The Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians was established with the following objects:
- to put the knowledge and experience of its members at the service of parliamentary democracy in Ontario and elsewhere;
- to serve the public interest by providing non-partisan support for the parliamentary system of government in Ontario;
- to foster a spirit of community among former parliamentarians;
- to foster good relations between members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario and former parliamentarians; and
- to protect and promote the interests of former parliamentarians.
Please read The Official Hansard Record of Proceedings that initiated the establishment of our association below:
CONTENTS
Wednesday 12 April 2000
Association of former parliamentarians
Mr John Parker
Rev Derwyn Shea
Mr Gilles Morin
Mr Terence Young
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Viktor Kaczkowski
Staff /Personnel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1536 in committee room 1.
ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS
The Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): I call the committee to order in this history-making session. I welcome not only the sitting members but our august and esteemed colleagues from the last Parliament who have joined us here today.
The first order of business will be to formally receive a motion. Mr Barrett, you were planning on making that motion?
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yes, I could do that, Mr Chairman. By way of explanation, this motion was put forward previously by MPP Ted Arnott, who was subbing in at that meeting, so I will be pleased to make the motion.
I move that pursuant to standing order 124 and the order of the House dated April 6, 2000, the committee consider the establishment of an Association of Former Parliamentarians.
The Chair: We'll have debate on that motion now. To that end, I'm in the committee's hands. I guess we could do one of two things: We could either invite comments by the members of the committee, or we have had an offer made to us by the working group representing all three parties that has been working on this issue behind the scenes. I would invite a response.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I would suggest that we hear from those who have been working on it for a while and get a sense of what they're thinking and how they feel before we go to the trouble of expanding our own thoughts on it, not having had the experience they have.
The Chair: The clerk has just advised me of something. At this stage, we have to speak to and vote on the actual motion to consider. So we're not creating anything at this stage, but apparently, pursuant to standing order 124, we're here in order to invite the debate. My apologies for that.
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I have just a question of clarification regarding the name, the Association of Former Parliamentarians. Would it be provincial parliamentarians, or does that necessarily have to be done? It's just a question of clarification to anyone who has that information.
The Chair: At this stage, if we accept this motion, then everything including the title would be up.
Mr Levac: Has to be discussed.
The Chair: Yes. The next order of business should be the adoption, once we've looked at that. Is there any further discussion on the motion itself? All those in favour? Contrary, if any? The motion carries.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Immediately after the most recent meeting of the committee, we convened a subcommittee. I believe, Mr Chudleigh, you have a copy of that report.
Mr Chudleigh: Yes.
The Chair: Would you like to read it into the record?
Mr Chudleigh: Report of the subcommittee:
Your subcommittee met on Monday, April 10, 2000, to consider the future business of the committee, and has agreed to recommend:
1. That, at its meeting of Wednesday, April 12, 2000, the committee consider the order of the House dated April 6, 2000, which states "that, for the purposes of standing order 124, the standing committee on general government be authorized to consider the matter of the creation of an `Association of Former Parliamentarians.'"
2. That, should the committee adopt the proposal to study the above-noted matter, the committee be tentatively scheduled to meet on Monday, April 17, and Wednesday April 19, 2000, for this purpose.
3. That, upon completion of the above-noted matter, the committee commence its consideration of Bill 28, An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day, at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
4. That the deadline for the receipt by the clerk of the committee of any proposed amendments to Bill 28 be 5 pm, Wednesday, April 19, 2000.
That completes the report, and I'd be pleased to move it.
The Chair: Any discussion on the subcommittee report?
All those in favour of its adoption? Contrary? The report is adopted.
Now, with that business out of the way, I invite comments from either of the two parties if you are at odds with Mr Chudleigh's earlier comments about inviting the group first.
Mr Levac: No, invite them.
The Chair: Well, Mr Parker or whoever is the designated-
Mr John Parker: We'll go with Derwyn.
The Chair: We'll go with the august Reverend Shea. Welcome. Reverend Derwyn Shea, Mr Gilles Morin, Mr Terence Young and Mr John Parker, for the record, are joining us for the purpose of discussing this proposal. The floor is yours, Reverend.
Rev Derwyn Shea: I welcome the opportunity to address the committee today, and I note the appropriateness of the committee implementing one of the rule changes that allows it to assume legislative initiative on behalf of the House. How appropriate that this should be the bill that is addressed through the rule change, for we hope it will result in all-party support for the establishment of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians.
For those who might be under the impression that what we are requesting today is without precedent or is being proposed only for the advantage of former parliamentarians, let me set the record straight. Such associations exist and have operated for some years in other Canadian provinces, and approximately six years ago, by an act of the federal Parliament, the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians was established. Nor is what we are requesting uniquely Canadian. An Association of Former Members of Congress exists in the United States, and there are a number of state associations. A number of parliamentary democracies have established or support associations of one sort or another that are dedicated to the non-partisan and continued association of former members, to the benefit of both Parliament and their broader constituency.
There is ample precedent for the establishment of the association and for enabling legislation to be approved by this Parliament. There's no question but that the association could be established through the usual course of commercial incorporation. But we believe the association should be the creature of our provincial Parliament and that its purpose and protocols should be approved, not only by those currently qualified for membership, but should receive public consideration from the men and women who one day will themselves be qualified to join.
With regard to our goals and objectives, may I offer the following. First, the association must be non-partisan. Membership will consist of men and women who served in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, who carried party colours, loyalties and ideology throughout their active political life but upon ending their legislative service are now able to bring their individual and collective experience and wisdom to the service and benefit of this Parliament and the office of the Speaker rather than party caucus. The association must have no place in the day-to-day legislative process, nor should it ever be aligned with any caucus to the exclusion of any other.
We contemplate a role for the association that involves education initiatives to foster and advance the knowledge of Ontarians about our Parliament, its history, traditions and procedures, subject to and in concert with the office of the Speaker;
To host visiting delegations of former parliamentarians from other provinces and states; develop a non-partisan speakers' bureau; fundraise for scholarships in political science, public administration or programs that might be developed for former pages of the House; fundraise for legislative precinct projects where requested and approved by the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy;
To institute and provide for an annual memorial service to acknowledge the death of former members and to remember their contribution to Ontario and parliamentary democracy;
To offer advice and support to members who exit the Legislature and to provide a coordinating service on behalf of all caucuses in monitoring the whereabouts and well-being of all former members; to communicate on a regular basis with the association membership and serving members and to establish effective liaison with each caucus office and the office of the Speaker.
Mr Chairman, I began this enterprise four years ago or more, as my colleague Mr Morin reminds me, after viewing a program that was broadcast on CBC-TV Man Alive, titled The Invisible Tattoo. The spectre of Hans Daigeler was daunting, as were the experiences of so many former federal and provincial members of Parliament who were attempting to reinsert themselves into their careers, often with great difficulty. At the very least, some modest program of assistance seemed in order.
As I discussed this with serving and former members, a proactive, positive and enhanced model began to emerge. Everyone who serves in this place, regardless of political persuasion, has the best interests of Ontario and its people at heart. Every member has stepped forward voluntarily to serve, in most cases believing truly that they appreciate what is expected of them and the price they are expected to pay in terms of their personal and professional life. But I also discovered that what too often is overlooked, discounted out of hand, ignored or remains unspoken is the cost that is never paid until one leaves office and, in many cases, it is a cost that is borne by family as well as members. It is a cost that is often unknown, ignored or deliberately minimized by candidates when they first seek election, or by their enthusiastic supporters. Perhaps that's inevitable or perhaps that's the only way our parliamentary system can continue to attract aspiring members.
