CONTENTS
Monday 24 June 1991
Organization
Continued in camera
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Clerk: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1621 in committee room 1.
ORGANIZATION
The Chair: This meeting has begun. There are two items on the agenda for this meeting. One is to deal with the agenda for the two weeks this committee has to consider Bill 70 during the course of this summer. The second is to give instructions to the researcher regarding the report on the Workers' Compensation Board. The second part of it will be held in camera, which means there will of course be no record made of that part of the proceedings.
The fact is it is no longer negotiable as to what weeks the committee will sit. It will sit for two weeks. The House leaders have agreed on that. The first is the week of 29 July and the second is the week of 19 August, so the two weeks are going to be split up by that little hiatus. That is number one.
The rest of what happens during those two weeks is up to, and that is to say is entirely within the power of, this committee. I would entertain any motions as to, I suppose first of all, the issue of travel versus no travel, be it a little or a lot. Are there any motions in that regard?
Mr Waters: I move that we do not travel.
The Chair: Mr Waters moves that there be no travel, that both weeks, therefore, be dedicated to Toronto, I presume. That is inherent in the motion. Do people want to discuss that?
Mr Offer: If I can start off the discussion, I hope we will vote against that motion, and I will tell you why. Without being specific as to any one particular city, I think there is no question that a great many people and companies have expressed concern with this piece of legislation. I say this in light of the anticipated amendments from the government, but I think we should not make the mistake that we know all there is to know about this legislation in terms of its impact, its ramifications and what it means to business in general and to workers.
I would request that we vote against this motion. I think there is sufficient concern around the province that would warrant not only the public hearings, but also public hearings on a travel basis.
We have but two weeks. I think a lot of very good work could be accomplished. In the summer, we have, if not the obligation, certainly the opportunity to get out from this place and into the communities where people have expressed concern with respect to particular legislation and who wish to provide their opinions on any one piece of legislation.
I think right now we are dealing with one such piece and I would hope that accordingly we would vote against the motion and permit travel throughout the province in the time permitted by -- I guess it is -- the whips of the Legislature.
Mr Ramsay: I would want to ask why. I take it that because Dan Waters has moved this motion, this is the wish of the government. I would certainly like to find out why a government that purports to be open and accessible, and we all support that, would wish the hearings to be confined to Toronto.
This process is one of public hearing to allow the public access to the work we do. This is now a discussion on second reading of the principles and the specifics of this bill. The government in its wisdom has already reacted to the public, which is great, and I certainly applauded in the House when the Minister of Labour brought forward those amendments. There is a possibility, I suppose, of more amendments in this committee process; hopefully there is.
It just seems to me that it would be arrogant of us, as a committee made up of all three parties, to say, "Because, unfortunately, we only have two weeks, if you do want to come to our committee and make comment on this, make some suggestions hopefully, be constructive or be critical, whatever it is, you have to come to Toronto to do that." Certainly we should be reaching out to people in Ontario, as limited as we are.
The itinerary that has been suggested is probably too much and we should only restrict ourselves to main centres. I cannot see us going out to the very far places that have been proposed, but certainly we should dedicate four or five days of those two weeks to try to get out to main centres so that each region is represented by one stop, so that the people of that region can make their views known to our committee.
Mr Klopp: I am going to speak in favour of the motion, and as one who probably would on all sides. Two weeks is not a lot of time and, as was mentioned, where do we go? This is a pretty big province, and if you go to one place, then there is another place. As one who had time with Pat Hayes's group in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, having a very short time, we can waste a lot of time.
It is also summertime, and I go from the perspective that you may go to a town, but there are a lot of people who are not going to show up because it is summertime and they have a lot of other things to do, and I think there are groups who want to come and praise this thing because it is a darned good bill. I think they would appreciate it if we just stay in one place and allow them lots of time to come here and then we can have good discussion.
There was an assumption that we know all that is going on and so we will just keep it hidden in here. I do not look at it that way. We had the workers' compensation thing and we had a lot of groups find their way to Toronto.
Having only two weeks to look at whether there are any problems with this bill, I think we should have it here, where we can allow someone to come in and take a whole hour, rather than us having to fly to Ottawa and be there for only two hours -- I even wonder how many people would show up -- and then having to turn around and spend five or six hours flying to Windsor so that we can say, "Well, we opened up our arms." But there are also a whole bunch of other committees this government is doing that are going around this province.
