INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
JIM YOCOM
CONTENTS
Wednesday 27 March 1996
Intended appointments
Jim Yocom
Daniel Callaghan
Michael Ayoub
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:
Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC) for Mr Newman
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel
Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 228.
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. May I start by telling you how happy I am to be here and, secondly, to thank all of you for your consideration of me when I was away and the wonderful gift you sent me. I saved a couple of those chocolates for you. If you at any time want to drop into my office, I'd be glad to share them with you. It was very kind of you, and I appreciated it very much.
To my colleague Tony Martin, I very much appreciate the work that he did in chairing as well. Tony, you don't need the words from me, but it certainly came back to me that you did a wonderful job chairing. So thank you for that.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It's good to see you back, sir.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On behalf of the other members of the committee, might I suggest it is their feeling as well as it is ours that Mr Martin did a wonderful job in replacement of you, but it's very, very nice to see a very vibrant and active Mr Laughren back in the chair, and so we're happy that you're here as well.
The Chair: No heckling, okay? Thank you all for that. I do mean it.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
JIM YOCOM
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Jim Yocom, intended appointee as member, Town of Espanola Police Services Board.
The Chair: Let us get on with the business of the day. Mr Jim Yocom, welcome to the committee.
Mr Jim Yocom: Thank you, Mr Laughren.
The Chair: We're not very formal, but we do follow a set of rules to keep things in order. Traditionally, the committee has set aside a half-hour for each intended appointment and that is used up 10 minutes for each of the political parties. If you want to make an opening statement, you are welcome to do that. That would be subtracted from the time of the government members. I believe that's been agreed to by the committee. Do you wish to say a few words in opening? You don't have to. It's entirely up to you.
Mr Yocom: I'd like to make a few statements. You have my résumé and so on, but I think a little addition to it and a little more information might be in order.
I won't start back when I was on the family farm or anything like that and how tough things were then, but about 1958 was when my municipal experience started. It was quite a task for the council because the town of Espanola was incorporated in 1958, and it meant that we had to form a municipal government, hire a clerk-treasurer, and at that time you had to hire your own assessor, welfare officer, form your own police force and all those other good things that we wish we didn't have to do.
To give you a little history of the town, the north part of the community was owned and looked after by, at that time, Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment, a paper company that had bought it in 1944, just before the war was over. They owned everything on the north side of Second Street at that time, and they owned all the services as well, the streets, roads, sidewalks, sewer and water and so on. The mill looked after the water and sewage services. The southern part of the town only had hydro services, which were also supplied at that time from the mill.
So it was quite a task to form a government and to get it off the ground, but I might say that in the period from 1958 to 1962 we did well. We had a good municipal government going and we managed in those five years to put in a sewage treatment plant, a water treatment plant and form a hydro commission. Then we bought hydro of course from Ontario Hydro because the mill could no longer supply the town, it was growing so fast. We had a good setup going in those five years, and I think that the town has benefited greatly from that.
As far as my experience on the school board -- that's the North Shore District Roman Catholic Separate School Board -- if I make any mistakes at this, Mr Martin will probably correct me because we served on the same board for some time. This took in quite an area, from Nairn in Mr Laughren's riding down to Ironbridge in Mr Wildman's riding. We took in Elliot Lake and all the surroundings and even went down on Manitoulin Island as far as Sheguiandah.
The Chair: So you've been spending a lot of time cavorting with New Democrats.
Mr Yocom: Yes. Well, them's the breaks, you know. We do have Mike Brown, though.
The Chair: I digress.
Mr Yocom: But it was quite a task there, as Mr Martin will affirm. Also in that area we ran two boards of education, the Espanola board of education and the North Shore board, and we took in part of the Manitoulin board of education. They were in our area. We also had four first nation bands to whom we supplied education to their elementary students. Now we're only starting to hear about sharing buses and services such as speech therapists and audio-visual equipment and so on, but our four boards were doing that back in the 1970s.
That's about all I have to say. I think that states some of my experience and the fact that I've had to interact with a lot of different people and learn how to manage things on my own and with the help of many other people. It's been an enjoyable job.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Yocom. Can we start with the government members, Mr Preston.
Mr Preston: Get the name right.
The Chair: Yes, I will.