What has become clear to me is that when men and women leave this place, they carry extraordinary experience and insight with them. When they leave this place, they leave the immediate circle of decision-making, and under no circumstance should they attempt or even contemplate circumventing it or intervening in it. But at the same time, their experience and talent ought not to be lost. Freed from traditional constraints, they have much to offer the institution of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. Freed from partisan restraint, there are any number of initiatives former members might be engaged in, in co-operative fashion to the benefit of Parliament.
I'm joined today by several former colleagues who, along with me, have served in this House. We represent all three parties.
Tony Silipo, former member of the NDP caucus, is presently out of the country and sends his regret at missing today's meeting but supports this initiative completely. Gilles Morin, former member of the Liberal caucus and distinguished Deputy Speaker of the House, joins us today to offer his supporting intervention, and I am joined by two former members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, Mr John Parker and Mr Terence Young. Our collaboration and presence attest to the commitment we share and the non-partisan nature of the proposed association.
1550
Finally, Mr Chairman, I wish to advise the committee that we have surveyed every former member of this provincial Parliament whom we were able to identify and locate. Not all caucuses have kept accurate lists, but most former members were contacted. We received replies from more than 60%, and all but one strongly and enthusiastically supported this initiative. Several declined any leadership role in the association because of ill health or advanced years, but even in those instances support for the founding of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians was unqualified and without reservation.
I wish to make very clear, as I conclude my remarks, that the association membership will be subject to annual dues, and it is from that source that most of the association's costs will be drawn. All we will request is modest space and furnishings within the precinct so that we may be available to the Speaker and caucus offices, and accessible to former members. In this regard, we hope to adopt many of the operating procedures that have been developed by the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. With these introductory comments on the record, I now ask you to recognize Mr Gilles Morin, who will add further to our submission.
The Chair: Welcome back, Mr Morin.
Mr Gilles Morin: I want to tell you how happy I am to be here today. I spent 14 years here, so I became very attached. It would be difficult to say that I did not keep good memories. They were all excellent memories. But I have one particular sad memory that I want to recount to you, and hence the reason we're here before you.
It was in November 1995, a Friday afternoon, and I was at home. I received a call from Dalton McGuinty telling me that my seatmate, my colleague Hans Daigeler, had died. Hans was only about 52 years of age, I believe. My first reaction was, "Was it a heart attack?" Of course when it was explained to me what a tragic death Hans went through, it was a real blow. I felt guilty. He was my seatmate. How come I didn't see that? You know yourself that when you sit beside a companion for a long time, you become friends. It's like a neighbour at home. You know their concerns, you understand their worries, you understand their happiness, you talk about your families.
Hans was really a great loss-a doctor of theology. Why would he go through that? How come I didn't see that? Of course, he had been away from politics for two or three months. The first thing we think is: "What about his wife? What about his children? What have they got? Have they got protection of some sort?" We found out that the insurance coverage was gone. She was left with nothing-nothing at all. Nobody to talk to. That can happen to any of us.
So we made some inquiries. How could we form an association so that at least someone who is affected by that type of tragedy has someone to talk to? I spoke to Derwyn. Of course, Derwyn's background lent itself to this so well. I made some inquiries, and I must say that it's thanks to the tenacity of Derwyn that we're before you today. Derwyn, thank you very much from all of us. It was great.
When I left politics, I wasn't defeated. I left it because I'd had enough-14 years. But I have met some who have lost, and they took it personally. You should never take a defeat personally. You've been asked to serve your province, like a soldier, to serve well, to give your time. Not many people understand politicians as well as politicians. There aren't that many people who understand the sacrifice you have to make, the time you have to spend, the discussions you have to participate in and the frustration you constantly have to face on things. I know that fundamentally we're all the same. We work for one goal: to help our constituents, whoever they are. Helping transcends politics, and that is what we should all be about.
That is what this association is all about. It's to help each other, because some day you will face a problem. Where do you go? Who can you share your grief with? Who can you share your happiness with? How can you help that individual find a job, perhaps? Once you've been in politics, you are stigmatized. You're stigmatized for the rest of your life, want it or not. You serve your community well, but people forget that. You're in today, and people know you. Three or four days afterwards, you're forgotten. I know it too well. But at least you have the satisfaction of having been chosen, in a democracy which is the envy of the world, to serve your country, to serve your community. Then an election comes, and you may be nicest person in the world but you're kicked out. But never take it personally. In my 14 years, I haven't met any members from any party who intentionally wanted to do harm to this province; I never did meet anyone. I met many people making mistakes. We all make mistakes, terrible mistakes-but as long as we admit that we make mistakes, and I think we all do.
The association transcends politics. It's to help each other, to be able to communicate and to have someone you can go to and say: "Derwyn, I need your help. Gilles, I need your help. Can you advise me?" I was in the army for 14 years. I have army friends from the 1950s. They'll be my buddies for the rest of my life. In politics it's the same, because we're a team together. Even though we don't share the same philosophy in politics, we share the same responsibility. That is the purpose of the association. It transcends politics. It has nothing to do with politics. It's a question of helping each other because we understand each other.
Derwyn, thank you. Really, I'm surprised, because we were discouraged two or three months ago: Where would it go? We had some negative reaction but there was no enthusiasm. So I hope that you have enthusiasm to introduce that bill as soon as possible in the House, because you're working for you, you're working for us and you're working also to make a better society. Also, it's going to be more and more difficult to go and get candidates to go into politics. Why is that? Because of the problems you have to go through, the criticism you go through. Not everyone is willing to accept those criticisms. You make a good decision, you displease others.
So we must preach-and the word is right, to preach-that it is the responsibility of every Canadian to give part of their life, part of their time to their community, to go and serve as a member of Parliament. There is, in my opinion, no greater honour than to represent your constituents.
On that, I leave you, and please make sure that it passes quickly because it's for the benefit of us all.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Morin. Do either of our other colleagues wish to add anything?
Mr Terence Young: I will try not to repeat what was said by my colleagues. If you see fit to present this bill to the House, I think it would be a very marvellous and fitting way to show respect and to honour former members who, in most cases, have made a lot of sacrifice, their families have made a lot of sacrifice, and offer them a status which is not a political status but an honorary status and say to them: "You're still needed. You can still play a role. It may be a ceremonial role, it may be an educational role, but you're still valued in this place." It would mean a lot to the former members, and I think it would do a lot for this institution as well.
Mr Parker: Batting cleanup, as it were, maybe it falls to me to summarize somewhat and maybe presume to recommend a few steps forward from here.
Before I do that, however, let me take this occasion to thank you, the members of this committee, for first agreeing to proceed with the matter and, in particular, for moving so promptly to advance discussion of this issue. We are very pleased with the co-operation we've already received from all of the sitting members of the House in moving this concept forward. I should in that context also express the appreciation of the working group for the co-operation we have received from the House leaders of all three parties.
We met with all three House leaders and I can tell you that we were very impressed, very pleased with the sincere expressions of support that we received from the House leaders and the words of encouragement that we received. That is all borne out by the fact that the matter was brought before the Legislature in the first week of reconvening this month after the interval from last fall. It was brought immediately to this committee. As I say, we're very pleased with the speed with which this committee has chosen to act on the matter.