We have already changed the major issues that some groups had in this thing, and for this particular bill, I think the groups that really, truly have some praises and concerns will come to Toronto and we can take the time for two weeks to listen to their concerns and then go clause by clause or whatever. For that reason, in this particular bill I think we should just, because of all those other ones going out, stick here for two weeks and do the job.
Mr Waters: When we look at the calendar here, it goes on to say resources development will have one week of public hearings and one week of clause-by-clause. To me, that means the House leaders have already cut us down to actually one week of hearings. By the sound of it, they have all agreed above us that we are down to one week of hearings.
The Chair: That is not my understanding. I should indicate I am unclear in that regard.
Mr Arnott: I would like to ask a general question. What would the costs be of travelling for one week for a committee such as this, approximately?
The Chair: It is not cheap. Perhaps the clerk would give us a ballpark. Surely there are ballparks in that case.
Clerk Pro Tem (Ms Manikel): It really depends where we travel to. But you have to figure on interpretation because a lot of the places we would be going to, and major places, would require that we have English and French translation. It would be getting close to $10,000 a week by the time you get transportation, accommodation, meals, etc, for 20 people.
1630
Mr Arnott: Okay. If we assume we are going to be spending only one week on public hearings, one week on clause-by-clause, does that assume we would require one to two days of public hearings in Toronto, would you think?
The Chair: Right now the question is whether there is travel. I think it is unfair to ask the clerk that question, because at the outset we indicated that the first thing to consider was whether there was going to be travel. Then it was up to this committee to set an itinerary for itself, whether it travelled or did not.
Mr Arnott: But presumably if there is travel there will still be some days spent on public hearings in Toronto nevertheless.
The Chair: Perhaps Mr Waters or anyone supporting the motion would be prepared to respond to that.
Ms S. Murdock: To the question of whether there would be a couple of days of hearings in Toronto as well as the week on the road, or included within the week on the road?
Mr Arnott: Included in the week of public hearings. Would there be one or two days in Toronto?
The Chair: As I indicated, that is premature. Right now, the decision is whether there is going to be any travel, and then it is the second level of discussion, depending on what the committee decides in that regard, that is to determine how much travel, how little travel and how that agenda is broken down.
Mr Arnott: What I am getting at is that it would seem to me that almost a week or approximately a week of clause-by-clause is required. If you assume that as your first proposition, then you assume that one week of travel, and you also assume probably two days of public hearings in Toronto. So I would submit that, given the cost as well as the practical difficulty, travel would probably not be in our best interests on this bill.
Ms S. Murdock: I agree with Mr Arnott.
Mr Huget: I agree with the motion and want to speak in favour of it. I understand the concern of the Liberal members that, at least from their perception, the government is not intending to be open and reach out to its constituency. Quite frankly, that is not the case. There are at least five committees travelling the province this summer on major pieces of legislation. Originally I think we were scheduled for three or four weeks of hearing time. I think that was the perception. The House leaders have reduced that to two weeks and I would assume it is because the contentious parts of the bill have been dealt with.
Because of that and because of Mr Arnott's point of cost, I think we must not create an illusion of reaching out, which two-hour hearings in the city would do. It would create the illusion of wanting to talk to the public, but we would not have enough time to do it. I think that because of the cost factor and the illusion factor, if you will, we are serving the public much better by being here in Toronto and dealing with the issue, perhaps allowing more time for witnesses. Those groups who have a comment to make on the legislation certainly have access to Toronto, and for those reasons I think it is the most responsible thing to do given the time frame we have.
Mr Offer: I had thought earlier that I had completed my comments. However, listening to some of the remarks by the government members moves me to make a few more comments.
The first is that there is no illusion. I think it is fallacious to say there is some sort of illusion that a committee fabricates when it goes out to other communities. That is not the fact at all. The fact is that we have two opportunities during the year for a committee to travel; one opportunity is in the summer recess and the other is in the winter recess.
Right now we have what is viewed as a very important bill referred to this committee for hearings. There is, whether one wishes to admit it or not, a great deal of opinion surrounding what this particular bill means and what its implications may be. I think that, far from an illusion, we have a responsibility within the time given to us to do what has always been the role of a committee; to order its own affairs and to go out to communities to try to hear some of those concerns. I do not believe that to be an illusion at all. I believe it to be one of the most important functions of these committees.
I say that asking the government members to reconsider the support of a motion to stop, in effect, without any question, a number of people in a number of other communities from providing face-to-face input on a bill they feel is very important. It matters not as to the time the House leaders have given us; we all recognize there is only a certain amount of time that can be given. It is how we as a committee decide to use that time. I believe that in the summer session the committee's time is very well spent, on an important, contentious piece of legislation, going out to communities to listen to some opinion on those particular bills. I just ask the government members to reconsider.
