other dates, Gord?

The Chair: Mr Hayes?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What's the problem here?

Mr Hayes: I know there's a concern about the standing orders, but we'd be willing to look at the different dates just to accommodate so it would be the Monday evenings. I'll ask the members opposite, if they want to talk to the House leaders, to look at the 21st and the 28th for night sittings. Those are Monday evenings.

The Chair: The 28th, though, is not in the session.

Mr Hayes: The 21st and the 28th.

The Chair: I think the session adjourns on the 24th.

Mr Mills: The 24th is the last day.

Mr Hayes: I have no problem sitting ahead of the recess.

The Chair: But we're restricted by the standing orders.

Mr Mills: We can get a jump on it.

The Chair: I'm just trying to follow the rules here; it's the Chair's job.

Mr Hayes: That being the case, we can accommodate the members on the 28th, at least, that one.

Clerk of the Committee: The Legislature is not sitting on the 28th.

Mr Mills: We've got to do it all before the 24th.

Mr Grandmaître: Then on the 28th, we are not supposed to be sitting.

The Chair: If we were requesting for the 28th, the Chair would suggest we would have to ask for a motion of the House to sit in the intersession on the evening of the 28th. We're in a rather strange dilemma according to standing orders and according to the way this place is ordered. I think the subcommittee needs another at least brief crack at this so that whatever is being proposed at least conforms to what the standing orders of the Legislature permit.

Mr David Johnson: How will that work? If the subcommittee meets, when would you see the subcommittee meeting on it?

The Chair: I was suggesting maybe in a recess that we might have; almost immediately.

Mr David Johnson: Then when would it report back?

Clerk of the Committee: Immediately.

The Chair: Almost immediately.

Mr David Johnson: That's fine with me.

The Chair: Would someone like to make a motion we adjourn?

Mr David Johnson: Moved that we recess and request the subcommittee to meet on this matter and report back as soon as possible.

The Chair: All in favour?

Mr Grandmaître: Before we recess, how about July 5 and --

Interjection: -- July 12.

Mr Grandmaître: The 12th, right? That's your latest offer? Okay, and that's still outside the -- okay.

The Chair: Mr Johnson has moved a recess. Do you want to put a time on that, Mr Johnson, till 11:15 or 11:30?

Mr David Johnson: What time is it now?

Interjection: Quarter to 11.

The Chair: Maybe 11:30.

Mr David Johnson: Till 11:30.

The Chair: All in favour of Mr Johnson's motion to recess?

Mr Hayes: Till 11:15?

Mr David Johnson: No, 11:30.

The Chair: Carried. The committee's in recess.

The committee recessed at 1045 and resumed at 1126.

The Chair: Mr Mammoliti?

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chairman, after a pretty lengthy discussion with my colleagues and with some representatives from the ministry, and to show, of course, how flexible we are and how accommodating we are, I would like to cancel any motion I might have made in terms of amendments to the original proposal by the subcommittee and only include a couple of amendments.

The Chair: Just to make it easy for the Chair, you're withdrawing all the amendments that you proposed and we're going to start over?

Mr Mammoliti: We're going to start all over again because we're nice people and we understand what the opposition is saying.

Mr Grandmaître: Oh, absolutely.

Interjection: We always have.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: So we're going to start off by saying that of course we're going to accept the original subcommittee report with the following amendments. Of course, the minister can't make it in the morning, so the amendment would be to switch morning and afternoon.

The Chair: Why don't we just stop there and we'll get that agreed to. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Mammoliti: We also want to be able, if the Legislature continues to sit after a House leaders' conference if they decide at a later date that the Legislature will sit past the 24th, to come back and make some amendments so that we can deal with this a little quicker. We would like something in the report that would give us that flexibility, so if we wanted to perhaps take that afternoon on the 24th that I was talking about, we would be able to do it later on.

Mr Grandmaître: And the evening as well?

Mr Mammoliti: And the evenings as well.

The Chair: We have the problem with the evenings, as you recall by the standing orders.

Mr Mammoliti: Right, exactly. We can't do it in the evenings.

Clerk of the Committee: You can use the afternoon of the 24th. I think that's what Mr Bernard Grandmaître is suggesting.

Mr Mammoliti: The 24th in the afternoon we can because that's --

Mr Grandmaître: But not the evening session.

Mr Mammoliti: I think there are some problems with that.

Mr Grandmaître: That's right.

Mr Mammoliti: To be quite honest with you, I haven't had a chance to write something down in terms of what I'm suggesting here, so I would ask the Chair for his help on this one, if we can just add something to the report that would leave us flexible to be able to do that later on; if the House continues to sit, then we'd want to do that. I'm sure that the opposition would agree because we'd get more work done.

The Chair: It is difficult always for the Chair to deal with what might be, but it would seem to me that we could amend this because I think I'm feeling a breeze of the way things are moving here, that the 24th may not be a real problem in the afternoon because we may not be adjourning, that we could amend this to include the afternoon of the 24th. That would be the first thing to do.

Because the committee is meeting, the committee at any time can change the way it orders its business, so I don't think we need to speak to that. If the House happens, for whatever reason, to be in session during what we now suspect is a recess but may not be, then the committee would meet every Thursday to deal with the bill -- I think that goes without saying --

Mr Mammoliti: We're already asking Legislature to approve one week.

