Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

CONTENTS

Wednesday 3 April 1996

Subcommittee report

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président: Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Bartolucci, Rick (Sudbury L)

*Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

*Ford, Douglas B. (Etobicoke-Humber PC)

*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)

*Johnson, Bert (Perth PC)

*Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)

*Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

*Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)

Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Wood, Bob (London South / -Sud PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC) for Mrs Ross

Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel

Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1002 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The committee will come to order. As members know, we were in a debate last week on a motion by Mr Wood which came from the subcommittee report to the full committee. We got into a debate that went on for some time and now carries over to today to be dealt with as the first order of business.

I can't speak for other members, but I have to leave at 12. Someone else can take the chair if the committee decides it wishes to sit beyond 12 today. I don't think that should cause a problem.

Let us proceed and get on with the business of what had already begun last week when Mr Kormos had the floor dealing with the motion. The motion has been distributed, just to remind you in case you forgot what it was all about. Mr Kormos, you have the floor.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Mr Chair, a point of order, prior to Mr Kormos continuing his submissions: I would note that all three parties have agreed to this report, and the costs of the people here today will add up to about $1,000. I hope we can call on you to use your good offices to encourage members to be as brief as possible. They obviously have a right to speak. We're not inviting you to do anything other than use your good offices to encourage members to be as brief as possible so we don't throw away the $1,000 that's been spent having these people here today.

The Chair: I always appreciate wise counsel.

Mr Bob Wood: I hope it falls in that category.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Kormos, the floor is yours.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Chair. Indeed I paid heed to the purported point of order by Mr Wood, and I would, in the context of this debate over the motion of Mr Wood, ask people to reflect on the fact that matters could proceed promptly were that motion withdrawn, as I believe Mr Wood has the power to do within the rules of procedure and certainly within the rules of the committee.

The Chair will recall that I responded with great concern about the very nature of this motion because I regarded it as being one that seriously curtailed -- in fact, aborted or usurped -- the function of this committee. This committee clearly has more than a perfunctory role.

It's interesting, again no denigration intended, that the only people currently at this committee who were here when this committee was created are you and myself.

I recall the debate, the discussion, that preceded and accompanied the creation of this committee. The last government had a strong concern about there being a public review. I'm not saying that's a good thing, because certainly the amendments to the standing orders that were created by the last government warrant some criticism and perhaps fine-tuning. The model here may have been in part the American model for review of appointments. Obviously, the American model doesn't have a review process for all appointments, but identifies appointments, and that is to say the bodies to which appointments are being made. It identifies which ones will be subject to scrutiny. Clearly, as we're aware from some rather notorious reviews in the Senate in particular, those hearings have consisted of some pretty full and thorough and rigorous investigation of an intended appointee.

I appreciate that this committee is in itself, by its very structure -- and I'm going to be referring to the standing orders, of course, in due course during my comments. But we note that this committee has a very restricted role as it is, from its very genesis, when one takes a look at the standing orders, because it has a particular time frame in which it can meet. That time frame is of course determined by motion of the House at the onset of a Parliament, as it was in this instance. I want to thank Ms Manikel, the clerk, for yesterday's response to my queries about the very nature of that motion, and that motion defines the time frames within which the committee can sit.

Obviously, the fact that this committee only meets once a week and only, in effect, for two hours a week means one can only interview, by virtue of the standing orders -- and it is an interview -- an intended appointee, a nominee, if you will, for a gross time, an aggregate time, of 30 minutes. Of course, that's split equally between the three caucuses. That means the committee again has a far more limited role in terms of inquiry, inquisition, as some might term it, and I appreciate some of the interviews have been more inquisitorial than others, for good reason. But that means there's very limited time at the end of the day, 10 minutes per caucus, to participate in interrogation, questioning, interviewing, of an intended appointee.

You also know, Chair, that a whole lot of good appointments have been referred to this committee, and for the life of me -- you've heard my comments in this regard so many times -- I can't understand why they would be brought here. In fact, here's Mr Rossetti coming here today to be interviewed, and I appreciate it was the official opposition party that called him.

You see, that's part of the problem and this is why the 10-minute restriction on debate over concurrence is simply unconscionable. The problem is that the committee and the respective caucuses rotate in terms of selecting people to come before it. When they're called upon to submit the names, they don't have a CV, a curriculum vitae or a résumé. They have no background information about the intended appointee. They have to look at the name and say, "Are we concerned about that person?"

This is why the 10-minute time frame is totally unacceptable. I don't want to speak for the members on this committee, the members from the official opposition, but I've got a feeling that had they had access to the résumé we now have, they would not have called Mr Rossetti to appear before this committee. This caucus, the New Democrats, certainly wouldn't have.

1010

This is what the government members don't understand and why their 10-minute closure, which is what this is, a closure, a time allocation, simply doesn't cut it. They don't understand that we understand patronage. There's no issue with that.

I don't care and I wouldn't be at all interested in asking Mr Rossetti what his political interests were. The fact is he appears to be an eminently qualified appointment to the Gaming Control Commission. When I note some of the people present here today, and I presume they're here in a benign position with respect to this intended appointment, that confirms my confidence in this particular appointment.

Look at the incredibly restricted time we already have. We have 30 minutes per nominee, and because the committee is denied this information -- you see, rather than trying to impose this restraint, this serious restriction on debate on concurrence of 10 minutes, maybe Mr Wood should be addressing the process, addressing the fact that if there is indeed more information provided, for instance, as in the case of the mere résumé of Mr Rossetti, heck, we could get things done a whole lot more smoothly and the committee wouldn't become preoccupied.

You know what happens, Chair, I know you do. Because of the 30-minute time frame for interviews, when you've got a candidate here like Mr Rossetti, members of respective caucuses feel compelled to basically pad their questioning. I know the feeling. It's like being fourth in line in any series of questioning. There may well be nothing left to ask, so you fluff 'er up. You ask how the kids are or how the drive down was. How's the weather up north of Toronto, up in Woodbridge? Again, that's irrelevant to the committee's ultimate goal.

I hope Mr Wood might consider -- as I understand the rules, the procedure, the process, the tradition, Mr Wood can interrupt me on a point of order and a point of order only, but I believe it would be a point of order for him to interrupt me to withdraw his motion. I wouldn't debate that. I would applaud Mr Wood for adopting a sagacious position. The sagacity that would be inherent in that would be in distinct contrast to the ill conception of the motion that restricts debate on concurrence to 10 minutes.

It's not just 10 minutes, because it's 10 minutes for all three concurrences. Not wanting to prejudge Mr Rossetti by any stretch of the imagination, I merely use him for an illustration, because here he is, sitting here. He shouldn't have been called. He's not the sort of person this committee should be interested in questioning or screening out.

Daniel Callaghan is exactly why we have this committee. I have to draw the irresistible conclusion that it was some of the concerns expressed about Mr Callaghan, along with more than a few people prior to that, which motivated -- do you remember, Chair, that the very first nominee who appeared before this committee walked out of this committee room and withdrew his application for the appointment? The committee did its job, and had there been a mere 10-minute time period allowed for debate, it might not have been successful in screening out a totally inappropriate candidate.

It seems to me that the nomination of Daniel Callaghan for appointment to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario, the debate that flowed from that and the fact that it wasn't during the very restrictive period of questioning that we found out that not only was Mr Callaghan an unemployed car salesperson, but that he was a defeated Tory candidate in the June 1995 election -- I appreciate he ran against Sean Conway. I don't think any of us would want to run against Sean Conway, especially if it was in his riding, but here he was for appointment to the council of the College of Midwives.

You heard, you recognize and you understand how valuable, how significant and important and relevant it was for there to have been some relaxed time frames in which to discuss the motion for concurrence of Mr Callaghan, because the questions to Mr Callaghan weren't the sort of fluff questions members are compelled to put forward when they have a responsible, perfectly appropriate nominee like Mr Rossetti. The questions put to Mr Callaghan were pretty pointed and indeed tried to flesh out some real gaps in that résumé. There was an effort to determine why Mr Callaghan would want to be appointed to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario.