Mr Huget: I want to be very clear that there is not an intent on my part to suggest it is an intention to create illusion. I am saying to you that with the inadequate time that one-week schedule allows us in terms of the road, if we were out on the road and have very short public hearings we may get to see people in their own locations, but I question whether we can do those groups justice in terms of the time allowed.
I think we could get a much higher-quality presentation and a much higher quality of input here in Toronto because I believe we can take more time within our own ordering of time, within that one week, to hear those concerns. Based on that I think it is being very responsible, in fact, to increase and have a desire to have the quality rather than the quantity of input.
Mr Offer: In response to that, I think there are a number of groups outside of the Toronto area that have the capability and capacity to provide a quality type of presentation to us, if only we would vote against the motion and go out and listen to them.
Ms S. Murdock: It certainly is not that we are not willing to listen to people. But prior to the amendments that were made and announced by the minister, the hue and cry was loud and was heard I mean the removal of the onus on officers and termination of severance pay, liability being removed and charitable non-profits being removed. Since that time I have had employers in my office, in my riding and in my ministry as well advising me that now they are quite satisfied and have not got any concerns in that particular regard and do not disagree with the bill.
Admittedly, there would be groups probably still wanting to come and see us, I have no doubts about that, but I just do not think the volume would be there and I think the taxpayers of Ontario, with all the other groups on the road, are going to need a better reason to be out travelling. Certainly all expenses are paid for any group that wants to come here, as I understand it, and I think that warrants some days of hearings here in Toronto. But I do not think we should be spending that kind of money to be out in the other communities when you have the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and government services, and there is another one, three of them. Certainly we have 45 members available to sit on committees. I do not know how the rest of you are going to be able to sit on five. That is the other thing, too, you know; if we are all out on the road it is going to be very difficult.
Mr Offer: I appreciate the concern, but it is the party with the fewest number of members that is saying: "We'll look after ourselves. We'd like to go out on committee and on travel."
The committee divided on Mr Waters's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 7
Arnott, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock, S., Waters, Wood.
Nays -- 3
Cleary, Offer, Ramsay.
1640
The Chair: That puts this committee in a position where it does not travel, therefore it stays in Toronto. Can we have a motion as to its itinerary? We are talking about number of days per week and hours per day, if somebody wants to sort of omnibus it, a little bit of agenda.
Mr Offer: Just as a point of information: In the two weeks, do we have the 10 days, the Monday to Friday?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Offer: Are you going to just keep it to Wednesday, 1 pm to 2 pm?
Ms S. Murdock: This person, this member for Sudbury --
Mr Offer: We have a message from the Minister of Labour.
Ms S. Murdock: No, from Sudbury riding. The member for Sudbury would like to at least spend Friday in her riding. Therefore, I would request -- and I guess this is a motion -- that we sit Mondays to Thursdays, and allow the members back to their ridings on Fridays.
The Chair: Are you prepared to suggest times for Monday through Thursday?
Ms S. Murdock: My previous experience has been 10 until 6, with a break for lunch.
The Chair: Say 10 to 12 and 2 to 6, is that what you are suggesting as a part of your motion?
Ms S. Murdock: Sure.
The Chair: And that includes Monday morning as well.
Ms S. Murdock: I know we did not in the fall, but I do not know what the standard practice is in the summer.
The Chair: It has been a practice among some not to start till the afternoon on Mondays.
Ms S. Murdock: All right, so Mondays from --
The Chair: It is your motion.
Ms S. Murdock: From 2? Geez, that is late.
The Chair: A hundred bucks a pop per person.
Ms S. Murdock: From 1 until 6, and from 10 to 12 and 2 to 6 for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. That is my motion.
The Chair: Ms Murdock moves that the committee sit on Mondays from 1 until 6, and from 10 to 12 and 2 to 6 on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Mr Arnott: Why would we not meet Monday mornings? Is there anyone who has difficulty coming in Monday?
Ms S. Murdock: I believe it is to allow travelling time for those members -- pardon?
Mr Arnott: Not myself.
Ms S. Murdock: No, but you see you are in an enviable position of being near Toronto. There are those of us such as Mr Ramsay and myself who live in the far reaches of the north and have to travel down, and it is a lot easier if we can do it in the morning on Monday and then get here some time in the morning.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Does anybody want to generate some discussion about whether or not costs of those persons who wish to travel in from outside of Toronto will be borne?
