CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 May 1998
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
MR DAVID POND, RESEARCH OFFICER, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE
The committee met at 1002 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Frances Lankin): I call the meeting to order. I think we can deal with the business fairly quickly today. You have before you a subcommittee report. It is in two sections. There will actually be three motions that we will deal with.
The first part of the subcommittee report deals with the subcommittee's review of three certificates, two of them dated April 24, 1998, and one dated May 1, 1998. I'd just ask the clerk to read into the record the subcommittee's recommendations with respect to those certificates.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Doug Arnott): "Your subcommittee considered on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, the selection of intended appointments for committee review, and has agreed to recommend:
"(1) That the following intended appointees from the certificate dated April 24, 1998, be selected for review:
"Official opposition party:
"Agency: Ontario Casino Corp board of directors
"Name: Gerald Huck
"Time recommended for consideration: One half-hour
"Date for consideration: May 27, 1998
"Agency: Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
"Name: Barbara Morland Wellard
"Time recommended for consideration: One half-hour
"Date for consideration: May 27, 1998
"Third party:
"Agency: Ontario Realty Corp board of directors
"Name: James McKellar
"Time recommended for consideration: One half-hour
"Date for consideration: May 27, 1998
"Government: No selections
"(2) That the following intended appointees from the certificate dated April 24, 1998 (amendment to the certificate dated March 4, 1998) be selected for review:
"Official opposition party: No selections
"Third party: No selections
"Government: No selections
"(3) That the following intended appointees from the certificate dated May 1, 1998, be selected for review:
"Official opposition party: No selections
"Third party: No selections
"Government: No selections"
"(4)" --
The Chair: Sorry, I'm going to deal with that part separately. Could I ask for a member of the subcommittee to formally move that.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I move receipt of that report.
The Chair: All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed?
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'm disputing the fact that we have to sit here while it's read.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Perhaps as time goes on and you allow me to get accustomed to the role of Chair, we might be able to adopt procedures that you and others may find more convenient to your time. Thank you.
Item 4: Could I ask the clerk to read that recommendation into the record.
Clerk of the Committee: "(4) That, pursuant to standing order 105(g)11, the committee agree unanimously to extend the deadline for review of the intended appointees as selected above until May 27, 1998."
The Chair: Could I ask for a subcommittee member to formally move that, please. Mr Grimmett. Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
Interjections.
The Chair: If I could indicate, pursuant to standing order 105(g)11, the recommendation that's before you here is that "the committee unanimously agree to extend the deadline." As with procedures in the House, if there are many members who disagree -- it takes unanimous consent in order to extend the deadline. Given that there has been a member who indicated that he disagrees, the committee would have to meet next week in order to deal with these certificates in a timely fashion.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Do you want to get thrown out, Bert?
Interjection: Come on, Bert, you want to be loved.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'm going to bow to the pressure and change my vote on that. Flip-flop.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Why don't we recall the question then?
The Chair: I would like to do that. I don't know if this is the correct procedure, but let me now put the question again and ask the committee members whether or not they agree with Mr Grimmett's motion. We're looking for unanimous consent to extend deadline for review until May 27, 1998.
All those in favour? Opposed?
Seeing none opposed, I accept that as unanimous consent.
The third part of the subcommittee report deals with the appointments review process. The subcommittee essentially discussed what the previous process had been in the prior sitting of Parliament and has agreed to recommend to the committee that the same procedures be adopted. They are as set out in this report.
Again, given that, as I understand it, there has been some debate in the past around these items, the committee felt that it was useful to have the past practice recorded, so I'm going to ask that it be read into the record by the clerk.
Clerk of the Committee: "Your subcommittee considered on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, the committee's procedures with respect to the appointments review process, and has agreed to recommend:
"(1) That the time allocated for the review of each intended appointee be 30 minutes, unless the committee determines otherwise; and that the time be divided equally among the three caucuses;
"(2) That committee members be permitted to reserve any unused portion of their caucus time if they wish to have the opportunity of a further round of questions; and that members be encouraged to indicate to the Chair at the end of their questions if they do wish to reserve their remaining unused time;
"(3) That selections to be made by subcommittee members, other than the Chair, pursuant to standing order 105(g)3, be submitted to the clerk of the committee in writing; that the deadline for submitting selections be no later than 5 pm on Thursday of the week following the issuance of the certificate; and that the subcommittee shall meet at the call of the Chair, at the request of the committee, or at the request of any member of the subcommittee."