Notwithstanding some pretty probing questions about Mr Callaghan's involvement in the community, we were trying to help flesh out his résumé to help him articulate why he would be a good appointment. We take at face value the government's choices in this regard. I think all of us do. None of us would suspect this government of purposeful pork-barrelling. I suppose I've stretched it a little bit. I hope I don't wander into that same sort of hyperbole during the course of my comments on this motion restricting the time frame to 10 minutes.

Here's Mr Callaghan for appointment to a very sensitive position in a brand-new regulatory body; brand-new, 1991. It was women who fought the battle for midwifery to be recognized as a profession to be regulated here in Ontario, joined by men who were sensitive to their concerns, no two ways about it, but the leadership was by women and it was a hard-fought struggle. You'd better believe it was a hard-fought struggle, because the women who fought for recognition of midwifery as a regulated profession took on some biases, some strong, inbred biases, took on the medical profession.

You know that tension still exists between the medical profession and their interest in assisting women during the birthing process, delivering babies; I think that's the language. The medical profession does not appear to be overwhelmingly supportive. That's not to say there aren't doctors who don't recognize that. There are a whole lot of doctors who recognize the value of midwifery. This hard-fought struggle is finally successful after literally decades and we see the creation of the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario and then we are witnesses to the nomination of one Daniel Callaghan.

This is why the 10-minute time frame is so totally unacceptable and unfair, not just to the opposition members but to the Conservative members, because if there hadn't been the somewhat liberal -- that's small-l liberal -- time frame for debate on that, we never would have discovered what Mr Callaghan had -- he did rope-a-dope with the committee. He weaved and bobbed and ducked and swayed, and we simply couldn't get him to acknowledge one of his contributions to the community. We had prevailed upon him, "Please tell us about your work in the community," because he came to us saying, "Look, I want to give something back."

1020

Maybe the election of June 1995 was so insignificant to him that it was the sort of thing he would forget, but a whole lot of us are never going to forget the election of June 1995. He neglected to tell us that he had been a Tory candidate. Why do you think he offered himself up? Think about this. Even the Tory members, even the Conservative caucus members of this committee probably weren't aware that Mr Callaghan was a defeated Tory candidate in June 1995. He came out of nowhere.

Not all the caucus members have been Conservative; some have been Reform Party members, so they wouldn't necessarily have interacted socially, politically with Conservatives, because we never got around to whether or not Mr Callaghan was a Reform Party candidate in the 1993 election. We know there was only one Reformer elected in Ontario in 1993. There was a whole whack of Reformers elected in Ontario in June 1995.

My opposition to this motion is an argument not just in support of the rights and, more importantly, responsibilities of the members of the two opposition caucuses, but it's also in the interests of the members of the Conservative caucus, of the government caucus. They never would have known that Mr Callaghan was a defeated Tory candidate had there only been 10 minutes allowed for debate on concurrence with respect to his appointment. You wouldn't believe the shocking revelations that have been generated as a result of Mr Wood's motion following his motion for deferral -- no, that's not a motion, Chair; a deferral is as of right. Any member of the committee can speak to a nominee and literally direct -- the Chair has no discretion in this regard, as I understand the standing orders -- that a motion for concurrence of a particular nominee be deferred.

In the interim, the midwifery movement, the midwifery community in the province, having learned of the nomination of Daniel Callaghan to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario, has joined in concern about the 10-minute time allocation for debate on concurrence. They point out that there appears to have been literally no consultation with the midwifery community in the selection of a candidate for appointment to this position.

Some of them have reviewed the Hansard report of last Wednesday. I've received comments like this from leaders in the midwifery movement, because these are the people who are responding to this motion for the 10-minute time allocation. Some of the leaders in the midwifery movement, who have a strong interest in this college because that's their regulatory body, point out, having read the Hansard report of last Wednesday's meeting -- they're obviously not concerned with Mr Ayoub. Remember Mr Ayoub? A good person, a darned good appointment and one all of us were proud to accept. As a matter of fact, there was no debate on the motion for concurrence of Mr Ayoub; similarly with Mr Yocom, a colleague of Mr Martin's, again a person who -- look at his background. There was no need.

The government members could well respond when they participate in this debate -- I'm sure they'll want to participate; I'm sure every member of this committee will want to participate in the debate on this motion. One is required to anticipate; I have to anticipate some of the arguments that are going to be made contra to my position. I have to anticipate these, because what happens when I yield the floor so other members can engage in the debate and I'm expecting that I would have the chance to respond? What if I'm short-circuited? What if I'm bushwhacked -- you know what I'm talking about -- and somebody puts the question while they have the floor? I would in all likelihood never have a chance to respond, to present a rebuttal to the arguments presented in support of this. I'm compelled to anticipate the arguments contra to mine, the arguments in support of this nasty little motion, this nasty little attack on democracy. That's what it is, Chair.

Let me refer you to Erskine May for just a minute, because I was taking a look at it. I'm referring to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, published by Butterworths -- you know that -- in 1989, specifically to page 601, within chapter 24, which speaks to the system of committees. As you know, Erskine May, although British in its origin, makes reference to precedents throughout the Commonwealth, to parliamentary systems throughout the world. At this point I don't want to dwell on the origins of our parliamentary system and how important they are to our day-to-day lives, but it's important that I make reference to chapter 24, "The System of Committees."

I recall that I started reading Erskine May cover to cover. It was like beginning at Genesis. It was the night that our colleague from the Liberal caucus, Mr Curling, was compelled, forced to remain in his seat in the Legislative Assembly because the government simply refused to accommodate the public of Ontario with public hearings. I've got to confess that I didn't finish it because, as you know, it's pretty wordy, but I have from time to time referred to various sections of it. I would ask the government members to take heed. I'm not going to quote at length from Erskine May, but there are certain brief passages that are very relevant, I submit, to the consideration of this motion on the floor now.

"The System of Committees," that's what we're talking about right here, because we're a committee. I'm going to make reference to the standing orders because we are unique in many respects from the other standing committees, we really are. I think it's important. I'm referring to page 572, and if I'm going too quickly I'm sure Hansard will give me the nod and I'll slow down so as to accommodate them. Erskine May, chapter 24:

"In both Houses of Parliament the practice of delegating to small bodies of members, regarded as representing the House itself," -- this is important -- "the consideration of detailed or technical questions, is as old as any part of their settled procedure." We're not talking about something created yesterday. The committee process is an historic one.

Back to the reference in Erskine May. "In the course of time the various functions of these bodies were differentiated into a few fixed types; and a standard of size appropriate to each of these functions was also arrived at by experiment."

This is a relevant observation here. "While for certain functions of a quasi-judicial character four or five members were deemed sufficient, at the other end of the scale for matters of general interest the notion of a committee was extended to include the whole House," the committee of the whole House. I know Ms Manikel has sat in on a number of those.

1030

Did you see the disclosure of salaries? I saw our Clerk's, again not undeserved, but I'm betting money on Ms Manikel succeeding M. DesRosiers in due course. She has the qualities, she's got the background, she's got the temperament, she's got the patience, she has the intellect. Over the course of -- how long? I've been here eight and a half years, Chair. I have nothing but positive things, and I say this in all sincerity. Of course we're not dealing here with committee of the whole House. We're dealing here with the size appropriate to each of these functions, arrived at by experiment.

Now I carry on. I should just acknowledge my understanding. During the course of this debate on this very important, very serious motion by Mr Wood, which restricts the time during which debate can be held regarding the nomination or the concurrence with the nomination of a particular appointee -- my understanding is that Mr Rossetti, for instance, by virtue of being here today, and even if he weren't here today -- I don't know whether we're going to get to an interview of Mr Rossetti, not that it would be particularly relevant; take a look at his résumé. But that's okay, because my understanding -- and I'm going to reflect on these as they're distinct from the case of Mr Callaghan -- is that Mr Rossetti then will be deemed to have been reported back and Mr Rossetti is going to get his appointment. There's no two ways about that, and I'm pleased with that.

