CONTENTS
Wednesday 4 November 1992
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Wood
*Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND) for Mr Klopp and Ms Murdock
*MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Waters
*Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Mr Dadamo
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffiére: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1601 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): We're resuming. The first matter to address is the matter of the 123-125 matter that's pending that was brought by Mr Waters dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. There are 38 minutes left, as I understand it, to that 123-125 matter. They will, I advise, be dealt with on either of December 7 or December 10, which is a Monday and Wednesday, consecutively. Those are dates on which Mr Di Santo is available and on which he can be here to deal with that and we can conclude that matter.
There is also the matter of a letter received from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario dated November 4, 1992. It will be filed as an exhibit. Is there any discussion regarding that letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario?
I understand, as well, that there's been a memorandum distributed to the members of the standing committee from Andrew McNaught, research officer, legislative research service, responding to the inquiry on the applicability of the Power Corporation Act, the Business Corporations Act and the Corporations Act to directors of Hydro in the event that they might be called upon to answer certain questions about the communications involved in their role as directors. Is there any discussion about that memorandum?
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Not for me.
The Chair: Thank you. I understand that the subcommittee reached an agreement. Go ahead, Mr Huget, on behalf of the subcommittee.
Mr Huget: The subcommittee, by unanimous consent, has agreed to delete, from the witness list that was tabled, Cummings, Cassidy and Agnew and put on the list Anne Noonan and Larry Leonoff. There was also unanimous consent and agreement on the subcommittee that Brian Charlton, the Minister of Energy, be the first witness called. That's it.
The Chair: That, like any other subcommittee report dealing with this 125 matter, is deemed to be accepted subject to there being any valid reason why it should not be.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I just thought of something here, and in fairness to Mr Huget, we have not had time to discuss it. That is with respect to the time allocations for each witness. We had originally agreed, as I understand it, that this time would be divided equally among the witnesses, subject to carrying time over if we used up a witness for less than an hour.
The Chair: The agreement was that each witness can be questioned for up to one hour. There was an agreement as to how the remnant of time, should the one hour not be used, be utilized. There was the report of the subcommittee as well, indicating that a witness could be recalled for yet a further period of up to one hour.
Mr McGuinty: That was suitable in light of the fact that we had 11 witnesses and we intended to proceed for 11 hours maximum with the witnesses, and we were allowing an hour for preparation of the report. We now have nine witnesses, and I would like to be able to question perhaps one, two or more witnesses for longer than the hour.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to agree with the remarks of my friend. I, in looking at this list, see that there's probably half the list which we wouldn't need much more, I wouldn't think, than half an hour with, whereas I think it would be very helpful if we had a couple of hours with Minister Charlton and a couple of hours with Mr Eliesen, who I know is going to make himself available.
I know that the committee will ask him, and I'm sure he'll be delighted to come back here and visit us after the good service that he's performed for the province of Ontario at the high salary that he's been paid. I just know he'll be delighted to come back. Since he is the good friend of the Premier, I know that the Premier's office will do everything in its power to ensure that he attends.
I would think that Minister Charlton and Mr Eliesen and Mr Holt and Mr Leonoff would be people whom we could learn a great deal from and we could probably use a couple of hours for each of them. It would be my suggestion that we try to be as flexible as we can with the allocation of the time, recognizing that there are some people who have much greater knowledge about what this involves than others.
The Chair: Okay, let's make this clear: My count is 10 witnesses.
Mr Harnick: Do you have Mr Carter on there as a separate witness for Mr Eliesen?
The Chair: No, we're talking 10 individuals.
Mr Harnick: I don't think that there's any reason to have Mr Carter as well as Mr Eliesen there. One would have thought that we would call Mr Carter if Mr Eliesen refused to come, one hardly being a replacement for the other.
The Chair: Fair enough. That wasn't what the subcommittee had agreed when it met and reported back to the committee. Before we deal with that, Mr Huget, what have you got to say?
Mr Huget: I think that the agreement that the subcommittee--first of all, I'm surprised that we're trying to undo something that was done in terms of the subcommittee, and that was agreeing on a format of time allocation for witnesses and witness questioning. We still have 10 witnesses and we still need to write a report, and there is a 12-hour time period here.
So I think that the situation as it is, and the one we agreed to, was fair at the time and I think it's still fair at this time. It does provide everybody with enough opportunity to do their questioning, and I think there is recall, as well. Everybody has the opportunity to recall witnesses, so I think the time allocations that were spelled out in subcommittee and reported to full committee should stand. We're still going to have a substantial, I think, issue of time to try to get things done properly; we need time to write a report. So that's why in subcommittee I think it was agreed to, and I'm not prepared to undo that.