Mr Preston: Mr Yocom, I think your résumé speaks for itself. You were instrumental in building a whole town, and you must have done a very good job of it because next you became mayor of that town. But I'm just going to talk about the last thing you were involved with: the school board. You were involved in contract negotiations, a lot of financial matters.
Mr Yocom: Yes.
Mr Preston: I think it's obvious how this is going to contribute. How do you think this is going to contribute to your work on the Espanola Police Services Board?
Mr Yocom: It's a matter of interacting, and with the financial restraints we have today certainly we have to look at economizing and finding better ways to do things a little cheaper. I think those things are easy.
In terms of negotiations, I've done a lot of that in my time on the school board and other places. I think that's probably the best way to answer that question.
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): You're a retired gentleman now and you find that you have the time to participate and do a good job at this?
Mr Yocom: Yes. I retired in 1992 and I thought perhaps I would be quite happy to be retired, but I found I need something to do, something to occupy some of my time. I can't be fishing and hunting all the time.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Jim, you obviously are one of the founders in that community and one of the backbones of the north, and with a small police force of eight members, you probably know them all personally, the chief and the staff. Is there any particular pressing issue in the community that the police services board would have to deal with?
Mr Yocom: I did attend the meeting the other night as an observer and everything seems to be progressing very well. I was pleased to find -- and I think that's very important -- that they're trying to present a higher profile to the town and to the community. The chief said then that he was going to try and spend 30 hours a month on foot patrol and he was going to do more patrolling with the officer who was on duty in the cruiser. He's joined the chamber the commerce to get some visible profile, and they do conduct a VIP -- values, influences and peers -- program in our schools that has to do with the students as far as drugs and so on go.
I think that's where we have to go, probably make themselves more visible to the public. I think there's a great deal of education of people, and the young people certainly need some education, and the higher profile and the example they set are very important.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Mr Yocom, I've got a question but it seems you've already answered it. As I read a little bit of background on you and the way you're talking here, I think you'd be an excellent person for this board.
Mr Yocom: Thank you very much.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Yocom, my information doesn't tell me -- it said you became mayor in 1962. How long were you mayor?
Mr Yocom: One term.
Mr Bert Johnson: In that year you were automatically a member of the police services commission at that time?
Mr Yocom: No. There was no police services commission at that time. It was run at that time by a committee of council, three members.
Mr Bert Johnson: You would have been on that committee?
Mr Yocom: Yes.
Mr Bert Johnson: From your experience on that, that made you wish to become a contributing member of your community again?
Mr Yocom: Yes. It's something I missed, not contributing as much as I did in the past. I have lots of time and I'd like to get involved.
Mr Bert Johnson: How do you feel about the change between being a committee of council and now an appointed, if you like, arm's-length board?
Mr Yocom: It seems to work well. From the observations I've made, and I've talked to some of the municipal councillors and so on, it seems to work well. But I'd like to take a look at it myself and make up my own mind. I'd like to consult the members of the board and the police chief and so on and see if they feel that way.
Mr Bert Johnson: I'd like to thank you for your frankness, and thank the committee for my time.
The Chair: Your timing is exquisite; that's exactly 10 minutes. So thank you for that. We move to the official opposition.
1020
Mr Bartolucci: Let me follow up on a point that Mr Preston made, Mr Chair. It's very nice to have you back. Although Mr Martin did a great job, you do a superb job on my name, and that cannot be said by every member of the government side.
Mr Yocom, I know your background and I know of you and certainly of your dedication to the community. Sometimes people are asked to attend here not because we question your expertise or your dedication to the community but just to ask for your opinions. I believe that with your background, you are the type of person we would hope the government would always appoint to local boards.
Let me ask you just a few questions with regard to process. Having been a former police services board member, I view this board with much importance; it requires people who are truly dedicated to the community. Certainly, your résumé fulfils that. I'm asking you now just for your own opinions, that's all, and what you may have heard from police officers with regard to their very vital role and their very important role in a community that is sometimes shrouded with a great number of extenuating circumstances that require certain courses of action.
I'm going to talk for a second about the police services complaint commission as opposed to its being managed as part of a police services board. You will remember in the past that we, as board members, used to have a division within the board that dealt with complaints. Now that's no longer the case; there is in fact a commission for that. Have you heard any opinions from any of the police officers in Espanola with regard to limitations or drawbacks to this type of commission?