The Chair: Could I ask for a member of the subcommittee to formally move that. Mr Gravelle. Thank you. Is there any debate?
Mr Stewart: I just want to make a comment on item 2. I have a great deal of difficulty with that, the fact being that I believe it tends to create a confrontational process within this committee. I believe it instils debate and I believe it instils character assassination.
1010
We've seen it in this committee certainly a number of times from the time that I've been on it. I believe that each caucus, if they wish to question a prospective appointee, does have that right, but I don't want to see it turn into what it has been in the past in this committee.
I have a great problem supporting that particular thing. If we all cannot ask our questions that are relevant to what the particular appointee has talked about and has done, then I think this should not be the situation where you can go back and forth. As I say, in some cases, to me, it's been an embarrassment for some of us when I've seen this type of assassination on behalf of the people who were here to give of their time to be appointed to some committee.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm not sure exactly what aspect of number (2) you're concerned about, but if it's in relation to reserving --
Mr Stewart: I'm concerned about the fact that you can go back and requestion etc. Do it once, get it over with.
Mr Gravelle: What is really strange about your point is that the government has been the party consistently that's reserved its time and gone back for questions.
Mr Stewart: Members can do what they want.
Mr Gravelle: No, no. All I'm saying is that I find it odd that you'd have problems with that in that I can't recall many occasions at all when either one of the two opposition parties have actually reserved their time. We use our time and we go back to it. Almost consistently the government members are the ones who reserve their time and then they may choose to go back, and I don't have any problem with that.
I think what you're concerned about, it just seems strange in that it's been the government that has consistently reserved its time, almost on a regular basis, and gone back to it after the opposition parties have had their opportunity, let alone the fact that to me it just seems to be a fair procedural thing to be able to allow people to use the time they don't have.
I don't understand the basis of your objection in that, again, it's been your party that has more often used that. This is just a courtesy, I think, that should be recognized. I don't know if any of the other members of your caucus feel the way you do, because it really is just ultimately a courtesy.
Mr Newman: I just wanted to say that I don't have any problem with number 2, because we're talking about reserve time within our total allocated time. So it wouldn't prolong the questioning or the hearing.
Mr Gravelle: You guys use it the most.
Mr Newman: As a result of that, I have no problem with number (2).
Mr Marchese: I am in agreement with Mr Stewart, for different reasons. In subcommittee, if you recall, I raised the issue that it would be a lot cleaner just to have your 10 minutes. If you don't use it up, you would just give up your time. I don't recall people disagreeing with that, but then it appeared in the minutes in this form, I'm assuming because of past practices, the way you introduced the issue. But I really would like it if we all had 10 minutes and if it's unused, you simply don't have the time to come back to it. If that's what Mr Stewart supports, I would be very happy with that. I'm not sure whether the other members wanted to reconsider that, but if they do, I would be pleased with that. If they don't, then we'll just leave it as it is.
The Chair: If I may, Mr Marchese, at the subcommittee meeting you did in fact raise that point of view, but that wasn't the position of the majority of the subcommittee. The minutes actually accurately reflect --
Mr Marchese: I don't recall that at all.
The Chair: -- the majority discussion on that.
Mr Marchese: Isn't that interesting.
The Chair: May I just indicate at this point in time that we actually don't have a motion before us to amend this report.
Mr Stewart: I guess my concern has been examples over the last two or three meetings that we've had here, and I suggest to you that all sides have reserved time, not only the government side. Certainly my colleagues have the right to their opinion, and this is the one good part about our government, that I have my rights to my opinion.
But I see people coming in here who are qualified people, who are giving of their time, in some cases on a volunteer basis, and we have a tendency to try and assassinate their character.
I have a great deal of difficulty, and if you don't believe what I'm saying, then look back in the Hansards. I've made this comment other than in the last meeting; in the two meetings prior to that. I've been on record all the way along.