1600
I should also, and I will, thank the members of the working group for the work they have done: Derwyn Shea, Terence Young, Gilles Morin and Tony Silipo, representing all three parties. I'm proud to have been part of that working group myself. I should express particular gratitude to Derwyn. We tended to meet over lunch or breakfast most of the time and it was Derwyn who always picked up the tab. For most of our meetings, it was Derwyn who was the only one among us who was employed. We probably would've stiffed him for the bill anyway. Derwyn has helped this cause in more ways than might appear on the surface.
Let me also express the gratitude of the working group to Barry Turner and Elizabeth Matte of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians based in Ottawa. As Derwyn mentioned in his leading remarks, the proposal that is before you today is not without precedent. There is precedent federally in this country and in at least one other province. British Columbia has such a group as the one we are contemplating, as well as other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.
Our research didn't take us to all of those jurisdictions, but it did take us to Ottawa. We were hosted most graciously by Barry Turner, who is currently the chairman of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, and Elizabeth Matte, who serves most effectively in a staff position with that body. We learned a lot during our visit with them.
The fruits of that visit are reflected in the documents before you this afternoon. I distributed two items to each of you: a draft bill that I'm about to urge to your consideration, and also a one-page brochure. The one-page brochure is a straight Xerox copy of the brochure that the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians has produced as a bit of a synopsis, a bit of a description of who they are and what they are about. That provides the look and feel, if you will, of the type of association that the working group contemplates and brings before you for consideration this afternoon.
The draft bill you are looking at is modelled after the federal bill forming the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians. We've adapted it to pertain to the Ontario context, but the general structure and format of the bill and the nature of the organization reflected in that bill are taken quite directly from the existing federal legislation.
You have already heard as to the motives behind the proposed association and some of the elements we hope will characterize the association. Maybe I might summarize some of those comments.
First, let me be clear as to what is not proposed before you this afternoon. Nothing in the recommendations before you this afternoon calls upon the Legislature to authorize the spending of public money. That is not what this proposal is about.
Similarly, nothing in our proposal this afternoon calls on the Legislature to provide an avenue by which former members would presume to influence the work of the Legislature or of the government, nor would membership in the proposed association be automatic or mandatory. What is proposed is a voluntary association comprised primarily of former members of the Ontario Legislature, the operation of which would be funded by the members of the association themselves, mostly through the mechanism of annual membership dues.
The association is to be strictly non-partisan. The association is to train its activities on matters of fellowship and on matters relating to the institution of the Ontario Legislature and the parliamentary system, rather than matters relating to current partisan debate.
Just to flesh out that comment somewhat, certainly a large component of the motive behind the presentation this afternoon is to promote fellowship and concern for the well-being of former members, to give them a vehicle to maintain contact with one another and to provide a body which will be there for former members to turn to for guidance, for advice, perhaps, if necessary, for comfort when they cease to be members in this place. That certainly is part of the motive behind the recommendation this afternoon. It's by no means the only motive and it's by no means the only purpose that we see for the association.
As has already been noted, we believe that each member in this Legislature brings to the Legislature the wisdom and commitment to serve their community and their province. That commitment does not cease when the member ceases to serve as a member in this Legislature. But the experience the member receives while serving as a member in this Legislature can serve the interests of the Legislature in many ways. It is our hope that the association we contemplate can provide an avenue by which that experience and that commitment can be put to a useful, productive result. That too is an important component of the motive behind the association and it is our hope that will be an important part of the work of the association and of the members of the association.
To be honest, and although it is not part of the proposal before you that we are asking you to vote on, I would be less than candid with you if I failed to note that it is our hope that as a body, presumably to be created by the Legislature, the association would be permitted to have a home in the Legislative precinct. That is a question that would be brought before another body at another time under the appropriate circumstances. But I want to be candid with you this afternoon and tell you that that certainly is our hope for the association. Apart from that, however, we are not calling upon the resources of the public to be put at the disposal of this association in any way.
It is an object of the proposed association that it would put the knowledge and experience of its members at the service of parliamentary democracy in Ontario and elsewhere, and I want to emphasize that part.
To take all this discussion from the abstract and bring it to more concrete form, I draw your attention to the documents that have been provided this afternoon. I think each of you has a copy of a proposed draft bill for your consideration. As I've mentioned, it is drawn largely from the precedent currently established in Ottawa, and I put it before you as an indication of the result that we would certainly welcome from the processes of this committee.
Those are my remarks this afternoon. Thank you for considering this matter and thank you for hearing us this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all you gentlemen. We'll have discussion and I'm sure there'll be a few questions.
Mr Levac: I want to start by congratulating you and expressing to the working group my heartfelt thank you for bringing this to our attention, and your words will not go unheard. I want to compliment you on a couple of issues. Of the objectives you've established, the two that struck a very strong chord with me were to protect and to promote the interests of former parliamentarians. The protection end of it really struck me as an important aspect of your findings. I'm sure M. Morin made reference to a situation that was dealt with a while ago. To speak to that issue is what really prompted me to say that-to foster a spirit of community among former parliamentarians. I think far too often it's: "You're used up. Thank you very much. Now you're gone." I compliment you on that.
1610
I also comment that if there is a way in which we can do this, if we can incorporate the request for ongoing records to continue or at least get established-the implication was that it was a very difficult matter for the working group to get those records. They may very well exist, but it doesn't seem that it was very easy for this group to do that. To assist them and to have this for the future, if we can incorporate somehow our ability to start taking those records as a legislative matter, it would be at the fingertips very quickly. I would say that could be found somewhere in this legislation.
The subcommittee, in their meeting immediately after the first part, had the discussion on the establishment of the framework, and I think all the members of the three parties agreed to that very well: "Let's get the bones and allow the working committee to put the flesh and the blood and the living spirit around them." The idea was that we say yes to this immediately, that we say yes, we support this. Your good work will be able to be built right around that, and we can get things moving so that the association is the creator of what it is they want, as opposed to our trying to frame it in any other way than what the association members would like to have happen.
I support, and I suggest to you that I don't know if anyone would not, a way in which we can find a home for the association, and I would encourage very much that it be in no other place than in this good place. It would speak volumes to what it is that you're speaking to about keeping the spirit of us and you together. What better way to do that than have a home here?
My congratulations on four years of good, hard work and the spirit in which this was done. It speaks volumes for what you are speaking to.
My final comment, respectfully, is whether something can be done to incorporate comment on the families of the former parliamentarians. It speaks to the original point I made. It might not necessarily need to be mentioned, because there are other preambles I've read in the material that imply that would be part of it, but this speaks to the importance in which I hold, and I know all members would hold, the families. With the sacrifice the members gave, we know that the sacrifice our families have given in order for us to be here and do the things we've done is equal, or maybe even more. That would be my only kind of question, that if there's something we can do about incorporating that and maybe giving that as a piece of advice for the working group to incorporate it, I would appreciate that very much.
I don't have any questions, simply because I'm so impressed with what has happened and transpired that you have my undying support and commitment to see that that happens. I know, contrary to what some people say, that someday I will be a former parliamentarian. I like the idea that I would have the fellowship of someone to be able to count on. I appreciate all of the work that's been done. Unfortunately, I have to indicate that I have to leave for a bill signing. I will return if the meeting is still on.