Mr Yocom: No, I haven't, but that's one thing I'd like to learn about and talk over with the police services board and the chief of police. I think that as you've stipulated, that's a very important part of it. Complaints are something that certainly need to be handled very expeditiously and as well as possible.
Mr Bartolucci: A follow-up to Mr Johnson's question. You know you are truly in a unique position. You were the mayor of a town and now you're going to be a member of a police services board that's comprised of political appointments as well as municipal representation. Let me tell you, in my years on city council and regional council in Sudbury, probably the one thing that upset municipal councillors most about police services boards was the political appointees to that board. I know you've dealt extensively with Mayor Wong, Mayor Gordon, Chairman Davies and all the other reeves and mayors of the north. Do you share a bit of concern about the weighted balance of a police services board?
Mr Yocom: I don't think that's a problem in Espanola. I think we all understand each other and we're a pretty mixed culture in the town. I don't think it really matters politically. As far as that's concerned, I might say that I was contacted about applying for the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council and was interviewed on a quiet basis, and when I went back and talked to one of the municipal councillors, he suggested and asked if I would apply for the police services board; in talking to another one, he stated that he would like to see me apply too. I might say that neither one of those are of my political persuasion or even each other's, I don't think either. That's the best way to answer your question. I don't think that we worry too much about politics in a little town like that. We get along.
Mr Bartolucci: Just let me tell you that they may not be of your political persuasion, but they indeed are your friends if they've discouraged you from going on the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council, so you may want to consider their friendship and their political persuasion.
I want to thank you for your honesty. I know quite a bit about Espanola, having spent a lot of time in Espanola, and I know that they are truly the model of community-based policing, no question. I wish you well.
Mr Yocom: Thank you very much, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Martin: Thanks for coming down today, Mr Yocom, or should I call you Jim?
Mr Yocom: Jim is much easier, Tony, to me anyway.
Mr Martin: We did indeed travel some space together. There was lots of travelling involved in the work that we did with the separate school board up your way. My political career took flight under the tutelage of people like Jim here in the late 1970s.
Mr Yocom: Thank you, Tony.
Mr Martin: Jim, in light of the fact that certainly my experience with you on the board was one of your positive contribution and your ability to get in and work and at times mix it up with people in terms of back and forth and questions and all of that, policing today is becoming more and more a very important issue. There certainly are some discussions ongoing about the approaches, how do we do it best?
There is on the one side an approach that was demonstrated very clearly around this place a week and a half ago, when the police came out with their batons and helmets and shields, something that I watch my kids do from time to time as they play, never thinking that would be a reality in Ontario. Then there's the other approach that I think people are trying to develop, particularly out in the communities that a lot of us come from, and that's a community-based approached to policing.
My question to you would be, which approach would you see as most helpful as we move into the end of this century and on to the next, and what's your understanding of community policing, Jim?
Mr Yocom: I think they have to be as high-profile as they can be and they have to be understanding of all the people in the community, behave as proper citizens and behave as gently as possible and at the same time provide an education for our young people and a broad spectrum of the public. They have to be very closely in touch with the whole community. I think that things will work out that way and probably we won't see as much violence as we have seen.
Mr Martin: So you think that approach to policing is the one that will give us the best results down the road?
Mr Yocom: Yes, I think it will. We don't have that kind of a problem in Espanola and I don't think we ever will, because we are very community-minded people, we very much think about everybody else in the community and that's the way it's been developed. I don't think there'll be a problem, in our area anyway, and I hope certainly that those things don't happen anywhere.
Mr Martin: Have you given any thought to initiatives you might be able to stimulate or initiate, on getting on to that board, that would take us down that road?
Mr Yocom: Not yet, Tony. I think I would like to have a few meetings with the police services board and with the chief and find out what they have in mind and then I'll probably have some suggestions down the road. But I think anybody going into something new has to learn and listen a lot and form his own opinions, listen to the other people who have been doing it for several years and find out where they're going and whether he thinks it's right or not before he makes any decisions about changes or have any personal agenda. I think you have to go along and find out what is actually going on before you make any wild stabs in the dark.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Good morning. What's the size of the board?
Mr Yocom: There are five members: two councillors and three appointed.
Mr Kormos: And the vacancy that you're occupying, how did that come about?
Mr Yocom: The member was not reappointed.
