CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 December 1990
Organization
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitution: Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford NDP) for Mr Frankford
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at l009 in room 228.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair: Can we get under way, please? Everyone has an agenda in front of him. The first item on the agenda is the selection of agencies to be reviewed. We left it last week that representatives of each of the three caucuses would come back today with one or two recommendations on what we can deal with as a committee during the period the House is not sitting with respect to commissions, agencies or boards that we could be taking a look at. All three parties are represented here today. Do we have some names from the government caucus?
Mr Wiseman: The health councils.
The Chair: Health councils, plural? There are quite a few of them. They are all over the province. Do you have a specific one or two health councils you would like to look at?
Mr Waters: Can I hold off for a second?
The Chair: Sure, if you want to check that out.
Mr Silipo: Actually, in talking with Bob Frankford, there were a couple of suggestions that had come from our group, and the one that was left after we went back and forth on it was the district health boards. I had hoped that Mr Frankford would be here to speak more to that this morning, but that is the one that remains on our list, subject to anything else that any other members would want to add.
The Chair: I guess we need some clarification with respect to the fact that health councils -- you are saying health boards; you mean district health councils.
Mr Silipo: Yes, district health councils. I realize there is more than one that we may have to look at. I do not know what happens in that situation.
The Chair: You would have to select, I would think, a couple of them, which would hopefully give you an idea of how --
Mr Silipo: Yes. Perhaps some that might be typical of larger jurisdictions, smaller jurisdictions, etc; that kind of thing.
The Chair: We are going to need those specifics, I would think, in the very near future so that we can start arranging their appearance before us.
Mr Stockwell: About half an hour?
The Chair: That sounds okay.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask you or the clerk a question concerning the rent review people. What will happen with this body now? Will they be dismantled? Will they still be operating?
The Chair: Under Bill 4? I am not that familiar with the rent control legislation. Perhaps a member of the government caucus knows what is going to happen with respect to the rent review board. Will it be dismantled? I assume it will be after a period of time. I am not sure.
Mr Silipo: Good question.
Mr Grandmaître: That is the question I would like to have an answer to. Maybe we should look at it.
The Chair: The rent review board? Okay, that is a recommendation from your caucus.
Mr Grandmaître: If I can make a second one, the Ontario Municipal Board would be my second option.
Mr McLean: Did we not do the rent review board a year ago or 18 months ago? I know we had them in and they gave us all the facts and figures in the areas. I think the clerk may have an idea when we did it.
Clerk of the Committee: I do not.
The Chair: The researcher is saying we did not do it. The Liberal caucus has made that request, in any event. Do you have any from your caucus, Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: No, I have not.
The Chair: I personally would like to see the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario looked at. Do you have any others? How about the Eastern Ontario Development Corp?
Mr Stockwell: Those two were the ones we were thinking of. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Mr McLean: I would like to have a look at the goat red meat advisory committee. We could maybe sunset that one.
Mr Silipo: We stopped at one, taking the chair's direction from the last meeting, and particularly given the added responsibilities the committee will have, yes; but certainly, if there is going to be a second one, and I say this without a lot of consultation among our folks, the Workers' Compensation Board would be another one.
The Chair: Mr Silipo brings up a good point with respect to the additional responsibilities we had assigned to us. In discussion with the clerk in trying to establish our schedule for the break period, we may just have to look at one from each caucus. Okay, we can work with that. Doug, any problem? The subcommittee can sit down and review that in the very near future as well.
The second matter is the budget.
Mr Grandmaître: Before we go on with the budget, can we talk about our winter session, our sitting session? I have heard different stories in the last couple of days.
The Chair: We made a request for mid-January to mid-February. I believe most of those have been approved with a couple of exceptions. That is what I heard at our caucus, in any event, from the whip, but there has not been any written confirmation of that.
Mr Grandmaître: I was told yesterday that the House leader for the government has now changed her mind. I would like to know, because we are all planning some holidays.
Ms Haslam: I would like to go on the record as saying that I have asked and I was told that it was the other two House leaders who were holding us up in getting the schedule organized, as we are going on the record. I went into the office -- I have scheduling to do with two committees also -- and there was a tentative schedule, if I am not mistaken and it was being held up. I am in the same boat: I need to know also. I do not appreciate being held to Thursday to find out what my schedule in January and February is going to be. I understand they are meeting at noon today to settle it again.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I was just going to say that.
Ms Haslam: Somewhere along the line, there is a holdup. Somewhere.
Mr Silipo: There is a meeting at noon today of the House leaders and the whips to determine in part when this committee will be meeting, particularly around the question of the role of the committee in the review of the appointments process. So I think there may be some wish for us to meet earlier than we had requested to deal with that.
The Chair: I do not know if it was discussed at the other two caucuses yesterday, but there has been a proposal by the government House leader with respect to our responsibilities and a temporary standing order being introduced either today or tomorrow which would accommodate us in getting a review process early in the new year. But we had not, as of yesterday, and the House leaders for the opposition parties had not seen the text of that resolution. So there were a lot of questions, hopefully to be answered at the meeting today.