I'm confident that Mr Martin, my colleague, who's making notes of what I'm saying, writing furiously -- am I going too fast for you? He's making notes of what I'm saying, which pleases me no end. He is that studious type of person who follows procedure and makes copious notes. I've seen him in the Legislature doing it, and he's doing it right now, making the reference to Erskine May -- that was chapter 24, Mr Martin -- in case he has to avail himself of the same references.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): What page?

Mr Kormos: Page 572. Mr Rossetti's going to be appointed, and I have no concerns about that. Mind you, when they participate in this debate, the Liberal members can indicate whether they -- I think they'd be jumping up and down right now if they thought that I in any way was obstructing their interests in interviewing Mr Rossetti. Boy, they'd be bouncing off the walls.

I don't see them bouncing off the walls, nor do I hear them bouncing off the walls, so I suspect they're quite pleased with the fact that Mr Rossetti is going to be automatically appointed. As it is, he came down from Woodbridge. He's downtown now, could drop in. Don't go to the Bay. We're boycotting the Bay. You know that? Chair, please. The Ontario Federation of Labour, Chair -- please. Okay. No more. We'll leave it at that.

In any event, Mr Rossetti is going to get appointed. I digress for a moment because it's essential to the discussion of this motion that we understand the fundamentals of the committee role. I digress by referring to Mr Rossetti's automatic appointment. But I'm going to submit to you later that we can't for a minute presume that Mr Callaghan's got an automatic appointment, and I'm going to refer to the standing orders.

You see, some of the Conservative members on this committee -- let's put it this way: If it gets to a vote, the opposition doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades anyway, does it? There are only five members of the opposition, which has voiced serious concerns, which have been sustained by and corroborated, supported by the midwifery movement. I started to tell you here, they pointed out in their correspondence to me, after having read the transcript, that Mr Callaghan demonstrates no knowledge of important philosophical distinctions that separate midwifery from the medical model of obstetrics. Wasn't that what we were saying? And would we have been able to say that were we restricted to a mere 10 minutes? I think not.

Leadership in the midwifery community points out, after having read the Hansard transcript of last week's proceedings, the interview of Mr Callaghan, that Mr Callaghan has no history of interest in midwifery. That's what we were saying in what I submit was a very responsible way. Leadership in the midwifery community, having read the transcript, having read the Hansard of the proceedings of last week's interview of Mr Callaghan, points out that Mr Callaghan has no clear statement of interest or intent regarding what he has to bring to an appointment to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario in his opening statement. That's what we were trying to point out, though I know I've raised the hackles of government members, but we're not alone. Had there been only 10 minutes for debate on all three concurrence motions, would we have been able to point this out?

Leadership in the midwifery community, having read the transcript, the Hansard report of the interview of Mr Callaghan of last week, concludes that there is no indication that he has any background, any background, any -- underscore please, Hansard, bold type, italics, underscored -- any background that is relevant to the work of the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario. That's what we were saying, Chair, that's what we were saying. Would we have been able to say that had there been a mere 10 minutes available for debate on concurrence?

Leadership, Chair, from the midwifery community here in the province of Ontario, having read the transcript, having read the Hansard report of the interview of Mr Callaghan of last week -- it was March 27, 1996 -- concludes that he shows no clear understanding of the scope of the practice of midwives. Interesting. You, of course, Chair -- and I know committee members -- the French-language equivalent of "midwife" is "sage-femme." Interesting, far more appropriate in terms of the profound role of midwifery in birthing and in assisting in the development of a gestation. "Sage-femme" says far more, doesn't it, than mere "midwife"?

Maybe that's one of the terms we should incorporate into our language with its diverse roots, and instead of speaking of midwives, speak of les sages-femmes, which, as I say, speaks volumes. In any event, once again, had there been merely 10 minutes in which to discuss and debate, as we're obliged to do -- we're paid reasonably big bucks for being here, Chair. Not as much as some people would like, not as much as some people made before they entered politics, but we're paid a heck of a lot more than most working people, if indeed they are working, in this province make.

Leadership in the midwifery community in Ontario points out, having read the -- and they did. Look, there's no secret, I'm not telling stories out of school. I distributed copies of the transcript to the midwifery community. Would you have expected me not to? There was a small Canadian Press article in various newspapers across the province which made reference to the objections of both the Liberals and the New Democrats to the appointment. It was in the Sault Star, among others.

It made reference to that and people reacted. It was unbelievable. Over the course of the last week Mr Bartolucci was quoted -- and far be it for me to expect to be quoted in the press, but by gosh, they had some passing reference to some of the things I had to say about -- I was embarrassed, I didn't want the focus to be on me, but there were Mr Bartolucci and myself making reference to this entirely inappropriate appointment.

1040

The problem is, would we have been able to fully comprehend how dangerous this appointment was had we been restricted to a mere 10 minutes? If Mr Wood's motion is successful, is he seriously handicapping the role of this committee? I think so. Is he undermining the function of this committee? I think so too.

The comments I got all weekend from a variety of people, and I know Mr Bartolucci did, anybody who read the article simply in response shook their head, saying: "What the heck is going on? What are those guys up to? This is nuts, this is wacko." Again, I could make a reference to what leadership in the midwifery community has been saying. Now I'm referring to what folks -- men, women, young people, old people -- are saying. They're saying, "No, this isn't the sort of thing we expect," and they're saying something else too, Chair. They're saying, "We expect" -- notwithstanding that this committee is very much slanted, weighted; I suppose if you use nautical terms, there's a list to the government side -- notwithstanding that, the committee expects us to be picking out the bad appointments.

By virtue of this motion not having been passed during the course of the March 27, 1996, debate over the motion for concurrence, by virtue of that we were able to isolate -- I referred to them disparagingly as dogs, right? There are some dog nominees who come in here. But then I reflected coarsely -- I appreciate coarsely -- on the fact that during the course of the last election, the Tories could have run a dog and it would have been elected.

This one wasn't a dog, this one was subcanine, and here it shows up in front of the committee. But people were shocked and insistent that this committee has that important function, to bring to the attention of the committee, to focus on the -- these are not just bad, they're negligent appointments. They're not just bad appointments, they're negligent.

The council of the College of Midwives has an important role to play. The midwifery community relies on it for direction, for guidance, for supervision, for discipline as well of inappropriate conduct on the part of midwives, and I'm fearful for the future of midwifery. The midwifery community has established incredibly high standards. I'm fearful as well for the women who will avail themselves of midwives, les sages-femmes, when midwifery isn't competently regulated.

Mr Callaghan demonstrates nothing that would permit any reasonable or fairminded person to conclude that he can contribute to competence by the college. As I indicated to you during the course of my comments on Wednesday, March 27, there could well be other appointments that Mr Callaghan would be suitable for. Would it still be pork-barrelling? Of course. That's not the point.

But had we been restricted to a mere 10 minutes, we wouldn't have been able not only to reveal Mr Callaghan to be an entirely inappropriate candidate for this appointment, but, not having been restricted by so artificial and egregious a time allocation, we might have helped draw out some of Mr Callaghan's qualities that demonstrated suitability for other positions. Think about it.

Think about the possibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the possibility of appointment to any of the regulatory bodies that deal with regulating auto salespeople. This gentleman worked at one, two, three different small-town trust companies. We never really got quite into the fact -- he indicated that he was moved around, sure he moved around, but it was a different trust company each time. But that goes to a different issue; that goes to the fact that there's only 30 minutes aggregate, gross, shared equally by three committees in which to interview a person.

Mr Wood's motion is so ill-conceived and so dangerous because it wouldn't have permitted us to identify, as I say, Mr Callaghan as inappropriate for this appointment and at the same time, in all fairness to the government members and to Mr Callaghan, perhaps draw out some qualities that would have made him appropriate for any other number of appointments.