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I won't ask any questions. I'll make two comments. First, there is a former parliamentarian whom I am well connected with who didn't tell me he had received a survey from you with respect to this particular association, so I will have to talk to him more about it, because I have not been lobbied by him. He continues to maintain a very strong interest in provincial politics and in this place, as you can well imagine, and I think that if there were some ways and means for his expertise and the expertise of many others, especially long-standing members, to be shared with other Ontarians, that would be a very good thing to do.
Second, I very briefly want to thank all of you, particularly you, Derwyn, for pursuing this for the last four years. What happened with Hans Daigeler was a tragedy that could have happened to any of us, there but for the grace of God go all of us too, at some point. I want to commend you for continuing to pursue it. If nothing else, that kind of emotional support is probably sadly lacking when people leave this place. Other people's memories of them being here last about two minutes.
I've seen that happen first-hand, and it can be a very difficult thing for a family to live with. In our case, the ex-MPP for Sudbury East left of his own accord. Having said that, even when he did, he felt at a loss for a long time, and this may be one mechanism to get away from that particular sense of loss for others, whether they're defeated or whether they leave on their own. I wish all of you well. I can't see that there will be any problem of support from our party, I want to indicate that now, but I thank you for continuing to pursue it.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Martel. We'll have to make sure that wasn't one of the names missed as a result of-
Rev Shea: Elie's is a name I know.
The Chair: Excellent.
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): Just very briefly, my professional background is in psychology. I'm a psychologist and I worked with suicidal kids and kids of families that had suicide in them. I just commend you and give both my political and professional support to this. That's all I have to say, Mr Chairman. Congratulations.
The Chair: Any further comments?
Mrs Julia Munro (York North): Yes. First of all I would just offer my thanks to this group, which has worked obviously very hard in providing this. I know there had been quite a bit of discussion about how in principle it was a good idea. I guess all of us are victims to the old story of, "Oh well, it's a great idea, but who's actually going to sit down and make it happen?" My congratulations to you on having made it happen.
My question is to the Chair. I want to know what are the procedural steps for this committee in terms of where we go from here, if you could clarify that for us.
The Chair: It's my understanding, and I'm sure the clerk will contradict me if I stray from the facts here, that at this stage it would be quite appropriate for us to receive any proposed amendments or additions to the draft bill that you see before you now. I don't mean to editorialize too much but it would appear, just having had a chance to review this, that they have covered all of the bases, spoken to in their comments here today, with very specific wording. We also have attached from the research branch the copies of British Columbia's, the federal and the Quebec acts, and again a very quick comparison reveals many similarities, particularly with the Canadian act.
I just indicated to Ms Martel, who has left to attend a bill signing, that we would certainly not cut off this discussion until she and Mr Levac can return. What I would like to throw out to the members still present right now is whether or not the draft paper that has gone through legislative counsel-and I see they have made a number of their normal improvements to more appropriately reflect traditional language used in bills-whether this bill as it's written now passes muster. Mr Levac offered two suggestions. I'm looking to our colleagues on the working committee. Perhaps, if I might suggest in the explanatory note (e), you could consider adding a clause "and act as a resource for former parliamentarians and their families," or words to that effect; and similarly, I believe Mr Levac's suggestion was that one of your objectives could be to maintain a database of addresses and other particulars related to former parliamentarians.
It may have been implicit, but making it explicit adds to the comfort level and reflects the input from Mr Levac.
Rev Shea: Assuming there's appropriate legislative support to make that happen for the information flow, but that's clearly what this association has to do.
1620
The Chair: The feedback we have received from legislative counsel is that they could by next Monday have a bill in a format they would be comfortable with and which would invite formal clause-by-clause discussion. So I am in the hands of the committee.
I certainly don't wish this whole process to appear as being unduly accelerated. However, given that the input has been derived from a working committee representing all three parties, and given that you have maintained a liaison with the House leaders, and that legislative counsel will have put their, say, stamp of approval just in terms of the language itself, I would turn to the two caucuses represented here today and ask whether inviting that any proposed amendments be submitted by next Monday is inappropriate or whether you could, through your House leaders, invite any appropriate comments.
Mr Chudleigh: I think that would be entirely appropriate, with the concurrence of the former members who are carrying this bill through. If you believe that any amendments that might be brought forward could be done by next Monday, we would be in your hands for this.
While I'm here, I again would like to add my voice to the congratulations of the former members in bringing this bill forward. It's a rare case when a member doesn't become a former member. My grandfather served in this House for 40 years and never became a former member because he died in office at the ripe old age of 82. He was determined not to become a former member, I suppose, and in those days that was possible.
The only other point I would make-I don't know if it requires an amendment or not-we should do what we can to make sure the office they have isn't on the fifth floor.
The Chair: An inside joke.
Mr Chudleigh: Anyway, congratulations. It's marvellous.
Mr Parker: Chair, I wonder if I might speak to this point. Ironically, the NDP representative is absent from the room just at this moment, but you will note that the working group has been strictly non-partisan with representation by all three parties. It was our intention to have all three parties represented before you this afternoon in the form of the working group. Tony Silipo, the NDP member of the group, is out of the country at present, and his caucus was unable to find someone to sub for him in time to meet this afternoon's meeting schedule. I wonder if I could prevail upon the committee, however, to leave the door open for Tony Silipo to make a presentation to this committee perhaps next week before the process advances too far down the line, just in case Tony does have a further comment he'd like to get on the record before you as part of the proceeding.
Rev Shea: Chair, if I can just pick up on that. Not to have a quarrelsome moment-
Mr Parker: We're from the same caucus.
Rev Shea: I'll wait for the Chairman.
Chair, while I appreciate the comments by my colleague, Mr Silipo was fully aware that we may be proceeding. He's not in the country. I would think that Mr Silipo is, as I mentioned in my opening comments, fully supportive of what's before you now. If this matter is brought back before you next Monday and if he's in the country, I think that's a perfect time for him if he wants to make a presentation at that point.
Where I have a concern with my colleague's comments, if he's not back until a few days after that, then it continues to drag on and it gets caught up in all the other legislative process. I think that is not something Mr Silipo himself would wish. So I would ask, subject to him being available, when you consider this, that you might ask him to make other comments. I suspect what you'll hear is an echo of what you've heard today, but nevertheless I would ask you to proceed on this as expeditiously as possible. This is extremely important. We still have a number of things to do to get organized, but we would like to be up and running certainly by the summertime so we can begin to do the database and so forth.
The Chair: Thank you, Reverend Shea. I think it's possible to accommodate both those points of view. The clerk advises me that there is no need to set a formal deadline for amendments. If Mr Silipo were inclined to attend and speak at the outset of our meeting on Monday, should he share any other observations that warrant an amendment to the draft bill, we can procedurally accept amendments from the floor. So I ask you to extend to Mr Silipo the invitation to attend next Monday, if he so chooses, and to speak at the outset.
Mr Chudleigh: Just a question to the former parliamentarians: I wonder if you have had any contact with Peter North, who sat as an independent, and his perception of where he might fit in this association.
Rev Shea: I am embarrassed, because I didn't bring my file with all the responses and can't tell you whether Mr North replied. I believe he did, but I can't be held to that. I'm not sure.
Mr Chudleigh: I think he might bring another perspective, not having been a member of a party. If he were to review the legislation, he might see-
Rev Shea: One or two other former members who were independents at one point or another did reply. None of them was the one who said he didn't want to have an association.