The Chair: The subcommittee report contained the following statement and that is that the committee will have a minimum of one hour for report writing. So the committee, then, is left with a total of 11 hours maximum for witness examination.
The subcommittee report indicated that the witnesses will be invited for a maximum of a one-hour time slot, the time to be divided equally between the three parties. Having said that, what are you suggesting, Mr Jordan?
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I just wanted to clarify if there was any objection to our having Mr Carter and Mr Eliesen on the list. My understanding was--
Mr Harnick: We only want Eliesen.
Mr Jordan: --that we indicated that if we could not get Mr Eliesen, we would like to talk to his executive assistant, who I believe was Mr Carter. Is that correct? What I'm saying is, there's no need to use up the time of Mr Carter if Mr Eliesen is going to make himself available.
1610
Mr McGuinty: It was my understanding as well that Mr Carter would come in the eventuality that it was impossible for Mr Eliesen to attend. There is certainly no need to speak with both.
With respect to what we're asking to do today in terms of giving us more flexibility in dealing with the time allocations, in fairness, what we originally planned was premised upon us dealing with 11 witnesses. We have altered that today and we've agreed to that, and something that arises quite naturally and flows from that is the issue of the time allocation. So it's not something that's completely extraneous. It's natural, it's collateral, and I think it's only fair that we address that issue. I don't think it's sensible to be reopening some agreement that we had.
The Chair: Okay. Just to make sure everybody's recalling the same things, the report of the subcommittee was that if Mr Holt is not available then Mr Rod Taylor would be invited in his stead. That was the only substitution that was contained in the report of the subcommittee.
You're indicating, Mr Huget, that you're not in agreement with these changes.
Mr Huget: Which changes?
The Chair: Changes proposed by Mr McGuinty and Mr Jordan and Mr Harnick.
Mr Huget: No.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Huget: We discussed fully in subcommittee in terms of apportioning time to different caucuses, and I don't think what's being done today significantly alters that.
The Chair: All right. Except for the fact that the witnesses are to be invited for a maximum of a one-hour time slot, there was no discussion in the subcommittee--and comment on this if you wish--of a minimum period of time that they could be invited for. They, of course, were capable of being reinvited on a recall basis for up to a further maximum.
One of the suggestions that I heard is that some witnesses may not have to be here for a whole hour, and it seems to me that the report of the subcommittee may well permit that, and that is to say that a witness has to be here for only 30 minutes. It was further a part of the subcommittee report that any time remaining will be allocated at the decision of the subcommittee, and that is to say, any remnants of time if a full hour weren't utilized or if certain witnesses weren't available.
What that implies clearly is that the subcommittee would have to meet again in any event to deal with ongoing revision of the schedule of the hearings, that it not only would meet but that it would be obligated to meet.
Isn't it appropriate now for some assistance--and, again, not through the committee, but the clerk will clearly do what the clerk has always done in these matters, and that is that, subject to the subcommittee having reported that they want Mr Charlton, the minister, to be first, then to follow up and try to contact people and schedule them based on their availability and the committee's availability in the most logical order as she sees fit, and then to report back to committee members whether there are any issues of unavailability of witnesses or participants or if there are any particular schedule problems. Go ahead, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: One of the difficulties that I have is that if Minister Charlton decides to come first and we are confined to one hour and we then find out that we only need Mr O'Brien or Mr Hinds or Mr Mathur or Ms Noonan for 15 or 20 minutes each, we've got all kinds of extra time that could be used for the minister. The minister wants to put himself in the exalted position of going first, and quite frankly he's the major player here. I would be quite content to get rid of all these other players and just deal with Mr Charlton, Mr Eliesen, Mr Davies, Mr Holt and Mr Leonoff.
That's the difficult position you're putting us in. Quite frankly, you're going to whisk the minister in here and you're going to whisk him out and his one hour is going to be over and we're not even going to be warmed up. The minister's going to slide out the door and it'll be all very nice and quick, but the fact of the matter is, we're going to have all kinds of extra time. I can't conceive that some of these people are going to be here for a whole hour.
The Chair: Having heard what you said, surely there has to be some end to the subcommittee process at some point. I should make this clear. This subcommittee, in its report, has contemplated further meetings, but there may be some people who are troubled about how many times you rewrite the witness list. I'm saying that. But clearly the subcommittee did contemplate at the subcommittee meeting, in addition to its initial meeting, to deal with remnants of time or to deal with filling in slots that were vacant because of the non-attendance or unavailability of a particular witness. Go ahead.