In response to the debate over concurrence with Mr Callaghan -- and I'm convinced that this motion is simply designed to save the government from the embarrassment of their being focused on bad appointments, like Mr Callaghan, because this government knows that in the case of Mr Rossetti there wouldn't be any debate, none with regard to a motion for concurrence, that there'd be a voice vote, there wouldn't even be a call for a recorded vote. Thankfully, this motion hadn't passed yet, this motion hadn't even been put forward.

I should also reflect on the fact, in the course of this debate over the 10-minute time allocation, that's forever. We're not talking about a time allocation that's restricted to one issue, one appointee; we're not dealing with this on a one-by-one basis. We're talking about forever and ever. That is a very dangerous precedent to establish.

I'm going to speak at some point down the road about whether this motion is even in order, because there are some references to Erskine May which speak to whether this motion is in order.

Leadership from the community of midwifery in the province of Ontario noted after having read the transcript, the Hansard proceedings, the Hansard report of the interview and the debate -- which I concede in the case of Mr Callaghan, yes, transcended 10 minutes. No two ways about it. It wasn't unduly long. It wasn't as long as the debate we're having now over this motion for time restriction, but it was an important debate because as a result of that the leadership in the midwifery community here in the province of Ontario has been able to conclude that Callaghan demonstrated no skills in negotiation, analysis, interpersonal, interaction skills other than the fact that he was a salesperson, an unemployed salesperson. He demonstrated no experience in committee or group work; not one.

This is something we overlooked, and this is the danger of a 10-minute restriction on discussing or debating concurrence. Again, we weren't able to identify this absence of quality on the part of Mr Callaghan, and it would have been impossible to do it had we been restricted to the unconscionable time frame being proposed by the government. It was again the leadership in the midwifery community here in Ontario that noted that there was no demonstrated experience in committee or group work. We should have hit on that. I concede, I just hadn't encountered that, it hadn't flashed through my mind, because obviously working on the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario means you have to work with other people. We have to look at that as well.

1050

We can't discuss nominees in isolation. We have to discuss them in the context of their own personal history and also in the context of the sort of role they're going to be expected to perform.

Some of the appointments to BACs -- boards, agencies and commissions -- are one-person shows, so to speak. We used to call them one-man bands. We don't call them that any more; we call them one-person shows. But here there was an absence; Mr Callaghan was a manager and a loans manager in a variety of trust companies. Would we have been able to discern this had there been a mere 10 minutes? The fact that he identified his transition, his metamorphosis, from a trust company employee to a car salesperson -- and I want to make something perfectly clear: Selling cars is an honourable profession and trade. The folks I know down at David Chev-Olds on Niagara Street, which, by the way, is a unionized Chev dealership -- the people in the shop get members of the Canadian Auto Workers. The salespeople there I have high regard for. Many of them are my friends. Kathy Robertson, who's an exceptional and highly professional salesperson, who also has a lot of other skills -- let me tell you this: Had Kathy Robertson from Welland been before this committee -- she's a car salesperson, no two ways about it, a darned good one and a very responsible one -- had she been here as a nominee to this position, you would have seen a car salesperson with great skills and great qualities. You would have seen a car salesperson about whom there would have been little debate as to concurrence. Kathy Robertson, a community-minded person, a person as a woman, of course, but also very sensitive to women's issues, having been involved in a broad range of activities in the community, demonstrating a strong social conscience -- Chair, there you are; I missed you -- Kathy Robertson, as a car salesperson, bingo, showing a whole lot of the qualities that Mr Callaghan doesn't.

We never did find, though, why Mr Callaghan -- did you ever reflect on this, Mr Gravelle, that Mr Callaghan said he went into car sales because he was tired of the moving around, being transferred? Sorry, doesn't cut it, because each new job location was a different trust company. That's not called transfer, that's called quitting or being fired and having to move on, having to go to another community. So I don't quite buy into the, "I got tired of being transferred." He was never transferred once, unless you count leaving a job at one place and moving on to another.

We never got into that and again that hadn't been raised extensively during the course of debate, but he certainly had nothing in his background that demonstrated any background in working in committee or group work.

Again, had we not been able to have some reasonable time frame in which to debate the concurrence, there simply wouldn't have been an opportunity to observe, as the leadership within the midwifery community here in the province of Ontario points out after having read that transcript of the interview and the transcript of the debate on concurrence, that there's been -- we wouldn't have been able to make the observation and try to impress our Conservative colleagues. I suppose it's presumptuous to think that the Tories would have voted unanimously and without thought for this appointment. It's presumptuous but dead on, because they've demonstrated nothing but a willingness, an eagerness to, comme des moutons, simply follow marching orders.

As I say, had there been only 10 minutes gross for three motions for concurrence, aggregate time of 10 minutes, we wouldn't have been able to identify -- don't forget, this position pays $150 a day, per diem. Mr Bartolucci has assisted me in pointing out that there are a number of things about which and for which Mr Callaghan might have been an entirely suitable appointment.

Mr Bartolucci, God bless him and bless his insights, points out that the Rabies Advisory Committee is one committee which might have been a suitable appointment for this failed Tory candidate of June 1995. It's not shabby, it's $115 a day. You take a little hit from $150 down to $115, but something far more up Mr Callaghan's alley. When we're dealing with the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario, we're dealing with something that has a high sensitivity level and something for which, had we not had sufficient time to debate the motion for concurrence, we would not have been able to identify -- Mr Callaghan wouldn't have been happy there, wouldn't have enjoyed it. It wouldn't have been fair to him to appoint him to that council, because what the College of Midwives of Ontario does is regulate the profession of midwifery in the public interest by ensuring that individuals have access to services provided by competent health professionals and that individuals are treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professionals.

I'm concerned that the public appointments secretariat was unaware of the responsibilities of the College of Midwives of Ontario. What is going on that the public appointments secretariat would put forward Mr Callaghan's name for this sensitive position? How come none of the leadership in the midwifery movement of Ontario, in the midwifery community, has indicated to me that there was anything akin to consultation? Think about it. Isn't this why we need more than 10 minutes to debate motions for concurrence, so we can determine, hey, has there been consultation with the people who have an interest? I know Mr Martin has spoken with people in the midwifery movement, I know Mr Crozier has, I know Mr Gravelle has and certainly Mr Bartolucci has, conscientious as all of them are and treating their role here far more seriously, I tell you, than some of the government members -- far more seriously. I know they've made inquiries in this very regard, and notwithstanding our best efforts, appreciating that the best-laid plans of mice and men often go astray, we couldn't discover anything akin to consultation with people in the midwifery community.

I'm concerned that not only were the Conservative members of this committee, not only was the public appointments secretariat, but also Mr Callaghan was unaware that members of the College of Midwives of Ontario are governed in accordance with (1) the Midwifery Act, (2) the Health Professions Procedural Code, (3) the Regulated Health Professions Act, and the regulations and bylaws of the college. Can we tolerate a mere 10-minute allotment of aggregate time for discussion of these? Surely it's important to point out that Mr Callaghan contained nothing in his submissions to this committee that would permit us by any stretch of the imagination to conclude that he even knew there was a Midwifery Act, revised statutes of Ontario -- no, it wouldn't be in the RSOs yet, would it? Of course not. But statutes of Ontario.

1100

I know that you've got to go down to the government bookstore on Bay Street. I appreciate that Mr Callaghan wouldn't want to cross a picket line to go into the bookstore to buy his copy of the Midwifery Act, because he'd be a scab then. He'd be a scab, because that's what people are who cross picket lines, the lowest form of life, they're scabs. I don't think Mr Callaghan would want to be a scab, so I understand why he might have been disinclined to cross the picket line to pick up a copy of the Midwifery Act. But you know full well that you would have accommodated him, Chair, with a photocopy out of your SOs in the office. Any public library has a copy of the RSOs and the SOs. Heck, any number of people would have been prepared to even provide him with the Queen's Printer little Midwifery Act alone, or photocopies, whatever.