Mr Kormos: I note it was the third party, presumably us, that brought you before the committee. I have no idea why you were brought here. The fact is that there are more than enough dogs being appointed by the Tories that should be screened by this committee that we shouldn't be wasting time with competent appointments like you.
1030
Mr Yocom: Are you implying I'm a dog?
Mr Kormos: No, on the contrary. You should see some of the stuff that's barked its way in and out of here that's been pure political patronage. You're an obviously qualified person to be on the police services board. I have no intention of prolonging this. I think you're going to get unanimous support from all the committee. We look forward to hearing, obviously, good things about you and your four co-board members. God bless. I don't understand why we waste people's time, when there are so many bad appointments that should be brought here to be screened out. People like you shouldn't have been compelled to come down to Toronto, but I hope you enjoyed the trip.
Mr Yocom: It was a nice drive down, Mr Kormos. I thank you for your comments and for your attention.
Mr Kormos: Take care.
The Chair: Thank you for those uplifting comments, Mr Kormos. If there are no other questions, then, Mr Yocom, thank you for coming before the committee. I think you can tell by the tone of the questioning that your appointment is appreciated by members of the committee. Thank you for coming before us.
Mr Yocom: Thank you very much, Mr Laughren and members. It's been very enjoyable.
The Chair: Just before we move on to the next intended appointment, David Pond, our research person, has an announcement.
Mr David Pond: I want to correct one small factual error in the paper I prepared for you on the Council of the College of Midwives. At the top of page 6 I've written "Midwives are financed through OHIP." That is not correct. They are financed through the Ministry of Health, pretty obviously, but not specifically from the OHIP envelope. That's it. Thank you.
DANIEL CALLAGHAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Daniel Callaghan, intended appointee as public member, council of the College of Midwives of Ontario.
The Chair: Please be seated, Mr Callaghan, and welcome to the committee. Thank you for coming. Did you have any opening statement you wanted to make? It's entirely up to you.
Mr Daniel Callaghan: Just a brief opening statement to give a feel to everybody here of who I am. My name is Dan Callaghan. I'm from Pembroke, Ontario.
My background: I spent a number of years with a trust company in this province, throughout this province, as a matter of fact. I moved around quite a bit. I bring with me a financial background. More important or in addition to that, over a number of years, as long as I can actually remember, I spent numerous hours and many days on various organizations, whether they be Big Brothers, Big Sisters or Rotary clubs, whatever I could be involved in in my community.
A little bit of where I'm coming from: I've never been one to sit back and be part of the problem; I always wanted to be part of the solution. The province as a whole has been very good to me over the years. I received a very good education from it. I grew up in a time where I came out of college and received a very good job. I guess that's the biggest reason that I'm involved. Sincerely, I want to give something back to the province.
Too many times we're takers, we're not givers, and my philosophy has always been, let's give our time to those we can. I enjoy it. Sometimes I take too much on, as my wife tells me. The other thing is that I have two young daughters who are growing up in this province. I just want to see them have all the opportunities that I had growing up in this great province.
I want to thank everybody here personally. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to sit on the council of midwives. I'm a hard worker.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir, and welcome to the committee. Mr Callaghan, I see by the information given to us from the public appointments secretariat that you expressed an interest in serving on the Council of the College of Midwives of Ontario in particular. Could you tell me why it is that you have expressed this particular interest?
Mr Callaghan: There are a couple of reasons. Number one, I live in an area where we don't have midwives practising, up in the valley. I think it's important that everybody have choices. I see it as a growing field.
Secondly, as I say, we have two daughters, and we have two children that we lost. I guess deep down, personally, it's important to me to know there's a choice, and I know through midwives it's there. Maybe if for no other reason it's important to me, I look back to the time when we lost two children, and it's good to know there's a group of individuals out there who provide that shoulder in time of need. I know when we lost our kids, it was devastating to us. Midwifery -- there's a service they provide. It's a little more personal touch.
It's important to me, it's important to my wife, and I guess again it goes back to -- I think of my two daughters coming up and I hope there's another choice for them. I hope they don't face the dilemmas that we did with losing children. More importantly, when we had our first daughter, it was terrifying. It was get on the phone, "Mom, dad, what do we do next?" I know this is something that's near and dear to midwifery and I think it's important for people to know they're there.
Mr Crozier: That's an interesting insight. I thank you for sharing that with us. Obviously then, through this experience you've had, you feel you can give, in a non-professional way, a perspective to the whole question of midwifery in Ontario. Is that correct?