Clerk Pro Tem: Normally, the committee looks at it on an individual basis.
The Chair: If you want to delegate that to the committee on a one by one, the committee is going to have a hard time doing that, if it is going to be absent. How do you want to deal with that? Are there any motions or do you want to leave that in the air?
Ms S. Murdock: Correct me if I am wrong, and maybe the clerk can clarify this, but do those members who have costs submit them to the clerk? Is that what you are talking about?
The Chair: Perhaps the clerk can respond as to the status quo.
Clerk Pro Tem: I am sorry, I misunderstood. That is right. Normally, at the end of the week, the clerk will hand out your expense claims, which you complete. That is normal. I thought we were talking about witnesses.
Interjection: We are not talking about witnesses?
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Ms S. Murdock: We were? Well, I do not know that procedure at all.
The Chair: Could the clerk explain the status quo? If this committee does nothing, what will happen with witnesses who want to travel in from outside Toronto and who want to be reimbursed for their expenses?
Clerk Pro Tem: Normally, when they are making their request to make a presentation, they would indicate their need for expenses. I would bring that request to that committee. Usually at the start of a meeting we would decide whether we would pay the person's expenses to travel to Toronto and home again and what expenses the committee would pay. It is done on an ad hoc, one by one basis. That has been the way the committees have operated in the past.
Ms S. Murdock: It just makes inordinate good sense that those groups that wish to come and present before the committee should have their expenses paid without our having to -- I would make a motion stating that groups presenting to us should have expenses paid and do it as -- you cannot? Can we?
Interjections.
Ms S. Murdock: All right, rescind my motion or whatever.
Mr Huget: I am not too familiar with the procedure, but could we not handle it the way it is normally handled in terms of what the clerk has already arranged, that a request is made at some point in time for expenses and then we deal in committee with whether we are going to pay them? I think that is the most efficient way to deal with it.
The Chair: That can be done, which is why I asked the clerk to explain the status quo. In other words, if we do nothing or say nothing, the status quo will prevail.
Mr Huget: So am I to understand that an inquiry is made of witnesses wishing to appear as to whether they require their expenses to be covered? Is that correct?
The Chair: Would the clerk respond, please.
Clerk Pro Tem: Generally we do not say anything unless they ask that it be refunded. If they make some comment, we will take the information and raise it with the committee.
Mr Huget: If that handles most circumstances and there is no problem in terms of people's expenses. If you contact the witness they will certainly ask you, "Are our expenses going to be paid?" Does that qualify as a request to pay them that will be considered?
Clerk Pro Tem: If I am talking to someone on the phone and they say, "Will the committee pay my expenses to come to Toronto?" I will tell them at that point that I cannot speak for the committee, it will have to be decided by the committee, but I will take that request to the committee.
Mr Huget: So that qualifies as a legitimate request right from that point on, and I personally think that would handle most circumstances.
The Chair: Mr Offer, did you have anything to say to this matter?
Mr Offer: Just that I agree with what you are doing.
Ms S. Murdock: I have a question. If a CEO were to come and make a presentation before this committee and part of his expenses would be the cost he would consider himself worth per day -- if he came from Thunder Bay for instance, do we normally pay transportation, accommodation and meals?
Clerk Pro Tem: It would depend on where they are coming from, for example. But normally the committee would pay the transportation to and from Toronto for one or sometimes two people from the organization, and if they need to stay overnight, their accommodation and meals.
Ms S. Murdock: So we do not cover other costs?
Clerk Pro Tem: We could. It is up to the committee, and each committee will make its own decision. I am just telling you that in the past we have not generally paid for their time unless we have considered them expert witnesses and have specifically asked that they come forward, which is a totally different case.
The Chair: The committee has approved 3 1/2 days a week of sitting for a period of two weeks. It has been suggested by the clerk that half a day will be required for the initial briefing. and I am hoping that is agreeable, because that leaves three full days in the first week and 3 1/2 days in the subsequent week to be divided between presentations and clause-by-clause. Can we have something put on the floor with respect to the breakdown of briefing, clause-by-clause and presentation.
1650
Mr Waters: I will move that the first week be hearings and the second week clause-by-clause, with the first half-day being briefing.
The Chair: Any discussion about the motion on the floor?
Mr Offer: I just ask everyone to consider the possibility of reducing the clause-by-clause examination from the three and a half days to two days.
The Chair: Are you moving an amendment?