Mr Huget: Again, I'm a little disturbed about bringing this issue, which is clearly a subcommittee issue, into the full committee and going into discussions that really and rightly are the property of the subcommittee. But that aside--
The Chair: Let me interrupt you, then. Are you suggesting that this matter be referred to the subcommittee?
Mr Huget: If I may continue, Mr Chairman: That aside, everybody is subject to recall; every witness is subject to recall. I don't understand what the problem is here.
I think as well, Mr Chairman, you mentioned in your comments that the subcommittee meeting would have to meet at some point during the process of the hearings to take a look at the allocation of time at the end. I believe that's what you said. I think we agreed to that in subcommittee, that we would have to meet at some point, bearing in mind that as the process unfolds in terms of availability and time requirements we will have a better idea of how to deal with unused time. So we would clearly have had to meet again anyway to deal with that, and that's what I suggest we do: just let it go in terms of how we agreed to do it.
Mr McGuinty: I just want to confirm my understanding, because this is very important to us. Mr Charlton's going to be appearing first. In the event that we require him to reattend, we can do so through the subcommittee by virtue of me and the whip for the third party coming to agreement on that. Is that the case?
The Chair: The subcommittee contemplated doing that and made provisions for itself to do that, as I understand it.
Mr Harnick: May I make a suggestion?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Harnick: Maybe Mr Huget can consider this. I think if we took witnesses O'Brien, Hinds, Mathur and Noonan and gave them each one half-hour, that takes up two hours. If Mr Leonoff appeared for an hour and a half, Mr Holt for two hours, Mr Davies for an hour, Mr Eliesen for two hours and Mr Charlton for two hours, we would use up 10.5 hours and have an hour and a half to write the report. That way, all of the more major witnesses could be here for two hours.
The only reason for the government to say that it doesn't go for that is because it obviously feels it has to get these people in here as quickly as it can and out of here as quickly as it can. You know, Mr Chairman, as well as I, that once the minister leaves here or once Mr Eliesen goes back to Vancouver, the right of recall of these witnesses is absolutely minimal.
You also know that the standing orders do not provide for the decision of the subcommittee to be final, so that when the seven government members come back here to ratify, asking for a witness to come back, which will come out of the 12 hours of the committee hearing, then there's just no way they will ever allow the minister to come back here. They will say: "That might be what the subcommittee said; the subcommittee's vote is not final. It's up to the committee, and our seven people are going to blow away your five people," and that's exactly what's going to happen.
What I'm suggesting is the logical approach, if you have nothing to hide or protect, is that we obviously take the people who, on the face of it, are much more important and are going to be demanding of more time, we give them more time and allocate it a little differently, and take the other people and give them less time. It makes sense, and then we won't be in the bind of fighting over the subcommittee being overruled by the committee. Just a thought, Mr Chair.
1620
The Chair: Wait just a minute. Having heard what you said, this illustrates the problem of people being substituted partway through the process. I recall there having been a pretty complete discussion at the subcommittee of the issues of witnesses and who they were and time frames. The subcommittee report, while not exhaustive of all the issues, was a reasonably complete framework of how the committee was to proceed for these 12 hours. The subcommittee is entitled to do that. The report is deemed to be adopted.
There was some clear discussion recognizing the distinction between the subcommittee, wherein the opposition members had effective control because of their majority, and the committee, where realistically government members--and to deny that is naïve--have control should they act or should they vote en bloc.
Mr Huget has made it clear that he considers this discussion to be more appropriately held in the subcommittee. That's how I understood Mr Huget's comments in the initial part of his last set of comments. Are you in agreement with that, Mr Harnick?
Mr Harnick: What I'd like to do is ask Mr Huget if he has any problem with my suggestion.
The Chair: Wait a minute. Before we get to that, though, Mr Huget is suggesting that this is more appropriately, as I understood him, a matter of a subcommittee meeting. You're the substitute for Mr Turnbull, who's the member of the subcommittee. Are you in agreement with that?
Mr Harnick: No, because I'm going to lose at that level, because whatever we decide there will come back here and it'll be over. Why don't we decide now, so that during the week that we're not going to be here all of this can be arranged.
Mr McGuinty: I disagree with Mr Harnick in this regard: It's my understanding that when we make a decision regarding witnesses and time allocations in subcommittee, that binds this committee.