The Chair: Thank you both. Just to bring Ms Martel and Mr Levac up to speed, we were discussing the timing for our next steps. There was a consensus-but I certainly want to invite your comments as well-that we are at a stage with the draft bill and with building on the work done by the committee that it would appear appropriate that we set a fairly short timeline for any further input and proposed amendments. To that end, we discussed the opportunity to reconvene next Monday and invite any amendments, including amendments from the floor.
We are going to extend an invitation to Mr Silipo to speak at the outset of the meeting next week, should he wish to add his comments, just to make it very clear that this is an all-party initiative. If Mr Silipo raises issues that require further amendments, the clerk has advised that it's totally acceptable to receive amendments from the floor, and the other members of the committee said they would be quite receptive to that.
If that timing is acceptable to all three caucuses, then I would like to propose that that be our next order of business and, that being the case, to invite any final comments anyone might wish to make this afternoon.
Mr Barrett: Just a final comment: I certainly appreciate the presentations at the witness table by our former members. They have enabled me to understand a little better where we are heading with this. I assume you have a bit of a mechanism to communicate some of these ideas to sitting members who haven't had the privilege of sitting in on this meeting-your goal of promoting the betterment of former members. I think that's going to occur, in a lot of ways, just through fellowship and collegial interaction. I've been a member of a fraternal organization for a number of years and it's natural to involve family members, and I support that being inculcated into the legislation if that is required.
Certainly no one argues against the experience and wisdom that lie among former members. That's going to benefit parliamentary democracy in Ontario, as described in the explanatory note. So I really appreciate the presentations today.
The Chair: Just one last point, if I may, Mr Levac and Ms Martel. I suggested that the two comments you made might very well be embodied, the first in the objects, the explanatory note, under (e), perhaps add a clause "and act as a resource for former parliamentarians and their families," to raise that issue, and under objects, under (3) "attempt to maintain a database of addresses and other particulars related to former parliamentarians," which hopefully will address your other concern.
Mr Levac: I appreciate that very much, Mr Chair. Just further to what you asked before, I have no problems whatsoever with looking at Monday. But I do want to note that I hope it doesn't bump Bill 28 to Easter. We have to watch for that-just my own personal observation.
The Chair: We will certainly guarantee that the timing of the next order of business, Bill 28, meets with the approval of all three caucuses.
With that, if there's no further business, on behalf of the committee, I thank the four witnesses. You're certainly welcome back next Monday. The committee stands adjourned until 3:30 next Monday.
The committee adjourned at 1630.
Scroll down to the Official Hansard Debate on 2nd and 3rd Reading of our Act.
Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians Act, 2000
S.O. 2000, CHAPTER 6
No Amendments
Definitions
1. In this Act,
- "Association" means the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians established by this Act; ("Association")
- "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Association; ("conseil")
- "former parliamentarian" means a person who has served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. ("ex-parlementaire") 2000, c. 6, s. 1.
Association established
2. There is hereby established a non-profit corporation to be known in English as the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians and in French as Association ontarienne des ex-parlementaires. 2000, c. 6, s. 2.
Objects
3. (1) The objects of the Association are,
- to put the knowledge and experience of its members at the service of parliamentary democracy in Ontario and elsewhere;
- to serve the public interest by providing non-partisan support for the parliamentary system of government in Ontario;
- to foster a spirit of community among former parliamentarians;
- to foster good relations between members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario and former parliamentarians; and
- to protect and promote the interests of former parliamentarians. 2000, c. 6, s. 3 (1).
Non-partisan nature
(2) The Association shall not pursue its objects for any partisan political purpose. 2000, c. 6, s. 3 (2).
Membership
4. (1) All former members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario are eligible to become members of the Association in accordance with its by-laws. 2000, c. 6, s. 4 (1).
Restriction
(2) If a person becomes a member of the Association and is then elected to the Legislative Assembly, he or she shall be deemed to have resigned his or her membership in the Association on the day that he or she is sworn in as a member of the Legislative Assembly. 2000, c. 6, s. 4 (2).
Honorary and associate members
(3) Other persons may be made honorary members or associate members of the Association in accordance with its by-laws and they shall enjoy such rights as may be set out in the by-laws of the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 4 (3).
Powers
5. The Association has the capacity of a natural person and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Association may, in furtherance of its objects,
- initiate, finance and administer programs and activities relevant to its objects, including programs and activities by government, public or private organizations and agencies or individuals;
- enter into contracts or agreements with governments, public or private organizations and agencies or individuals;
- publish or otherwise disseminate information of all kinds related to its objects;
- establish and award scholarships or fellowships for study related to its objects;
- give recognition, by such means as it deems appropriate, for outstanding contributions to the promotion and understanding of Ontario's parliamentary system of government;
- borrow money on the credit of the Association;
- acquire property, money or securities by gift, bequest or otherwise and subject to the terms, if any, on which the property, money or securities is given, bequeathed or otherwise acquired, and it may hold, expend, invest, administer or dispose of any such property, money or securities, or it may create any security interest in such property, money or securities to secure any obligation of the Association;
- acquire, establish and manage any charitable or benevolent work, undertaking or foundation as it considers appropriate;
- expend all amounts received from individuals, corporations and organizations as contributions to the Association for its activities; and
- do such other things as are conducive to the exercise of its objects. 2000, c. 6, s. 5.
Capacity to act outside Ontario
6. In addition to its capacity within Ontario, the Association may carry on its activities and affairs and exercise its powers in any jurisdiction outside Ontario to the extent that the laws of that jurisdiction permit. 2000, c. 6, s. 6.
Head office
7. The head office of the Association shall be at such place in Ontario as the Board may determine. 2000, c. 6, s. 7.
Board of directors
8. (1) The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a board of directors comprised of the chair and directors elected in accordance with the by-laws of the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (1).
Chair
(2) The chair shall be elected in accordance with the by-laws of the Association and shall preside at meetings of the Board and may perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Board. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (2).
Vice-chair
(3) The Board may elect from among its membership a vice-chair and, in the event of the absence or incapacity of the chair or if the office of chair is vacant, the vice-chair shall have all the duties and functions of the chair. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (3).
Meetings
(4) Subject to subsection (5), the Board shall meet at such times and places as the chair considers necessary. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (4).
Same
(5) The Board shall meet at least once in each year at the head office of the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (5).
Same
(6) On the request of a majority of the members of the Board, the chair shall call a meeting of the Board at its head office. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (6).
Vacancy
(7) If the office of a director becomes vacant, the Board may, in accordance with the by-laws, appoint another person to serve as a director for the unexpired term of the person whose office is vacant. 2000, c. 6, s. 8 (7).
Electronic participation
9. (1) The Board may authorize directors to participate by electronic means in a meeting. 2000, c. 6, s. 9 (1).
Same
(2) If a director participates in the business of a meeting of the Board by electronic means, he or she shall be deemed to be fully present at the meeting. 2000, c. 6, s. 9 (2).
Same
(3) Unless the Board decides otherwise, if a member of the Board participates electronically in a meeting, the meeting shall be deemed to take place at the place where a majority of the directors are gathered or, in the absence of a majority at one place, where the largest number of directors are gathered or the chair or other director presiding is in attendance, as the Board may determine. 2000, c. 6, s. 9 (3).