The Chair: -- and the committee at any time could change the way it orders its business.

I think the concern I've heard from members, both today and at the subcommittee meeting yesterday, was that we had four days to do two days of public hearings during the summer intercession, which may be able to be accomplished during a lengthened summer sitting, and two days of clause-by-clause. I think if that's the understanding of the committee and the understanding of everyone here -- I think the Hansard has recorded what I've said, I think everyone's in agreement -- that's all that's necessary, because we can reorder our business, provided the committee is in session.

Does that satisfy your concerns without actually making an amendment? I think that's the understanding here.

Mr Grandmaître: Agreed.

Mr David Johnson: That's fine.

The Chair: Could I have agreement on the amendment for June 24? I'm looking for the section. Okay, number 3. We're looking at June 24 at 10 am and 3:30 pm.

Mr Grandmaître: Agreed. So moved.

Mr Mammoliti: Agreed.

The Chair: Further discussion? Then following Mr Grandmaître, could I have agreement on Mr Grandmaître's motion, as amended by Mr Mammoliti's two amendments? Carried. Well, that was easy.

Mr Grandmaître: So George, if you would have done your job last night, you would have saved us all this time.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: Did I ask you for your opinion?

The Chair: Order. I would commend to the members to have a look at what the committee suggests, or the clerk has put before you, in terms of an advertisement for the newspapers. Does every member have a copy of the suggested --

Clerk of the Committee: Yes, they do.

The Chair: There's one change I've requested and I believe it's similar to what the committee suggested yesterday. It says here, "Friday, June 18." I believe the committee yesterday suggested it would be Monday, June 21, for the final day to request time for presentation. Is that acceptable?

Mr David Johnson: My question then is in terms of the last sentence in the first paragraph where it says, "Hearings will be held in Toronto during the week of...."

Clerk of the Committee: That will have to be struck out.

The Chair: In my copy that's struck out, but --

Clerk of the Committee: After "Toronto," all the words are struck out.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, all right. It's not struck out on mine. So you just won't put in when they are.

Clerk of the Committee: We will not put that in, because we really don't know.

Mr Mammoliti: I remember your having the problem with municipalities and trying to figure something out. Did you want to hash that out again in terms of getting hold of them, or not?

Mr Grandmaître: Well, no. I think this was settled.

The Chair: We're just discussing the advertisement.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes.

Mr Grandmaître: We'll do it through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Clerk of the Committee: George, it was settled between the three of you and you agreed that, I recall, AMO --

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, I know, but we also talked about perhaps having a discussion here.

The Chair: I appreciate your raising the point, and I think you should also take note that any written briefs should be in by Friday, July 2, for the committee to consider. Are there any problems with that?

Clerk of the Committee: It's going to be in June 14, the ad.

Mr Grandmaître: It's agreed.

The Chair: Then the clerk will place it so that it appears in all daily papers in Ontario on June 14. Agreed.


The Chair: Next is the committee budget. Again, I believe all members have the committee budget in front of you. I had instructed the committee clerk to draw the budget reflecting what the committee is being asked by the Legislature to do. This reflects only what the Legislature has requested us to do, and that is to deal with Bill 7. There is nothing else in this budget other than that. Are there questions on the budget that's being proposed?

Mr Hayes: Moved.

The Chair: Mr Hayes has moved the adoption of the budget. Questions, comments? All in favour? Agreed.

Mr David Johnson: I'm sorry, I'm just sort of looking through here where we're talking about -- this is for the whole committee for the whole summer, is it?

The Chair: It is. Mr Johnson, I asked the committee clerk to just deal with what we knew was coming before us. The Chair has no way of knowing or predicting what might come to a committee. There had been a practice that we would put in a rather large global budget. I believe, if I recall, last year this committee budgeted $160,000, or in that ballpark number, and ended up spending $10,000 or $15,000. I don't think that's a very good way of accounting for the public's money. I instructed the clerk just to deal with what we had before us.

Mr David Johnson: So is this suggesting that we're going to be meeting -- I see four days under allowances -- for example, four days times 11 members. Is that suggesting that in the summer of this year, it's the clerk's expectation we'd be meeting for four days?

The Chair: That's exactly right, Mr Johnson, and that's the only way we can possibly draw a budget. The per diems in the budget are there for members to claim if they wish. It's in the Legislative Assembly Act. The committee must include those in any budget it draws, but of course members are not required to file for their per diems

Mr David Johnson: I am just recalling the earlier comments from the government that there may be a number of days associated with Simcoe. Four days seem to be a little bit light considering --

The Chair: Mr Johnson, as I said, if that occurs then I think the proper way for the committee to deal with that is to look at a budget that relates to dealing with that bill --

Mr David Johnson: Okay.

The Chair: -- rather than to have some kind of a global amount. Is that satisfactory? I think it's already been agreed to.

Mr Mammoliti: I like the way this committee's working.

The Chair: We're a very affable group. Is there other business that should be before this committee? If not, shall we adjourn? We will not be in session this afternoon.

The committee adjourned at 1139.