Interjections.
The Chair: Wait one moment. Standing order 125 says, "The subcommittee"--this is with reference to 125--"shall make a report to the committee on a matter designated...which shall include"--I've looked at this and I'm not of the opinion that that means that's exhaustive; it means it could include any number of things, but at the very least shall include the following things--"a precise statement of the matter to be considered, the time to be allocated for the consideration of the matter, the date on which consideration of the matter is to commence, and the names of any witnesses to be invited to appear before the committee."
When the subcommittee does that, it's deemed to be adopted by the committee upon that subcommittee reporting back to the committee.
Mr McGuinty: That's your ruling?
The Chair: That's my interpretation at this point, after having looked at them and paid a whole lot of attention to them because of the obvious issues that we anticipated. We talked in subcommittee about some of the contentious issues in terms of interpretation of rules that were likely to arise. All of us, I know, have looked at the standing orders--rather than rules; the standing orders--and have been very thoughtfully analytical about them and how they might apply, in anticipation of some of the issues that might arise.
Mr McGuinty: I just want to be perfectly clear on that because I agree with your interpretation, and the logical extension is that if, in further meetings of the subcommittee regarding a time allocation, the members of the opposition parties are in agreement, that's the end of the matter. We will win at the end of the day and it can't be altered in the full committee.
The Chair: The only thing that might be said is that surely everybody agrees that the subcommittee can't continuously tinker, at the very least, to the point where it's disruptive of the process of the hearings.
Mr McGuinty: Fair enough.
The Chair: So if there is to be review by the subcommittee, some might argue that it might be restricted to that period of time before the hearings have actually--you see, we're not using up the 12 hours yet, even though we're on record. In that period of time, before the 12 hours actually start, some might argue that the subcommittee at the very least then--perhaps other times as well, but at the very least then--is entitled to review its position. Is that what you're arguing?
Mr McGuinty: What I want to get from you is a clear indication as to what's going to happen if, halfway through, we decided that the subcommittee is going to meet and deal with the issue of time that's left over.
The Chair: The subcommittee's own report clearly contemplated the subcommittee sitting down and assessing the development of the hearings and utilization of time and the availability of witnesses, but I'm inviting somebody to suggest that the subcommittee is entitled now, before the 12 hours start, to review its original recommendation, make a subsequent recommendation.
Mr Harnick: That's exactly what I want to know.
The Chair: Is somebody suggesting that?
Mr Harnick: I want to ask that question, Mr Chairman. Is there going to be a meeting of the subcommittee to determine definitively the timing, because my problem is, if there is not--
The Chair: Definitively?
Mr Harnick: At least definitively for the purpose of starting this hearing, because the one thing I'm concerned with is, if the minister wants to come first and we've agreed to let the minister come first to accommodate his schedule and if we decide that the minister's going to come first and he gets an hour and then later on we decide that we're going to change the way things are going to go and we find out the minister no longer can come because he's got other commitments, then the whole purpose is defeated.
Is it proper to move at this stage that we have a subcommittee meeting in light of the change that we've made to the list? You see, that's my problem.
Mr Huget: We've already done that.
Mr Harnick: Now I'm asking that you consider changing that.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, if I might, the report of the subcommittee on the time allocations for witnesses and the procedure for questioning and recall was agreed on in good faith by members of the subcommittee.
I apologize to Mr Harnick, but it is certainly more than unreasonable to have to negotiate, I think, a set of conditions every time there is a new committee member who appears on behalf of the third party for one day. What it does is, it destroys what good working relationships we are trying to foster in terms of the subcommittee taking on its proper role and working through those issues.
Those issues were worked through. In the subcommittee report it is clear that we made reference to the issue of unused time, and at some point we would have to come back and review that. That's how I see the process working.
But, Mr Harnick, if I might, under the circumstances that have prevailed lately with the third party and this committee, it would require the endless negotiation of hundreds of different subcommittee reports, because every time there's a new face from the third party, Mr Harnick, there's a new agreement. Something has to be changed; something has to do this; something has to do that. The rest of us work in subcommittee trying to reach reasonable agreements to allow the committee to do its job. It's just, to me, less than responsible to continuously try to renegotiate things that have been negotiated in good faith by members of the subcommittee, who are all three parties on this committee.
Mr Harnick: My difficulty is that when these time allocations were contemplated, it was not contemplated that Charlton would be coming and being here first.
Mr Huget: What's the difference?
Mr Harnick: The fact of the matter is that he is a major player in this inquiry.