Mr Offer: I am moving an amendment.
The Chair: Okay. There is an amendment on the floor. Discussion on the amendment?
Mr Offer: The reason for my amendment is that it provides greater time to hear representations from those who wish to be heard. I think if it turns out that there are not a great many people who actually want to be heard on the bill -- I do not believe that will be the case -- we could always extend the clause-by-clause hearings in the committee, but I think we are going to have a number of people who will want to make some presentation. If memory serves me right, after the clause-by-clause analysis in this committee the possibility is that it is referred back to the Legislature where a clause-by-clause analysis can again take place.
I would like to use some of the time for clause-by-clause in the committee. I think it is important to see the amendments the government moves and to have them moved, but I also think it is important for us to use as much time as possible to listen to the general public on this legislation. By giving such a wide berth to clause-by-clause we in effect are having public hearings for one week. I just think that a bill of this nature deserves more time.
Ms S. Murdock: Actually, Mr Offer's amendment to the motion is not all that out of line, because the majority of clauses, over 30 of them, are just removing officers from the present amendments. They are going to be very similar and simple to run through, I would hope, although my experience has been that the simple ones are usually the ones that take for ever. I still think at least three days are needed, so I guess on the basis of what he has moved I would have to say no.
Mr Klopp: I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with the motion, because at this time I do not think we really know how many people are coming. There seem to be a lot of clauses that need to be looked at clause by clause. That is part of our job after we hear people. Once we do find out how many people want to come, I am sure -- I am probably right -- later on we can always say, "There's a lot more people who want to come," and then we can decide that as a group. But right now I think we should leave it at its present state and then we will see how many groups want to come.
The Chair: Any other discussion on the amendment?
Ms S. Murdock: Not on the amendment; I just have a question. It is hypothetical. What happens if we do not get as many people as we think we are going to get coming in? Are we then left --
The Chair: The answer to the question is that if there are three and a half days reserved for presentations and only two days of presentations, you stay home for the balance of that first week or you make an ad hoc decision to accelerate clause-by-clause, if there is agreement. Mind you, that would be something where there might have to be some degree of unanimity because of the fact that people would arrange -- I do not know, but it would be an interesting discussion. The committee, I think, has the power to shuffle around, as Mr Klopp indicated, in the midst of its hearings, subject to what people may say. Any further discussion of the amendment?
Ms S. Murdock: Just as a clarification, could I have the motion again, please?
Mr Waters: The motion was for it to be divided, one week for hearings and one week for clause-by-clause, the first half-day to be for our overview.
The Chair: The motion was for three and a half days of hearings, one-half day of those three and a half days for briefing, and then the balance, the three and a half days in the second week, for clause-by-clause.
The amendment by Mr Offer was to add another day and a half of presentations, and reduce the total amount of clause-by-clause time to the last two days of that second week.
Mr Huget: Are we voting on the amendment?
The Chair: Voting on the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment, which is effectively to --
Mr Offer: A recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay. The amendment is to reduce the clause-by-clause consideration from three and a half days to two days.
The committee divided on Mr Offer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 2
Cleary, Offer.
Nays -- 7
Arnott, Dadamo, Huget, Klopp, Murdock, S., Waters, Wood.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the unamended motion on the floor? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That effectively, subject to what anybody might want to add, completes the structure of those two weeks but for the matter of advertising.
Ms S. Murdock: I think we should take out a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail.
The Chair: Well, I know how to get into the Toronto Sun.
Is anybody prepared to make a motion about the ad? Of course, people have been provided with a draft ad that is there only for discussion purposes or something.
Mr Huget: Sure, I will move it.
The Chair: Mr Huget is moving the ad format as contained in this draft.
Mr Huget: Subject to the deletion of the travel, which obviously we are not going to do.
The Chair: Quite right. So the ad would read: "The standing committee on resources development will meet to consider Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments, during the weeks of 29 July and 19 August at Queen's Park. The committee invites written submissions from individuals, groups or organizations wishing to comment on the above-mentioned bill. All briefs should be deposited with the clerk of the committee no later than Friday 16 August 1991. Requests for appointments to appear before the committee to make an oral presentation should be directed to the clerk of the committee not later than Friday 26 July 1991," and then the usual suffix showing address and so on. Is that the motion?
Mr Huget: Yes, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Any discussion on that motion? All those in favour?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Would anybody please make a motion about the breadth and scope of that advertising?
1700
Ms S. Murdock: Where it appears, how many times it appears, etc?