Never mind not having read the Midwifery Act; he contained nothing in his submissions that permitted us to conclude that he was even aware of it. How disappointing. Beyond disappointing -- shocking.

What about the Health Professions Procedural Code? Another statute, the Regulated Health Professions Act? Again, I appreciate it's not in the RSOs, but every public library in this province, every lawyer's office -- I appreciate why some people might be disinclined to go to lawyers' offices; I understand that, but so be it.

Mr Martin: Being a lawyer yourself.

Mr Kormos: Being a lawyer myself -- having been a lawyer. But I suppose it's like riding a bicycle.

The regulations and bylaws of the college: No interest in these things whatsoever, de nada, nothing, nothing at the end of the day. So what are we left with? Nothing.

You also know, Chair, and that's why it's important that we have more than 10 minutes to debate these things, that the College of Midwives of Ontario develops and maintains standards of practice, entry-to-practice requirements, standards of professional ethics, and that the same college promotes and develops standards for continuing competence among the members. This is striking, because Mr Callaghan showed no familiarity nor any eagerness to accept the responsibility of yet another function, another responsibility, another role, of being a member of the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario.

I know you know this, Chair, because you're interested in these things and take your job responsibly. You don't come in here and follow marching orders. You've never been whipped in a vote in your life. You've voted the way your conscience has compelled you. I've heard you speak about that any number of times. You wouldn't tolerate a whipped vote if your life depended on it.

We know various committees of the College of Midwives have to function in a quasi-judicial role with respect to the suspension and revocation of certificates of registration to practise in Ontario.

We're not talking here about the rabies advisory council. That's why the council for the College of Midwives of Ontario make the big bucks, $150 a day as compared to $115. No, seriously, we're talking about a very serious function because, of course, performing in that quasi-judicial role -- and again, some people, as they're disinclined to like lawyers, may be disinclined to like judges, but I can't think of any good reasons to dislike either. Judges I have the highest regard for. Judges who have moved on to other careers utilizing their skills as judges I have even higher regard for, and the utmost respect.

But a quasi-judicial role is very important, because in the context of the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario, you're talking about the power to terminate somebody's right to practise. You're talking about the suspension and revocation of certificates of registration to practise in Ontario. It's not Mickey Mouse stuff. It's not nickel-and-dime stuff. This is big-time. This is the big times. That is a very serious function.

Had we had a mere 10 minutes in which to discuss all three motions for concurrence, 10 minutes per caucus, we never would've been able to discuss adequately that Mr Callaghan -- again, nobody doubts the fact that he's a nice person, but nice ain't good enough. An appointee to this position has to be prepared to not only accept but fulfil the responsibilities required when they're engaged in that decision-making in that quasi-judicial role.

It doesn't end there. There are procedures, processes, whereby there are appeals in a quasi-judicial manner, where the administrative law would prevail and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, among other things -- inter alia, as they say -- would prevail. The decisions of that board -- although I appreciate one of the arguments is that they could be corrected by that appellate level. But the appellate level in administration of law, as I'm advised by the clerk and by David Pond from legislative research -- it's not as if you can rely in administrative law on an appeal court to fix everything up because with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Divisional Court, you have far more limited rights of appeal; the appellate body, the appellate court in this instance, is far more restricted in what it can consider. Issues of fact, for instance, are done deals. So we're not talking about a place here where there can be automatic cleanup.

Was Mr Callaghan even cognizant of the fact that some seven, eight members are elected in a prescribed manner by the members of the college and that he was one of the five to seven members who were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council? Those people -- look, this is where we concede, because the requirement is that they're neither members of the college nor members of a college or a council as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act. This is what's colloquially termed as a lay appointment, and Mr Callaghan's a layperson, no two ways about it. But once again, that's a far cry from the complex skills that have to be applied from the context of this role in this appointment.

The council elects -- I know you know this, Chair, because of your interest in this council -- but the council elects annually a president and vice-president from among the members, a powerful position. Had we not had the opportunity to debate the motion for concurrence of Mr Callaghan, had we been subjected to an onerous and highly restrictive time frame, could this committee have made the sad, tragic error of concurring with his appointment, and then find him to be elected a president or a vice-president, an extremely powerful role? Those are the chances we can't take. It's those sort of errors that are going to be encouraged, facilitated, generated by the time allocation proposed by Mr Wood, MPP.

1110

Did Mr Callaghan understand anything of these things? No. Had he demonstrated an eagerness to make inquiries about any of these things prior to appearing here? This is why the 10-minute time frame's important. No. Had he bothered even to read the briefest of material in preparation for his attendance here? No. A highly unsuitable candidate.

I don't want to leave the impression that he wasn't out of the norm by doing that. Contrast Mr Callaghan with Mr Ayoub of the same date. Mr Ayoub came here for his appointment to the Ontario Film Review Board. He came here not only with an impeccable background in filmmaking and the arts and stage productions, but Mr Ayoub came here with, for instance, the Butler decision. You recall, Chair, the Butler decision was the defence -- damn, I'll cut to the quick because I know we don't want to waste time here -- selling obscene material and relying upon the Ontario Film Review Board's say-so as a defence under the Criminal Code.

But Mr Ayoub was familiar with that decision. He came. He had read it. He had sought it out. He had transcribed relevant comments from it. That was pretty impressive stuff. He was familiar with the board; he was familiar with its makeup. Mr Callaghan wasn't, and had we not had the time frame that we did, were we restricted in the way that Mr Wood wants to restrict us, these matters may not have been raised.

I note that there was an appointment that expired in November 1995, Ms Waugh. I don't know whether she was reappointed or not because that's one of the difficulties with this committee. We don't see all the appointments; the subcommittee does. I note that three appointments in January 1996 expired: Ms Israel, Ms Kryzanauskas, Ms Wu-Lawrence; that in March we've had the expiration of Ms Tyson, Ms Pollonetsky. Do you know Ms Pollonetsky? An incredibly competent person. She's on till May 3, 1996. Fiona Chapman, of course, she's on till 1997. Ms McNiven, Ms Ristok.

Here's Mr Callaghan from Pembroke. You've surely got to understand that the public appointments secretariat could have been a little more creative. It seems to have been almost an accident that we saw Mr Callaghan before this committee, some sort of accident, because it appears that Mr Callaghan had expressed no real interest in midwifery but simply put in his name; he hasn't got a job. Look, there are a whole lot of Ontarians who don't have jobs, we know that, and there are going to be increasingly more as this government continues its vicious attacks on our economy, on our public sector, on our children as it defunds and has basically eliminated junior kindergarten.

Do you recall when Minister Snobelen was making his introductory remarks as a minister to the legislation which purports to create a College of Teachers, a regulatory body for teachers? Just think of some of the people who are going to be appointed to that if this government's proposing Mr Callaghan for appointment to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario. My concern about that -- and for the life of me I don't know how it was I got thrown out of the House merely by expressing my concern about Mr Snobelen's comments accompanying his introduction of the bill creating a College of Teachers -- was, what teachers? This government's emptying the schools of teachers. Teachers are being laid off. In Niagara region alone we lost around 450, almost 500 as a result of the funding cutbacks by this government. Across the province we're talking about literally thousands. There simply aren't going to be any teachers left to regulate.

I had been referring to Erskine May. I apologize for the digression, but it was important to flesh that out, because the point I was at was the role and the historical role of committees. I think that's relevant when we're talking about the type of restriction, of restraint that Mr Wood's motion will impose upon us here. As I indicated, Erskine May says, "In the course of time the various functions of these bodies were differentiated into a few fixed types; and a standard of size appropriate to each of these functions was also arrived at by experiment."