Mr Huget: Subject to recall. Subject to recall, like all the rest.
Mr Harnick: Except for one thing: He won't be available the moment he leaves this door after his one hour is finished. He'll say: "I was there. The rest of my calendar was booked up. That's why I asked to go first, and I have no more time to be in front of that committee."
What I'm saying is, in light of the fact that you've now asked and we've agreed to accommodate you to move him up to the top of the list--which I do with some reservation, but the fact that we're going to do that certainly changes the flexibility that you'd like to have in terms of time with the first witness. You're not going to know about what extra time you have till you get down to the eighth, ninth or 10th hour, and it may well be that in the extra hours that you have, the minister just won't be available. I'm saying, if we know the minister is available first and we're prepared to accommodate him first, let's accommodate him for two or three hours--if he has nothing to hide.
1630
The Chair: One: The comment at the very beginning of this meeting by Mr Huget with respect to the recommendation of the subcommittee as it applied to Mr Charlton, the minister, appearing first was the result of the most informal of subcommittee meetings. It was the result of people merely putting heads together; there's nothing wrong with that, but it was the result of people putting heads together while the committee sat and waited for that subcommittee to return. It wasn't a subcommittee meeting that was chaired in the more formal sense and about which there was sit-down, across-the-table discussion, or certainly protracted or in-depth discussion. That's number one.
Number two, Mr Turnbull, who is the regular subcommittee member, was present at the subcommittee, with Mr McGuinty, Mr Huget and myself as Chair, when the subcommmittee met to consider Mr Jordan's 125 designation. Mr Turnbull isn't here today. Mr Harnick is here legitimately on his behalf, a substitution slip having been filed with the clerk.
Some members may be concerned about what happens should Mr Turnbull come back next time and be at variance with Mr Harnick. However, standing order 124 says that the subcommittee is to meet from time to time, either at the call of the Chair or at the request of any member thereof. It means any member of the subcommittee. I understand that to mean that the subcommittee is obligated to meet at the request of the Chair or at the request of any member of that subcommittee.
Why wouldn't this committee consider it appropriate if one of the members of the subcommittee wants to call that subcommittee to meet? In view of the fact that none of this 12-hour process has commenced yet, in view of the fact that it is clear that the clerk has had only the opportunity to do the most preliminary of preparations, in view of the fact that a 125 designation is as of right and is there to provide the opposition with an opportunity to do things it wouldn't otherwise have the right to, wouldn't it be appropriate for the subcommittee to meet, to do whatever it thinks it has to or can do and, depending upon what happens there--I mean, we're talking now about the appropriateness or inappropriateness, or validity or invalidity, of a subcommittee report on matters that have already been reported in a vacuum because there is no subsequent subcommittee report. The subcommittee has a right to meet. Whether or not that report is deemed to be accepted by the committee remains an issue to be discussed, if raised, when the subcommittee reports back to the committee.
Mr Harnick: I thought you had just told us what your interpretation of that section was?
The Chair: I told you that, and nobody raised any objections, but people may well raise objections. And there was no report from the subcommittee back to the committee. When that happens, and the comment is put to the committee, as I did the last time the subcommittee reported, "Is there any valid reason not to deem this report to be accepted?" if people want to raise objections then--I've indicated that before the 12-hour process is started, nobody having argued anything, it would seem to me that it would be far easier for the subcommittee to do this than once the process was under way and commitments were made.
Is any member of the subcommittee asking for a meeting of the subcommittee?
Mr McGuinty: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Mr McGuinty is. Is there any further discussion? I trust you'll approach the clerk to arrange a time for that?
Mr McGuinty: Is it possible to meet right now?
Mr Huget: I have a problem with that. I'm scheduled to speak on Bill 40. I realize that trying to be accommodating, at least lately, on this committee is somewhat of a challenge, but I am not prepared at this moment to have a subcommittee meeting. We all have obligations besides this committee, and this is a surprise.
We had thought, perhaps naïvely so, that agreements that are made in good faith in subcommittee meant something. If they have to be looked at again--and I think in the original subcommittee report we made clear reference that we'd have to deal with these issues again anyway, so none of the assertions and hypothetical situations Mr Harnick brings forward have any bearing on anything; nor, for that matter, do anyone else's.
If there's going to be a subcommittee meeting, the clerk will have to arrange one. I'm not able to attend one now.
The Chair: Maybe the clerk will arrange one for tomorrow.
We then are adjourned until Monday, November 16, at 3:30 or soon thereafter. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1635.