By-laws
10. (1) The Board may make by-laws respecting,
- membership in the Association, including honorary membership and associate membership;
- the election or appointment of directors, their term of office, the expenses, if any, to be reimbursed to directors and the number of directors to be elected;
- the employment, engagement or appointment and remuneration, expenses and duties of officers, employees and agents of, and consultants to, the Association;
- the calling and holding of meetings of the Board and its committees or of the Association, and the procedures by which such meetings shall be conducted including the manner of holding votes at such meetings;
- the appointment of patrons and honorary officers of the Association;
- the delegation of powers to the Board or a committee of the Board;
- generally, the administration and management of the business and affairs of the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 10 (1).
Approval required
(2) No by-law of the Association is valid or shall be acted on until it is approved at a general meeting of the members by at least two-thirds of those present and entitled to vote at the meeting. 2000, c. 6, s. 10 (2).
Use of profits
11. Subject to any by-law of the Association providing for the remuneration of officers, employees and agents of the Association, any profits or accretions to the value of property of the Association shall be used to further the activities of the Association and no part of the property or profits of the Association may be distributed, directly or indirectly, to any member of the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 11.
Dissolution
12. (1) On petition by the Association and in the manner specified in the petition, the minister of the Government of Ontario having responsibility for the regulation of Ontario corporations may dissolve the Association. 2000, c. 6, s. 12 (1).
Same
(2) In the event of a dissolution of the Association, any property of the Association that remains after the payment of its debts and liabilities or after the making of an adequate provision for the payment of its debts and liabilities shall be transferred to such person or institution as the Association may specify in the petition submitted under subsection (1). 2000, c. 6, s. 12 (2).
Same
(3) Notice of a dissolution under subsection (1) shall be published in The Ontario Gazette. 2000, c. 6, s. 12 (3).
Transition
13. (1) Upon the coming into force of this Act and subject to the provisions of this Act, Reverend Derwyn Shea, Mr. Tony Silipo, Mr. Gilles Morin, Mr. John Parker and Mr. Terence Young, being the Executive Committee of the unincorporated association known as the "Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians", acquire all the powers of the Board. 2000, c. 6, s. 13 (1).
Same
(2) The members of the Executive Committee referred to in subsection (1) and the present officers of the unincorporated association shall, subject to the by-laws, rules or regulations of such association, continue to hold office as if they had been appointed or elected in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the by-laws made under this Act until their successors in office have been appointed or elected. 2000, c. 6, s. 13 (2).
14. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act). 2000, c. 6, s. 14.
15. Omitted (enacts short title of this Act). 2000, c. 6, s. 15.
OAFP Act, 2000 - Debate on 2nd and 3rd Reading
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSOCIATION ONTARIENNE DES EX-PARLEMENTAIRES
Mr Gilchrist moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 65, An Act to establish the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians / Projet de loi 65, Loi constituant l'Association ontarienne des ex-parlementaires.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We had a chance to make very brief comments when the bill was brought back to the House from committee, but this really is a historic piece of legislation because it represents the first time that the new standing order 124 was used for the creation of a piece of legislation. As members of this House and many other people across this province know, traditionally there have been only two vehicles through which legislation could be brought forward and the laws of the province changed. Those were, of course, bills introduced by the sitting government and bills introduced by private members. The private members' bills are a fairly regulated process, and we each get one turn each session, but there's not a great opportunity for us to advance other initiatives in a timely fashion.
The Legislature changed the standing orders last session and now there is a third mechanism, and that mechanism is through committee. Every member of a committee has the opportunity to propose a piece of legislation once each session. They have a further guarantee that it will not only be debated in committee but they will have debating time here in the House if it passes committee. This bill represents the first such opportunity to move forward legislation and I really want to congratulate all members of the standing committee on general government. It really was a non-partisan initiative, and I want to thank my colleagues not just from the government side but from the Liberal and NDP parties as well. I think it was very much in the flavour that Ontarians would like to see us deal with legislation wherever possible. Suggestions are made, amendments are made, but at the end of the day we all make compromises and fashion a bill that meets the test of the best possible change to standing legislation.
This bill creates, in effect, an alumni association of former parliamentarians. We've all seen, sometimes with tragic consequences, what happens when members who are defeated or choose not to stand for re-election leave this place and have to reacclimatize themselves, have to get back into the workforce, back into the working society. We had one incident in Ottawa where the transition was far too dramatic for anyone's taste. I really think that having a resource, having a focal point that former members can turn to if they need advice, if they need a rallying point, if they need some counsel, is very much an initiative we should be pursuing.
It follows on the lead of many other provinces and of a similar organization at the federal level, the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, which is currently chaired by Barry Turner, formerly a PC MP. In addition, the Americans have an association of former members of Congress for all the same reasons and with the same spirit. This is not a partisan group. It will not be there to promote any specific legislative agenda. It will have almost no cost, save and except that we will be asking the Speaker to allocate an office, and after that the cost would be borne by the association itself. But we think it's quite appropriate that that focal point be an office somewhere in the legislative precinct.
The other item I have to mention is the fact that even the inspiration for this bill was an all-party effort. The idea first originated with Reverend Derwyn Shea, who was of course one of our colleagues in the last Parliament, and he was joined by two other members of the Conservative caucus, John Parker and Terence Young. But in addition, Mr Gilles Morin from the Liberal Party and Mr Tony Silipo from the New Democratic Party joined in the efforts, appeared before the committee and in every respect spoke equally eloquently of the need to bring forward this new association.
I'm not going to belabour the point. I think we have pretty unanimous agreement around both sides of the Legislature that this is an initiative which should move forward through second and third reading. I hope we get the agreement of all members today to give both second and third reading and allow this initiative to move forward. There is a steering committee, comprised of former members from all three parties, who will take it from there and bring it to fruition. I wish them Godspeed and the best of luck. I know I speak for all members in wishing them all the best in fulfilling the aims and objectives laid before us in committee.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want to assure the member for Scarborough East, who is also the chair of our government committee, that he does have our support on this side, and that without doubt we will be proceeding as quickly as possible to pass this legislation.
I want to review a couple of items for the benefit of the people who do pay attention to these proceedings and for the record from the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in effect on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. We are making history today, and I concur with the comments that the member opposite said, so I want to review exactly why I think this is very instrumental and very important as a historic moment. This is one of those opportunities where we've been able to change the Legislature for the good of all members sitting. They don't have to be members of a ministry, they don't have to be members of any particular smaller group that gets brought down into the legislative possibilities, to bring legislation to the front of this House, and that's the committee.
"Report to the House: Report may contain the text of bill:
"124(d) Following its consideration of such a matter, the committee may present a substantive report to the House and may adopt the text of a draft bill on the subject matter. Where the text of a draft bill is adopted by the committee, it shall be an instruction to the Chair to introduce such bill in his or her name, as the primary sponsor. The other committee members who support the bill may have their names printed on the face of the bill as the secondary sponsors."
Not so much to get credit for passing a bill, but the fact that we now have the ability of a committee to introduce legislation to this House is historic, and I commend the Legislature, if passed, to put that into place.
There is still more to do. On a personal note, I do believe that private members' bills need to tweaked a little bit more so that they can get to the legislative process quicker and better, but nonetheless, for this particular legislation we must compliment the committee members, and particularly the Chair for his leadership in drafting and getting this to the House.
Next, I want to say very clearly that it's-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. These were the two-minute comments and questions. You may have thought this was the full debate; I'm not sure.