I know we've got a Deputy Speaker sitting here with us and I know he's already read this, indeed probably memorized it, so I don't want this to be overly tedious for him, because I know that the Deputy Speaker here, Mr Johnson, has familiarized himself with not only the rules of the House but the most intricate and obscure precedents. He's demonstrated his familiarity with British parliamentary tradition as he sat in the Speaker's chair. He's demonstrated he has read not only Erskine May, volume 21, but I bet you he's read Erskine May, volumes 1 through 20, and then beyond. I saw him sitting at his desk in the House on one occasion and I could tell he was reading something because I saw his lips moving. I'm confident it was Erskine May.

Further: "Each House accordingly now possesses an organized system of committees" -- this is Erskine May once again; I'm sorry, Hansard -- "which comprises committees of the whole House;" -- we'd already talked about that -- "select committees and committees on private bills; in the House of Lords, public bill committees;" -- that's not relevant here, because of course we don't have a House of Lords, not here at the provincial level; we don't have a House of Lords, of course, or a Senate -- "and, in the House of Commons, standing committees on public bills and other matters. The functions of these committees include the consideration and amendment of public and private bills" -- listen to this one, Chair, and I know my friends are over there making sure they're colouring inside the lines, but I would exhort them to listen to this -- "inquiries." "The functions of these committees include" -- this is important -- "inquiries (sometimes of a quasi-judicial character) into matters which the House refers to them for investigation, and (for domestic purposes) functions of an administrative character. In addition, the two Houses sometimes collaborate" -- this isn't relevant to us because it talks about the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but I should put it in just because you know what's going to happen. When I cede the floor and the Tory members want to participate in this debate, they're going to accuse me of taking something out of context from Erskine May.

Here we are, debating this motion to restrict our discussion on motions for concurrence to a mere 10 minutes, and I don't want to see any dilatory arguments being put forward by the Tory caucus based on me purportedly not quoting in context, so we're going to put this in context.

1120

"In addition, the two houses sometimes collaborate in joint committees, which consist of select committees of both houses sitting and voting together. In this chapter the procedure of these committees will be described in the following order:

"(1) Committees in the House of Lords; (2) committees in the House of Commons; (3) joint committees." That, as I say, is page 572 in the 21st edition of Erskine May.

I'm referring now to page 601 of the 21st edition of Erskine May. It's midway through the page with a subheading, "Procedure in standing committees." This I ask you to pay particular attention to, Chair, and had Mr Wood or whoever it is who gives the marching orders in the government caucus bothered to read this, he or she -- that is, whoever gives the marching orders -- might have realized his motion may not quite be in order.

Page 601, 21st edition, Erskine May: "Procedure in standing committees. A standing committee has no power to frame regulations for its own procedure." I'll repeat that. "A standing committee has no power to frame regulations for its own procedure."

The reference there is to parliamentary debates of 1883, so we're not talking about something that's just popped up out of the woodwork. A parliamentary committee has no power to frame regulations for its own procedure. Well, what is this motion? You see, this committee is given birth to -- that's not a pun, but speaking in the context of midwifery -- by the House, by the Legislature. All I can do is tell you what's here. Don't shoot the messenger, Chair. "A standing committee has no power to frame regulations for its own procedure." That's exactly what Mr Wood purports to do. It can't be done. No jackpot here. It can't be done.

I'm going to get back to Erskine May, but having made reference to that, and that of course is from parliamentary debates of 1883, we've got to take a look at where this committee derives its procedure from. It derives it from the standing orders. You've got to be from some other planet not to know that. The standing orders are orders that are adopted by the Legislature.

Take a look, Chair, please, at part XX, in roman numerals, of the standing orders: "Committees." This is why I say, and I made reference earlier to the fact that this committee is distinguishable from other committees because -- and we're making reference, of course, to standing order 106. I know the clerk and the Chair and I have discussed this at length on previous occasions.

Standing order 106 says: "Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of each session in a Parliament the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed for the duration of the session:

"(a) standing committee on administration of justice;

"(b) standing committee on general government;

"(c) standing committee on resources development;

"(d) standing committee on social development;

"(e) standing committee on estimates."

Then take a look at these little fine-print reference things here on the left-hand and right-hand borders because they're valuable in understanding what the corresponding section means. The next one goes to "Orders of reference." See that tiny little, hard-to-read print there, "Orders of reference"? See, that's where the procedure comes from. It can't come from the committee; it's got to come from the Legislature. "Orders of reference."

You'll forgive me for referring to paragraph (f), because that is the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, but it helps illustrate what they mean by orders of reference: "Standing committee on finance and economic affairs which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled." Fair enough.

Take a look, though, at (g). This one will really knock you back, Chair, because this is where we've got the regulations for the procedure. They come from the standing orders. They come from the Legislature. They don't come from the committee. That's what Erskine May says on page 601, "A standing committee has no power to frame regulations for its own procedure." Parliamentary debates, 1883. Here is what has the power to frame regulations for the procedure of committees: the standing orders. It comes as no surprise to you, does it, Chair? Now, if you want to indicate at any time that this motion is out of order, of course that would wrap things up.

So we've got to look at what the procedure is for this committee. Here we're referring to paragraph (g) of section 106, more appropriately, standing order 106:

"Standing committee on government agencies which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies, and to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholders according to the following procedures:"

There we are. These are the procedures. Mr Wood does not make the procedures. The government caucus does not make the procedures. The committee doesn't make the procedures. The standing orders make the procedures. This is what they are:

"1. A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Premier, as the case may be, intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a summary of the person's qualifications, which documents shall be deemed to be referred to the committee."

Now, this is obligatory, and I want to draw your attention specifically to the words "a summary of the person's qualifications." That implies that there have to be qualifications before the person can even be presented, right? He had no qualifications. If he had no qualifications, they can't be summarized. Think about it, Chair. It is obligatory that "A minister of the crown shall lay on the table" -- again, inter alia; I love it, inter alia -- "a summary of the person's qualifications." I think that says something very specific, don't you, Chair? I think it indicates quite clearly that there have to be qualifications to lay on the table. What do you do when a candidate, a nominee, simply has no qualifications? Mr Callaghan had no qualifications.

1130

Again, I'm not making this up. I'm not pulling this out of thin air. This isn't anything particularly difficult or erudite or abstract. Here it is; it's written in the book, in the standing orders. There have to be qualifications. Well, there's been a serious breach in the case of Mr Callaghan. There were no qualifications to lay on the table. He was totally unqualified. I'm surprised that the Chair -- no, I should be fair -- hadn't picked that up at the first instance. It would have saved us a whole lot of time, effort and energy, because there were no qualifications.

Now, paragraph 2 -- and these are the procedures. Mr Wood can't run around willy-nilly establishing new procedures when it suits his convenience. We know the government is embarrassed as all get-out by the abysmal lack of competence of more than a few of their pork-barrel nominees. That's why they want to restrict the time for debating them. There simply are no examples -- and when I cede the floor and the Tory members want to rebut what I've had to say, they will not be able to produce one example of an occasion in this committee when there was unduly lengthy debate.

I know my colleagues on this committee: Mr Martin, who represents his riding well, Mr Martin from Sault Ste Marie, who has an intimate familiarity with the north, with the workers there, with the community of Sault Ste Marie and the surrounding areas, strong support for education in his community, frustrated as it is with the axing and the slashing and the cutbacks and the attack on education, the attack on training, the attack on the poor, the attack on the sick, the attack on the elderly, the attack on the youth, the attack on trade unionists and other workers by this government. Mr Martin, as Vice-Chair of this committee, is well aware of the complete absence of qualifications on the part of Mr Callaghan and similarly well aware of the fact that the reason this government wants to impose a 10-minute time restriction on debate for motions of concurrence is so that committee members will be denied the opportunity to do their job.

Well, I'm sorry. Where I come from, we can chew gum and walk. Where I come from, unlike these Tory members, we're used to earning our pay, and I have every intention, as a member of this committee, of earning my pay.