Mr Callaghan: I hope so.
Mr Crozier: I have no idea of the makeup of the board. There's no necessity, I guess, that any particular gender should or should not be on it. I guess I was curious as to why a male may be interested in this as opposed to a female, but you've given a very good explanation of why that is. Are you aware of the responsibilities of the council? Is this something you explored before you showed this interest?
Mr Callaghan: I have talked to some practising midwives, which gave me a great insight. You have a perception of what midwifery is and quite frankly, when I spoke with the midwives, I got a greater understanding for a very difficult job, I believe. You're 24 hours on call, in and out, and everything else. Basically, the council is the board of directors for the college. They are there to establish and maintain a code of ethics, ensure that proper practices are kept and, more importantly, I guess, they're there to ensure that the public's interest is taken care of, all of which is important to me.
I come at it from the point of view that, yes, I am a member of the public, but more importantly, I'm a father. I see it as a growing field and a great opportunity for students in this province. Yes, it is a great responsibility and I'm very much looking forward to it.
Mr Crozier: Can you ensure for us that you will not then be intimidated -- if that's the proper word -- that you won't take a back seat to the professionals you will be dealing with, that you think you can add a layperson's perspective to it and in that way be a benefit to the council, as opposed to the professional people that you will be dealing with on that council?
Mr Callaghan: I will be there as a public member and hopefully I'll be able to put my spin, or the public perspective to it. I don't begin to question or know what the professionals do. That's their job; they're trained to do it. I think it's important though, as a public member and not being someone who is actively involved in midwifery, that I'm there to say, "I agree with this" or "Could you explain this or that to me?" I don't see it as questioning the medical side of it. I'm obviously not an expert in that field. I guess I come at it with my heart and as a parent.
1040
Mr Crozier: That's great, and I think you bring an interesting perspective to this and I appreciate your openness with us this morning in explaining your experience that would lead you to want to serve on this council. We wish you well.
Mr Kormos: Obviously, your background has been of some interest in terms of why you would want to be on this particular council. How did you become aware of this body?
Mr Callaghan: I was approached by a gentleman from the Ministry of Health -- I can't think of his name now.
Mr Kormos: Quite right. He obviously telephoned you or wrote to you.
Mr Callaghan: It was communicated to me by him.
Mr Kormos: How in the world would he have come up with your name?
Mr Callaghan: I had my résumé in because I wanted to be involved publicly to help the province.
Mr Kormos: Okay, so you had indicated you wanted to be appointed to some sort of board, agency or commission.
Mr Callaghan: Preferably something in the health issues.
Mr Kormos: And you indicated that in your correspondence to, who, the public appointments secretariat?
Mr Callaghan: I talked, as I say, to the gentleman with the --
Mr Kormos: Quite right, but you obviously made inquiries about who you send your résumé to.
Mr Callaghan: No, I just sent it up to Toronto.
Mr Kormos: To Queen's Park? Please.
Mr Callaghan: To Queen's Park, yes.
Mr Kormos: To the Premier's office?
Mr Callaghan: No, to the public appointments office.
Mr Kormos: You were familiar with that office.
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Had you ever applied for an appointment of this type before on any board, agency or commission?
Mr Callaghan: No.
Mr Kormos: What was it in your life that prompted you at this point to do that?
Mr Callaghan: Quite frankly, the time is available to me now. I've been involved in a number of community activities and again, just to reiterate, if you got to know me, I'm the sort of person -- I'm not prepared to sit back. I'm trying to be part of a solution, not part of a problem. I believe that too often we sit around and let other people do the work.
Mr Kormos: Sure. You spoke about a specific interest in midwifery. I don't usually rely on these stock questions, but here's one that really is quite relevant because midwifery, of course, is a distinctive and contrasting philosophy to not only giving birth, but a recognition of the right of a woman to control the birthing process, to control her own reproductive capacity, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. I trust you concur with that.
Mr Callaghan: I'm sorry, concur with terminating --
Mr Kormos: Yes, the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Mr Callaghan: I really believe that's a personal choice of the individual.
Mr Kormos: But you concur with that, that it is a woman's right to determine that.
Mr Callaghan: Yes, I believe that a woman has a right to make her own decisions.