Mr Levac: I'm done.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I wanted to take a very brief opportunity, which is all I have in two minutes, to express my gratitude to some people from our former caucus, the Reverend Derwyn Shea and Terence Young, who were very instrumental in bringing leadership to the bill before us today. I believe it is a credit to this Legislature that we're taking this important step to facilitate an opportunity for former members to continue to participate and have some activity in this place in which they have invested so much of their time and energy.
We know that, as a House, on a non-partisan basis, we will all benefit from them having a facility in this place, from our ability to continue dialogue with former members. No doubt many of them, having been here and now having perhaps a different perspective, will be able to give us some advice. That would be very helpful. Sometimes the farther the distance is that we get from this place, the better perspective we get on many of the issues. So I want to thank these two gentlemen, and I know there are others from other caucuses who will be giving credit to members on their side of the House for their initiative on this.
I want to thank the committee for the work they have done in bringing this forward. We look forward to giving unanimous consent, I trust, to third reading and passage of this bill this afternoon.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
The member for Scarborough East has two minutes to respond.
Mr Gilchrist: I certainly won't take that. I simply thank the member for Brant, the member for Oak Ridges and my colleagues from all three parties for their involvement in the committee, and our colleagues who have formerly served in this House, who I'm sure will benefit immensely from the work of this association once it's formed.
1620
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Brant.
Mr Levac: I will complete the rest of my five-minute talk in less time, so I appreciate that very much. I also want to thank the member opposite for giving recognition to a couple of the key members who were very instrumental in putting this forward.
I want to continue by adding to the record the very purpose, the objectives of what this group is going to do. I think that might get lost if we don't put it on the record because there's more to it, as we discussed at committee level, than simply having a group of people who get together as alumni. There are some very key components to this that I think the public should be aware of.
The association is a non-partisan organization that is open to all persons who have been members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario but who at present are not serving. The objectives of the association are these: to put the knowledge and experience of its members at the service of the parliamentary democracy in Ontario and elsewhere; to serve the public interest by providing non-partisan support for the parliamentary system of the Ontario government; to foster a spirit of community among former parliamentarians; and the last two items, which the Chair knows I really spent a lot of time commenting and making recommendations on, which are to foster good relations between the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and former parliamentarians, and, finally, the one that I really did spend a lot of time on, and I know in discussions we have really important points to make with this one, to protect and promote the interests of former parliamentarians.
We did hear some tragic stories. We did hear some issues that unfortunately took place because of this transition. I for one believe the human being should be taken care of first and foremost. If we find that any former member of this place is in dire distress, we should be able to help that person, and in particular their family, make those adjustments.
I want to point to another item in the bill that took on a category of its own. It was called the non-partisan group; it is the non-partisan nature: "The association shall not pursue its objectives for any partisan political purposes whatsoever." That was wholly endorsed and supported by all members of all three parties.
As the member opposite did mention, I would like to say that the subcommittee that was formed to look into the drafting of this legislation did an absolutely stellar job, and I think they should be given most, if not all, of the credit. The transition team was comprised of the Reverend Derwyn Shea, Mr Tony Silipo, Mr Gilles Morin, Mr John Parker and Mr Terence Young. To those people I say thank you for having the fortitude to stick it out, because it did take some time. There were some revisions and there were some bumps and hills along the way. I know that through your good work, and credit to you, we're here today to talk about it. I can also tell the Chair without any reservation that the members on this side in the Liberal caucus will be looking forward to a very speedy passage of this bill.
On a personal note, I want to say this has probably been the most joyful operation that I've been part of in terms of what the public want the Legislature to do: to get along, to do the best possible legislation we can do. Unfortunately, these types of pieces of legislation just don't come along enough.
I want to thank the members of the committee and I want to thank the members of all three parties for being such good sports about this and making sure those people get taken care of, because some day we're all going to be there.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I'm honoured and I feel very privileged to be able to stand today and speak to a piece of legislation such as has been presented here this afternoon. I think it speaks to the best that's in all of us. It speaks to the best that is possible out of all of us. It speaks to the potential of this place to nurture the giftedness and the gifts that each of us brings to this place and to recognize after our day is done that what we have done is remembered, respected, supported and celebrated.
Of course the focus of the bill is to make sure we have in place an organization that will look after some of the needs of past members and make sure those needs are identified, worked with and encouraged, that will encourage the development of plans to make sure people are looked after and are well and continue to be productive and active members of the communities in which they live. My caucus supports that wholeheartedly. We have absolutely no difficulty with that.
As a matter of fact, my colleague Tony Silipo in the years I served with him was a person with a tremendously well-developed social conscience, a big heart and an understanding for the challenge it takes to do this job, a person who contributed above and beyond the call of duty, as all members of this place do.
It's not until you get here and you actually take part in the activities of this place, it's not until you begin to recognize the variety of subjects you have to understand and participate in, that you begin to fully understand the time, the commitment, the energy and the sacrifice that is made by members of Parliament.
On the outside it looks like a pretty snazzy job. There are a lot of perks and opportunities to strut your stuff and be out there in the public view and be important and be seen to be important. In fact, after you've been here for a while, you begin to realize that there are moments that, yes, are appreciated and enjoyed but that they're few and far between. Like anything else, this is, after all, a job that we all are privileged to get if we're elected by our constituents. But at the end of the day, if we're committed to it, and I don't know a member in this place over my ten years here who wasn't committed to doing the job they were elected to do, you work very hard. You put in long hours. You get into some debates that are quite gruelling at times. It takes an emotional toll of you from time to time as you win and lose in this arena. At the end of the day, you leave with a mark that in some ways, yes, is very positive and constructive, and in other ways can limit your potential and ability to actually re-enter the regular workaday world of the community from which you come.
This new parliamentary association will hopefully have the resources necessary to be helpful and supportive of each of us, because for each of us, in turn, our day will come and we will face the challenge of re-entering and becoming not an MPP any more but serving in the ways we want to in the communities to which we will return.
The other thing I think it is important to highlight here is that we forget from time to time that we should celebrate the contribution MPPs make to the quality of life we all enjoy in the communities we live in. We sometimes take that for granted and we think it just happens, that somehow some of the good things we all enjoy as members of a community just fall out of the sky and into our laps and are there.
Well, they don't. They happen because leadership is given from varied and multiple sources in communities. It's given as well in a very clear, concrete and important way from those who serve at senior levels of government, and certainly this is one senior level here. To celebrate those contributions I think would be an important part and role and contribution this new parliamentary association could facilitate for all of us here and for the province.
It's in celebrating and recognizing the contribution
that individual members make that we and the people we serve, and the generation behind us who are coming along who are looking at us and saying, "Who are they and what do they do?" will come to understand, realize and appreciate the importance of this place, the importance of government, the importance of politics.
Maybe just every so slightly, hopefully, it will diminish some of the negative connotation that has grown over the last five or ten years in this province, indeed in this country and around the world, when the issue of politics and politicians is talked of and looked at and reviewed in so many of the media outlets and other ways that politics is looked at in this day and age.
1630
This will present opportunity for the very positive and constructive and good things that politicians, for the most part-and again, I speak of my own experience-contribute to the good governance of this province and a building of the quality of life and opportunity and creating of space for people to participate in a province like Ontario. It's important that we do that, that we come to that time. I think this is the opportunity now. It's nice to be standing here today with all parties in agreement that we should in fact do that.