The porcine Tories grabbing those little $103-a-day tax-free per diems, shame on them. They talk about restraint but, boy, have some people stashed away some little bank accounts. You don't have to put it in a safety deposit box, guys. It's not like some of the other payola, because this one is already tax-free; it's not as if you have to hide it. It's not like the money that one might clean out of the jukebox or out of the pinball machine or out of the coin laundry that you don't want to pay tax on and have to put in a safety deposit box.

I remember the big bank robbery, I think it was in Brockville. It was incredible. Tthey cleaned out all the safety deposit boxes, which were stuffed full of all kinds of cash and what have you for people who wanted to avoid taxes. The problem was, those people couldn't even report the thefts because they would have blown their cover. So it was remarkable. That was 1951, the Brockville bank robbery? Okay. It was an incredible phenomenon. So here are all these people ripping off the taxman, just like some of the corporations in Ontario and Canada today. Forty billion dollars in deferred taxes remain unpaid as of 1994. If we collected even a modest percentage of interest on those deferred taxes, we'd go a long way to reducing the deficit.

Those are the sorts of reasons the government doesn't want to hear the opposition talk about some of its nominees.

Of course, we're addressing the matter of who determines procedure for this committee, and we know it's the Legislative Assembly. We're looking forward to some wisdom prevailing on the part of the whip, who I think himself is whipped pretty good at the end of the day, or more likely at the beginning of the day. Notwithstanding that the Nuremberg defence didn't work there and it ain't going to work here, Mr Wood, if all is said and done, is probably going to indicate that he's merely following orders. Well, I think it's time for somebody to come clean and find out from whom, but since he doesn't have the floor yet and since we can never compel him to answer, we're just going to have to carry on.

We're at (g) of standing order 106. I think we're at paragraph 1, which we just referred to. Again, I'm going to repeat, it is compulsory that a summary of the person's qualifications be tabled. I think the ministers of the crown who are responsible for that better pay a little more attention to the standing orders, because we've had more than a few pieces of paper tabled here that have not contained any qualifications.

So we're up to paragraph 2, and that is: "Upon receipt of a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1, the clerk of the committee" -- and that's Ms Manikel in most instances here, unless she is assisted by one of her able assistants in the Clerk's office -- "shall distribute to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received."

Once again, that's the procedure. The procedure isn't what Mr Wood says it's going to be, the procedure isn't what his whip's office says it's going to be, the procedure isn't what Mr Harris says it's going to be, the procedure isn't what the $1,000-a-day spin doctors say it's going to be, the procedure isn't what the pollsters and the image-makers say it's going to be; the procedure is going to be as indicated in the standing orders.

Oftentimes when we go through life, we have to recognize that God blesses us; God gives us gifts. I believe that. I believe that very sincerely. Sometimes we're simply too foolish to recognize when we have been gifted. I think God in that respect has a sense of humour, because He or She likes laughing at our blindness.

Here we've got an opportunity, as we're debating Mr Wood's motion, to also actually go through standing order 106, because you want to know something, Chair? I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts right now -- we're not talking about any illegal gambling here, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are more than a few people on this committee who have never read these standing orders. I'm convinced of it. I can tell because I can hear them scratching their heads as I go through it. I'm now on page 74 of at least my copy of the standing orders, for the benefit of Hansard, who of course are obliged to transcribe this and distribute it to people who want it. I want to tell you, Chair, I have the highest regard for Hansard people.

Again, you and I have been here longer -- isn't that remarkable? -- you and I, sitting here in this room right now, have been here longer than any of these other people. No disrespect to them. Well, Ms Manikel and everybody else too, boy, have they been here a long time; have they seen governments come and go. Think about it: In my short career in Parliament, I've already seen three different governments in power, and I got a feeling I'm going to see a fourth. I've just got that feeling.

1140

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): After the first two, they got it right.

Mr Kormos: I got a feeling I'm going to see a fourth.

We're on page 74, Hansard. "The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative or at the request of the committee...." I've encountered that before. We're talking about the procedure that Mr Wood thinks he has the power to amend. "At the request of the committee" one might presume is by virtue of a majority vote of the committee. I think by the language used that that's obvious, because when we get to the issue of deferral, which Mr Wood availed himself of, it became obvious that that was an as-of-right procedure by an individual.

This is Val Taylor, who's the legislative assistant in the office of Tony Martin. She's been here longer than I have. She's too young to have been here as long as you have, Chair, but she is super. She's up in the gulag with us, up in the south end. She's up in the gulag with us where Mr Martin's office and mine are, up there on the second floor, the south end. It's remarkable, but you know what, Chair? And again, in the context of this debate, during the course of the last government I was given the office that was furthest away; it was as far as you could go in the building without being out of the building, up on the fourth floor. But the laugh was on them because I had the best view of anybody in the Legislature. I had these enormous bay windows overlooking literally Queen's Park. And where's the Premier? He's looking down at a parking lot. I'm looking out at Queen's Park, and it was just great; I loved it. And even now I'm on the second floor, but I've got a view looking southbound, as compared to the Premier, once again, except the Premier doesn't spend a whole lot of time here, does he? Uh-uh. Interesting. When he's not touring the world on taxpayer funds, he's over in Whitney Block, we're told. Unprecedented. Because we're talking here about who gives the marching orders to try to change procedure and who has the real responsibility.

I hope the Chair will concede or concur with me that the issue here is the establishment of procedure. The motion is about procedure, so I don't have to keep referring to a mere 10 minutes of aggregate or gross time.

I hope the Chair is starting to get the drift of my argument. I'm building here on a succession of observations. I hope the Chair is starting to get the drift of my argument, and that is that this committee doesn't have the power to change its procedure. I didn't grab that out of a hat or out of thin air. I went to the precedents, to the references, as one should do.

But the reason I was talking about the Premier over at Whitney Block is because the Premier, rather than in his office here at Queen's Park, is buried away there surrounded by, again, the spin doctors, the $1,000-a-day consultants, the pollsters, more than a few of them sycophants. I'm aware of other governments that have been done in by the pollsters who have given them the results they thought they wanted to hear but that's not the way it was in reality.

But that's a remarkable divergence from tradition here in the province, because the Premier's office -- is it true? I suppose I shouldn't pose this as a question because somebody might feel compelled to answer, but I'm told

that the Premier's office is sort of right next door to the secretary of cabinet. I mean, we're talking here -- and then there's a few of those dollar-a-day people, the blue-suit folks, the big corporate gang dictating government policy.

I have great concerns about the diminishing role of the individual member, and what this motion does is attack the role, the function, of a member. I can't for the life of me imagine why a backbencher like Mr Wood, who may well end up in cabinet, but don't forget, there's even more people to go through in that caucus before he gets into cabinet than there were in ours back between 1990 and 1995 -- but who is unlikely to end up in cabinet -- I shouldn't say that. Oh, fair enough; "unlikely" is fair enough. I'm not saying it's impossible -- because he should be interested in protecting the role of the backbenchers. What this change in procedure proposed by Mr Wood does is it attacks the role of the backbenchers.

Remember what Pierre Trudeau said? Chair, I know you do. He said a lot of things and some of them were mere symbols, but we knew what he meant, and it wasn't that "I still think you're number one." But Pierre Trudeau said and I'm paraphrasing this -- Warren and Fife wrote the book Capital Scandal. Bob Fife, a Toronto Sun reporter, Capital Scandal, it's a few years old. It's a fascinating book about Parliament Hill. But it also talks about the quality of debate in Parliament and the reason it has declined, but it also of course makes reference to Pierre Trudeau's comments. I'm paraphrasing now because I don't have the exact quote, and that is that once a backbencher is 15 minutes away from Parliament Hill, they are but a nobody.