The Chair: Yes. Does the clerk have any advice as to usual procedure?
Clerk Pro Tem: Because there are going to be a lot of committees advertising, we are trying to have them all placed together so that even though they will be paid for by individual committees, we would basically be buying up a page in all the dailies. We think that will be more effective because people will see it. They will all be running on the same page. That is what we are trying to do.
Mr Wood: All the dailies in the province?
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr Huget: Is advertising a budgeted expense of this committee?
The Chair: Yes, it is. That was part of the budget proposal.
Mr Huget: If somebody is taking out a full-page ad, how is that cost prorated to the different committees?
Clerk Pro Tem: I am just explaining. We are asking the newspapers to put them all together. We can do that. We would still be paying for whatever size our ad is. Because there will be five ads, probably it will fill up -- well, it depends on the format of the paper, obviously, but in the Globe, say, it would fill up probably about a half. In the Sun it would probably be most of a page. It is just a placement thing. We go through one advertising agency that will get this so that all the ads are in the same location in a paper for us. We find that by blocking them together they stand out more. Basically, that is what it comes down to. We get a better response. That is what we as clerks have discussed, putting it all together so that they all run the same day and our phones really start ringing.
Interjection: One day?
Clerk Pro Tem: That is up to the committee.
Mr Huget: I was just curious because of the phrase you used, a full page. If you purchase a full page in the Globe it is not nickels and dimes. I was just wondering how that was prorated among the committees. You are saying it may or may not be. They will all be somewhere in the same section of the paper or the same page of the paper, but you are not purchasing a full page.
Clerk Pro Tem: No, that is true. We are not purchasing a full page. What we have done in the past, though, is we have run four ads together so that they are in one block, touching each other. Because of the crest and a lot of white it is more eye-catching. We have found that this is more effective.
Mr Wood: The reason I asked about its being all the dailies in the province, in my riding, having a high percentage of French population, close to 65%, there are no French daily newspapers and most of the people read the weekly newspaper. There are two French weekly newspapers that come out and there are two or three French radio stations. I am wondering if we should have that covered.
The Chair: Perhaps the clerk could respond to that. That is an interesting issue. Basically, what you are asking is, as I understand it, are these going to be bilingual ads, and if they are going to be bilingual are they bilingual everywhere and who decides where?
Interjection.
The Chair: Well, because Mr Wood is not alone. There are some others of us who come from communities where large portions of the community are francophones or Italian-speaking, even the occasional Ukrainian down where I come from.
Mr Wood: You have 36% French.
The Chair: I have 16%.
Ms S. Murdock: I have 34% francophone.
The Chair: Perhaps the clerk could respond to that. How does the clerk respond to those problems?
Clerk Pro Tem: What we could do is something the committee has to decide. Correct me if I am wrong here. Is the one French daily we used to have still functioning? Sorry, I did not check that before I came to the meeting, but there is the one French newspaper in the Ottawa area. The other thing is that committees often decide to advertise in the French weeklies, again because it reaches more people.
The Chair: I think somebody is crying out for a motion here with respect to this.
Mr Huget: I am prepared to move a motion that where we cannot find a French daily we advertise in the French-language weeklies.
The Chair: If I can just ask for clarification, what about the areas in which there are no French-language weeklies but, as Mr Wood and Ms Murdock point out, strong French communities? What about those areas that are recipients of the French Language Services Act? Would you want to expand your amendment?
Mr Huget: I would certainly not mind expanding it, but I do not know how one would do that. If we are talking about newspaper advertising and if there are not, unfortunately, any French-language dailies, then we have an obligation, I feel, to go to the French-language weeklies. I think that will cover that off, but I am not sure about other services.
The Chair: Maybe your amendment could include that in those areas covered under the French Language Services Act the ad should be bilingual notwithstanding.
Mr Huget: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: It should be anyway. Are we limited to print or are we going audio as well?
Clerk Pro Tem: It is up to the discretion of the committee. Normally we just budget for the print ads.
Ms S. Murdock: No, I was thinking in terms of the areas where there is no weekly or daily. There are lots in the north that are in that boat. I am not going to move anything on it, though. It is just a thought.
The Chair: All those in favour of that motion, please indicate.
Ms S. Murdock: Which motion are we talking about?
The Chair: The one Mr Huget just presented. Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That now completes the matter. Are there any other motions to put forward regarding committees, committee structure or advertising? That completes the committee direction with respect to those two weeks of committee hearings. We will now go in camera.
The committee continued in camera at 1707.