I remember for quite some time, because I'm a big Toronto Maple Leafs fan, watching as Harold Ballard refused to recognize, as other arenas used to around the NHL, the contribution that past stars and past players made. He wouldn't hang the banners and those kinds of things. I'm not suggesting for a second that we start hanging banners in here recognizing the contribution of some of the stars-and eccentrics sometimes-of this place, but just that we all remember and are reminded from time to time of that contribution and the benchmarks they set, that we need to sometimes rise to ourselves.
I think it's important that we put out there-not necessarily by hanging up banners, but in other ways-things that we might come up with by way of recognition to add to the positive and constructive understanding of the role of politicians and members of Parliament, because sometimes it's that very negative picture that's painted, sometimes that very critical analysis and judgment that's made-
Interjection: The Fewer Politicians Act.
Mr Martin: Yes. I don't want to get partisan here this afternoon or else I would talk about that, and I could, in fact. But I want to be non-partisan and constructive in this.
If we did more in a positive and constructive nature, building up the role that we play in the evolution of civil society here in Ontario, politicians who find themselves moving on, for whatever reason, would have an easier time reintegrating into the communities in which they live. What they have done would be more likely to be seen in a light that would have people perhaps clamouring for their services, to serve on boards and commissions-even to offer them the opportunity of some gainful employment, because we know that the pension out of here now isn't so great any more. It used to be OK. You used to have a pretty decent pension if you served as a politician in Ontario. But since the last changes-and I think the members across the way are beginning to recognize this now-the pension isn't as rich as it used to be.
Interjection: It isn't. It's not even existing.
Mr Martin: Some might claim that it doesn't even exist any more in any real and significant sense. So the need becomes even more pertinent and obvious to have something in place to assist those people who come here, give of their time, serve, and end up having to go back with a five- or 10- or 15-year piece removed from their life where they haven't been building up pension credits someplace else, haven't been building up any relationship someplace else that might lend to taking care of themselves and their families in their retirement. I think that this organization, this new parliamentary association that we're talking about here today, could contribute in a very significant and important way to making sure that that happens.
I'm standing in partnership today with members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses in saying this is a good move, in saying thanks to those who made the effort to make sure that what we have in front of us here today will do the trick, and we will be supporting whatever effort is put forward to make sure that this happens post-haste.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Just a quick question I have, and there may be room for another member, I hope. Is the member for Sault Ste Marie advocating a provincial senate? I just wanted to ask that question.
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I just want to compliment the member for Sault Ste Marie. I'm glad he raised that point about the pensions, because there's a real misconception that those of us who have recently been elected have gold-plated pensions. I think it's important that the public hears that and that it's only our distant relatives in Ottawa who have those great pension plans now.
I want to compliment, though, the members of all three parties and the legislative staff and former members who worked together to bring this initiative forward. I think it is very important that we recognize those contributions of past members of this Legislature.
I look back at some individuals who have served my own riding. Ron McNeil was a distinguished member of this Legislature for over 30 years. Ron is still active in his community. I think it's important to recognize the contributions of individuals like Ron. Other individuals who have also served part of my riding: Doug Reycraft, another long-time member of this Legislature; Peter North, a former member of the New Democratic Party, and then in 1995 Peter was elected as an independent member of the Legislature, for the first time in over 50 years; Marietta Roberts, another member of my riding, who gave distinguished service and actually sat in the Speaker's chair to serve the constituents of Ontario; and Bruce Smith, who recently was a member of this Legislature. Those are some individuals I think should be recognized for their past contributions and individuals too that we all understand have something that they can give back to the people of Ontario.
It's very fitting that this committee of former parliamentarians has been struck. It has been extremely successful in Ottawa in creating an alumni association and that bond, and continuing those bonds of friendship, because although we may be on opposite sides, at the end of the day we do need to walk out of this room and do what's best for our constituents. With that, I want to commend all three parties for their efforts.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I just would like in these two minutes to put a couple of words on the record with regard to this. Far too often we have engaged in this Legislature-not all members, but certainly from the predominant party, which I will not name at this point-in trying to demean politicians and the work they do. There has been legislation brought forward that in a lot of ways really tries to undermine the work that people actually do when they decide to put their name on the ballot and run for office,
Yes, these are good jobs. When you do get elected it's exciting. There are a lot of interesting things to do. You get to serve your community in a way that you probably can never do in any other job you may get. But we often forget that there's also a price you pay when you get elected. There's a price you pay with your family, and there's also a price you pay if you've been around this place long enough and you try to go back to what you were doing before. Often it's very difficult to go back.
Many people I know from this Legislature have come from various professions. When they've tried to go back into their former employment it has been pretty difficult to do. In some cases they don't want you back. You've been gone for 10 or 15 years. They don't feel you have any right to go back to your old employer. Many people put aside business interests. I was a small business person myself. I know other people here who were in small business and ended up closing down successful businesses in order to run, get elected and serve the people of the province of Ontario.
Often when you leave there's not much left for you when you get out of this place, so I think it's only right that we try in this little way to give former parliamentarians a chance to make the transition a little bit easier, and hopefully some of the supports provided to some of the members when they leave this assembly will go a long way. This is a small step but an important step in trying to make that happen, and I want to thank the former members who worked on this committee for bringing this forward.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Sault Ste Marie has two minutes to respond.
1640
Mr Martin: Just briefly, I want to thank the members from Brant, Timmins-James Bay and St Catharines for participating and responding to the comments I made.
I say to the member from St Catharines that I'm a great believer in public process, as you are. I'm a supporter of government and government processes. I'm a supporter of taking the time necessary to make sure that what we do here is the right thing on behalf of all of the people of Ontario. In fact, we should be doing more, in my view, of a non-partisan nature than we do here in this place so often. If a senate at the provincial level would contribute to that, I'd have no difficulty with that. I'm not one of the people out there condemning any level of government. Each level of government has its pluses and minuses and we should be doing everything in our power to make sure that they in fact work on behalf of people. I think that speaks to the contribution that so many people have made to this place over such a long time.
In my own instance, in Sault Ste Marie, there's a member who comes to mind that I think we should recognize and perhaps put on this committee, and that's Russ Ramsey, a Conservative member who used to be a cabinet minister in Bill Davis's government, who never fails to respond to any event that I lead in Sault Ste Marie. He comes, he participates. Even if it's a fundraiser, he puts his money on the table and he has supper and we celebrate the contribution that all of us make to the common life of the community that we all love and want to serve. I have lunch with him on a regular basis because I appreciate the advice that he gives me on things. I want to hear what he's thinking and what he's feeling about certain things.
I'm happy, as I said before, to support this and our caucus will be supporting it as well, of course.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gilchrist has moved second reading of Bill 65. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I seek unanimous consent to call third reading of Bill 65.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent? It is agreed.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR L'ASSOCIATION ONTARIENNE DES EX-PARLEMENTAIRES
Mr Gilchrist moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 65, An Act to establish the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians / Projet de loi 65, Loi constituant l'Association ontarienne des ex-parlementaires.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I really don't think there's a need to belabour the point. All parties have put their comments on the record. I certainly appreciate the debate we've had and the input so far. I look forward to a successful vote for third reading.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions? Further debate?
Mr Gilchrist has moved third reading of Bill 65. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.
Be it resolved the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