The problem is once these Tory backbenchers are sitting in their seats in the Legislature they're but nobodies, in terms of the process. And they're increasingly knowing it. Because you see, they've got to follow scripts. They're not allowed to say anything that isn't scripted. Oh, did my heart swell with anticipation and pride when we saw a little bit of a revolt from some of the rural members. Right? Rural members were going: "Hey, what gives here? We made a promise to our constituents that got us elected about maintaining funding for rural Ontario." And there was a letter signed by a number of them to the Premier and perhaps a copy to Noble Villeneuve, who is the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

I've known Noble for a good chunk of time and I like him, and I think he's particularly frustrated by what this government is doing to him and his ministry. So we saw the briefest moment, because we're talking here about the role of a backbencher, and we're talking about this little bit of a growth of, by God, they've finally developed some backbone and they're talking back. Maybe it was our fault, because I think we blew their cover in question period. Howard Hampton had the letter. How he would have gotten it, Lord only knows, but Howard Hampton had the letter, blew their cover, and all of a sudden those people were whipped into shape. It was like a scene out of Marquis de Sade, the whipster flailing and flashing and waling away. Before you know it, you even had people denying that they signed the letter. Again, it was like Peter in the garden of Gethsemane. The denials were frequent and rampant and loud.

And to what end? I've spoken in the House to these backbenchers, saying, get with the programs, folks. You're going to do a lot more by thinking on your own, by consulting your constituents and by not letting yourself be bullied around by a whip or least of all a House leader, or by a leader. At the end of the day, you're far more likely to secure your position here if you show a little bit of guts and don't let yourself become just a little monkey on the end of a string, a little puppet, a little trained seal balancing that red ball on the end of your nose. That's no way for adults to let themselves be treated, first of all. It deprives people of dignity, and I feel sad to see adults, and they are adults, carrying on as if they were little school children.

What this motion does, what this change of procedure does is it deprives all these Tory backbenchers, who rarely speak in the House, don't get a chance to, very rarely speak in the House. Once in a while, if they grovel, they get a question because they need a little local media hit, right? That's how it's done.

1150

I'm from a community -- it used to be a Thomson paper, now it's owned by Mike Harris's good friend Barbara Amiel and her husband Conrad Black. So Connie and Barb own the Welland Tribune -- Hollinger. They picked it up from Thomson. They also bought the Niagara Falls Review. I know what it's like. These folks as backbenchers, virtually no power. The decisions are made up on top. We're not talking about democracy here within the caucus. No power. They're afraid now, and again perhaps we shouldn't have raised that letter in question period, the one that talked about the rural members in the Tory caucus being angry about the defunding of the Ministry of Ag, because now these people -- it was like that scene from The Exorcist when she wet herself down on the carpet. I'm sure these guys wet their pants damn near in the Leg when Howie Hampton stood up with that letter. They went, "Holy zonkers, now my name is mud." They're probably disinclined to ever do that again.

Look what their whip here is doing to them, because when he imposes a 10-minute time frame for each caucus, he imposes that time frame on them. Lord knows, they were given precious little opportunity to express what their views really are, and even less now.

We dealt, of course, with procedure, which in this motion is a significant change to the procedure, which I submit cannot be done. Again, in reference to the 1883 debates in the British Parliament, the procedure for a standing committee cannot be determined by the committee itself; it has to be determined by Parliament. I suppose on unanimous consent you can do virtually anything, other than what you're statutorily barred from doing. But trust me, there ain't going to be unanimous consent.

Here's an interesting one. The town of Deseronto Police Services Board, Raymond Kemp nominated as member, withdrawn. Interesting. Somebody backed out. Heat is building up. I suppose we're doing the right thing.

I should observe, of course, that the people brought before us today -- Mr Rossetti, of course, is going to be appointed, Mr Poratto to the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council, and Heather Nordell to the village of Point Edward Police Services Board. I regret that we didn't have a chance to talk to these people, because as often as not we learn as much -- we learn about the dogs that are marched through, but from the good people we also learn a little bit about their insights and what they propose to do. I think it's valuable for us.

But Mr Wood has put a motion on the floor that simply will not be tolerated and can't be. It's quite frankly out of order, quite frankly undemocratic; is a gag order not only on the opposition but also on his own members, and his own members are sitting there taking it. I don't believe it. What a sad, pathetic sight that they're sitting there taking it from Bob Sampson.

So we've got: "3. The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative or at the request of the committee to select from among the intended appointees referred to in paragraph 1, those intended appointees the committee will review. Each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair, may choose one or more of the intended appointees for review from the certificates provided by the clerk of the committee."

There is inherent in that -- although it's not stated because we know that the subcommittee, because it says "each member of the committee may choose one or more" -- some fairness. It implies that notwithstanding of the respective sizes of the caucuses -- the Tories, of course, being eight -- which means, why don't we all just go home? This committee is a joke. It's pathetic. It's going to become even more humorous if this motion isn't withdrawn, because the Tories are simply going to back up their political hacks, the bad ones, and the opposition can vote, but they're always going to be outnumbered.

Until some Tory members show some courage -- that's courage with a "c." Who had no courage in the Wizard of Oz? Was it the lion who had no courage? Yes? The lion who had no courage. And I would commend that some of these people, like the lion in the Wizard of Oz, find -- who was the author of that? Frank -- please, Mr Martin. Frank is the first name of the author of that book, the Wizard of Oz.

Mr Martin: I can't help you. Sorry.

Mr Kormos: Okay. In any event, the lion spends that whole adventure looking for courage.

Just as Diogenes spent a lifetime looking for an honest man, sadly, I hope these Tory members don't spend their political lifetimes looking for courage rather than simply seizing it and acting upon it, because if they don't seize upon some courage, they won't have much to tell their grandkids about what they did while they were involved. There won't be much about which they will be able to distinguish themselves.

This isn't a particularly courageous motion, either. Quite frankly, it's a gutless motion. It's a motion of cowardice, because what it reveals is the government's incapacity to take the heat. They want to make the big bucks, they want to take the perks, they want the cars and the drivers, they want the expensive offices, they want those expensive breakfasts at the Inter-Continental hotel up there by Harry Rosen on Bloor Street, where the corporate credit cards are --

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Point of order: Certainly we've heard extensively this morning about procedure and the importance of procedures. I would suggest that according to the standing rules of the committee, we only meet in the morning. The morning seems to be over at 12 noon. I therefore move that this meeting be adjourned.

The Chair: The clock has been noticed, and under that rule we really must adjourn now.

Mr Bob Wood: Could I speak to that point of order?

The Chair: An adjournment motion is not debatable.

Mr Bob Wood: It's a brief point of order saying that because of the time and the resolution, you have to terminate the committee. I'd like to speak to that very briefly. We have thrown away $1,000 in costs. I apologize to the three individuals who have come down here and not been able to be heard by the committee. I think it's an embarrassment to us all that that's happened, and we apologize, and I hope you, Mr Chair, might consider offering some comment on that to them. We've also totally thrown away the cost of this committee today, and I hope we can encourage the members to avoid this sort of conduct in the future.

Mr Kormos: Withdraw your motion, Bob.

The Chair: I don't think it serves any purpose getting into a debate on this now, when we must adjourn at noon. I would appreciate it, Mr Rossetti and Mr Poratto, and I don't know whether Ms Nordell is still here or not, if I could have a word with you at the adjournment to discuss whether next week would be a good time for you to appear. Under the orders, next week when we begin, Mr Kormos still has the floor and has the right to continue his debate under the orders of the House. So we must understand that.

Mr Bob Wood: It's our view, Mr Chair, that no one should be called next week and we should do the SARB review next week.

The Chair: I was going to mention that, now that we're into it, because I don't think there's been any work done on it yet, as I understand it, and Mr Pond would need some direction from the committee. I believe that's usually the way it works.

Mr David Pond: I can handle it.

The Chair: You can handle that? All right. But the subcommittee should meet next Tuesday and deal with that issue, in my view.

Mr Preston: I object to cutting Mr Kormos off. Regardless of the fact that all he said is drivel, I give him the right to do that. I don't see why we should cut him off. I think he should be allowed to continue with his diarrhoea of the esophagus until he's finished.

The Chair: The problem is that once the clock has been noticed, we must adjourn, and we are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1200.