Mr Silipo: I would say, if that is going to happen, as I think we are probably all thinking it will, then we probably ought to, at some point, whether it is today or maybe even through the subcommittee, turn our attention to how we prepare for going about doing the reviews. I know that in the budget we had put forward some possible travel to look at other jurisdictions. My sense is that we may not have the time to do that, given the speed and the number of appointments that are coming on board which we will be asked to decide whether we want to review.
It seems to me that it might be useful for us to schedule some kind of briefing for the committee before we start to get into the review of appointments as to how we may want to do that, so that we have both some background and perhaps even some advice from people around that. I am not talking necessarily about other politicians who have done those kinds of reviews, but maybe just in terms of how you interview, etc, those kinds of things.
1020
The Chair: I wonder if, with the committee's agreement, we can leave that with the subcommittee and perhaps the subcommittee can meet tomorrow. We will have some indication, hopefully, from the House leaders as to how and when we are going to proceed, and perhaps we can develop some strategy for dealing with it in the new year.
Mr Grandmaître: Tomorrow after question period?
The Chair: After question period, in the opposition lobby?
Mr Silipo: I would prefer someplace else.
The Chair: We will get a committee room.
Mr Wiseman: We are not treated with a whole lot of enthusiasm when we walk through there. Come on.
Mr Silipo: No, it is not that at all. If you want to meet elsewhere other than where we met, that would be fine, in the opposition lounge, but not in that room. You cannot breathe.
The Chair: Yes. Okay, we will arrange that. Doug will let you know where the meeting will take place.
Have you all had an opportunity to take a look at the budget as proposed? We will open it up for questions and comments.
Mr McLean: Do you have to take that to the Board of Internal Economy? When is that going to take place?
The Chair: In January, I am advised.
Mr Wiseman: Is it customary for the standing committee to meet for four weeks?
The Chair: Three or four weeks is usual when the House is not sitting.
Mr McLean: Is that not enough?
Mr Wiseman: It seems like an awful long time. It is too long, I think, as opposed to not long enough.
The Chair: I can only offer my own views on that with respect to our added responsibilities. I think we are going to need that additional time, at least at this particular point in time.
Mr Silipo: I agree with you. I think we are probably going to find that we will not have enough time to do all the stuff we want to do. The only thing I wanted to raise was with respect to the travel to Ottawa and Washington. As I indicated, my sense is that, aside from the cost, we probably will not have the time to do it. I know Mr Wiseman had suggested earlier, and I think we did get some figures from the clerk, bringing some people here instead. It might be more practical to pursue that as a direction as opposed to sending members of the committee to Ottawa or Washington.
The Chair: Any other comments on that point?
Mr McLean: I hate travelling, anyway.
The Chair: Especially in January. We will have to incorporate a figure in there. The clerk advises me it is roughly $6,000 to have the witnesses appear before us, so we will make that adjustment. Any other questions or comments? We need a formal motion to amend.
Mr Stockwell: I will move it.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell moves that the committee delete the travel portion of the budget and replace it with the witness fees and expenses.
Ms Haslam: You are amending the budget, then?
The Chair: Yes. So we all understand the amendment?
Ms Haslam: We are amending the budget so that we do not travel but we do ask the witness to come in, the possibility of one witness?
The Chair: One or two, I guess.
Ms Haslam: The travel accommodation here is $14,000. If we bring in two witnesses, we are looking at $12,000.
The Chair: I am told it is up to six witnesses. He prepared those figures.
Ms Haslam: Okay, that is fine.
The Chair: Do you need any further explanation?
Ms Haslam: No, I am fine.
Mr Wiseman: If we are deleting the travel and transportation part and including a witness section. which I assume is from this page, could somebody clarify what witness fees and expenses are, the $10,000 figure?
The Chair: The clerk can elaborate but that is primarily dealing with the agencies, boards and commissions appearing before us, the expenses that will be incurred for those witnesses.
Clerk of the Committee: There was some discussion at the subcommittee level about widening the scope of agency reviews to include client groups served by agencies to get feedback on how they feel the operations of agencies are working. That would provide for travel for those witnesses.
Mr McLean: I do not know what the point is in amending the budget as prepared. You only use the portion of the budget that is necessary to do the business of the committee. Whether you are calling witnesses in or whether the committee is going anywhere does not matter; you only spend what is allotted and what the cost is. You do not get that amount put in a bank to be able to spend it. As far as I am concerned, the budget as prepared by the clerk is satisfactory. If the Board of Internal Economy approves it, fine. If they want to amend it, they can amend it. It is only a broad policy, anyway.
The Chair: I do not think we have to get into a lengthy discussion on this. My only view on it is that if we are changing it, I do not see any problem with amending it here, because we do not intend to travel. That is clearly the intention of the committee and it is not going to be a significant problem. We already have an amendment on the floor. I agree with what you are saying, but we already have the amendment. I do not see it as a problem. Are there any further comments or questions on the amendment? All in favour?
Agreed to.
The Chair: Ms Haslam moves that the committee approve the budget, as amended.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Is there any additional business that anyone wants to raise at this time?
The committee adjourned at 1027.