To Mr Marchese, I believe if you have 10 minutes to question these people, then do so and do it in a very professional manner. Then move on to the next caucus and then make your decision on that. But when you get this confrontational stuff, I don't believe in it. That's strictly a personal opinion.
Mr Marchese: Do you want to move an amendment to this?
Mr Stewart: There's no motion on the floor, so I can't --
The Chair: The motion on the floor at this point in time is to accept this report. So if it is your desire, Mr Stewart, to move an amendment, I think it would be to delete recommendation (2).
Mr Stewart: Then I would move that amendment.
The Chair: Speaking to the amendment now, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: No, I had my hand up before the amendment was put forward. If I understand it then, the amendment is to remove that. Does it specifically talk about using your time up and that's it?
Mr Stewart: You use your time as allocated by the Chair and it moves on to the next --
Mr Gravelle: Quite frankly, I support that. That is the original position. To be perfectly fair here, the reason we had the original one in there was because our discussion was whether you should say you wanted to reserve your time or not or whether it was a given that your time would be reserved.
I support Mr Stewart's amendment. I think we've always felt, originally, "Use your time." As I said earlier, Mr Stewart, it's been the government that actually consistently reserved the time more often so they could have, when they perhaps weren't happy with the tenor of the conversation by the opposition parties, a chance to finish up. It gave them an opportunity. But I agree. I think ultimately you've got your time. In that we're discussing the amendment, if you've got the time, you should use it. Certainly we would have no problem with that. Alex? I would support the amendment and I hope that Mr Stewart's caucus colleagues will as well.
Mr Marchese: Yes, I support the amendment too. I was just wondering whether the deletion does in effect what we are talking about and what I'm supporting in the motion. I don't want to add anything further to that.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Since I wasn't here last week, I just want to extend formally congratulations on your appointment to the chairmanship.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Marchese: And me.
Mr Spina: Oh, and you, Vice-Chair, Mr Marchese. I would not want to be remiss in leaving you out.
Mr Marchese: Fair's fair.
Mr Spina: I'd be prepared to support this for a couple of reasons. One is that I think that if the time is not utilized, it certainly expedites the process within the committee time frame, but in addition to that, if there is a concern about comments made by either side with respect to, as Mr Gravelle indicated, the tenor and the tone of the questions or comments that are made to the prospective candidates, we enter into a debate or a discussion, if we choose, when it comes time to actually do the appointment. I think there's always an opportunity for any of us to have redress, if we need it, at that point. Therefore, it's not necessarily something that should be or has to be done when the candidate is actually sitting at the head of the table.
In that context, I'd be prepared to support the amendment as well.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm relatively new to this process. I have to assume that with the deletion of (2), when it comes time for, say, our caucus to ask questions, we can split the time between the members.
Mr Marchese: That's in number (1).
Mr Cullen: Okay, that's fine. That's all I have to say.
The Chair: Is there any other debate on the amendment?
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Excuse me, Madam Chair. There's a process whereby we can take some time to discuss this.
The Chair: I don't know. You've got me. I believe there is a process --
Interjections.
Mr Grimmett: Ten minutes I think it is.
The Chair: Mr Grimmett, I'm just informed that the process is that when we have finished debate and I am about to put the vote, you can ask for a recess for caucus at that time for up to 20 minutes.
Mr Grimmett: I thought that's what you were doing.
The Chair: I'm just about to. Let me just determine whether there's any further debate at this point. Seeing none, I would move to the vote on the amendment.
Mr Grimmett: And I would request a recess for up to 20 minutes.
The Chair: Actually, I'm informed that you should specify an amount of time.
Mr Grimmett: Ten minutes, please.
The Chair: Okay. A 10-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 1020 to 1031.
The Chair: I call the meeting back to order. At this point, I am going to call the vote. The amendment, as moved by Mr Stewart, was to delete recommendation 2 of the report of the subcommittee. All those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? That motion is carried.
We now have before us a subcommittee report, as amended, with item 2 deleted. Is there any further debate? Seeing none, we'll move to the motion on the subcommittee report moved by Mr Gravelle, as amended by Mr Stewart's motion. All those in favour? Those opposed? That is carried.
That is the business that was set out before us in the agenda. Is there any further business?
A motion to adjourn? Thank you, Mr Spina. We're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1032.