Mr Kormos: Yes, and you're aware, of course, of the contrast between the midwifery model of carrying a child and gestation and birthing, in contrast to the traditional medical model.
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: And of the critique specifically of the medical model and the problems that it poses.
Mr Callaghan: What I'm aware of is that midwifery provides from beginning to end, not just totally delivery, it's counselling for both parents, which is very important, and particularly the follow-up after the birth, which is very important, as opposed to other types of delivery.
Mr Kormos: You see, we've had midwives throughout the millennia, but specifically in Ontario the issue of midwifery arose in response to some concerns about the traditional medical model of responding to pregnant women and the medical response to the process of birthing. You're aware of the concerns that the midwifery advocates had, aren't you?
Mr Callaghan: Not really. As I say, I come at it from my perspective, that I believe in the practice; I believe it's important to have that choice there.
Mr Kormos: Yes, but why do you believe in the practice? Aside from the point of access to assistance during birthing, do you advocate midwifery over medical responses to pregnancy, gestation and birth?
Mr Callaghan: No. I believe that we have to have choices, and this is another alternative.
Mr Kormos: Why would midwifery be an alternative? Why should it be an alternative? Why would someone want to choose midwifery over the traditional medical approach?
Mr Callaghan: Quite frankly, I believe, the personal touch.
Mr Kormos: The personal touch?
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: As in? Please, help me on this.
Mr Callaghan: They are going to counsel you from the time of conception to a number of months after the birth. I believe that's important. I believe that's a very good alternative. Again, I come at it from the point of view that I've had two kids, and I've lost two children. I think it's very important for people to have that alternative out there and have the choice of that alternative.
Mr Kormos: Yes, but aside from the counselling, are there any other aspects of midwifery that, in your mind, make it important to sustain that professional role, maintain it and regulate it?
Mr Callaghan: Quite frankly, it's because we're giving a woman the choice of having it.
Mr Kormos: You see, my difficulty with choice is, between what and what? You mentioned the counselling. What are the other distinctions, in your mind, between midwifery and the traditional medical model?
Mr Callaghan: We have the choice of home delivery as opposed to going to a hospital. I think that's very important for women to have that choice, that if they want to have it in their home, they can have it in their home. Midwifery has gone on for centuries, as you say. I just think it's a good alternative for us.
Mr Kormos: Yes. That's it?
Mr Callaghan: That's it.
The Chair: Can we move to the government side.
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Hi, Mr Callaghan, nice to see you today. Actually, the questions I had I think Mr Crozier and Mr Kormos raised. But first, when you first appeared here, I wondered the same thing, why would a man want to sit on a midwifery council? But knowing what you've told us about your background, I understand that. I also wondered, with your background being in finances and management, why you thought you had anything to contribute or why we would even want someone like that on it, but then I read the prospectus here and it said that public members appointed to the governing councils of the health professions are to bring a non-health-professional, citizen's perspective. So now I understand why we would want someone like you. I think you're so sincere and honest. All I can say is that I wish you well and thank you very much.
Mr Leadston: The members opposite were able to obtain from you the information that I wanted to hear this morning. You bring an element of sensitivity and respect to this position, and I think you will represent this government and this province and the members of the board with distinction.
Contrary to some of the comments that were made by the honourable member opposite earlier about men and women who come before this standing committee, in my opinion, I think we have had some excellent individuals willing to serve their communities, and particularly their province, and you're one of these fine individuals who has stepped forward and wanted to do a little bit more in their community. To that, I commend you and congratulate you and look forward to working with you.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I just had one question that I wanted to ask you. It relates to a point you made earlier when you were talking about the opportunities that you have taken to talk to people who are midwives and the conversations that you've had with them. From those conversations, you'd have developed a sense of the issues and the concerns that are out there in terms of the issue of midwifery. I just wondered if you could tell us, given the conversations and the understandings that you have, what would you hope to accomplish as a member of this board?
1050
Mr Callaghan: I guess first and foremost is that we have approximately 70 or 71 practising midwives in the province as it stands now and an additional approximately 30 that are graduating from university this year. I guess my immediate concern is we have 100 midwives in a province the geographical size that it is. I know that most or the majority of the practices are in what we'll call the greater Toronto area or the Golden Horseshoe.
That concerns me in that I see great areas like the Ottawa Valley or up north or other areas where there's a need to have that service or that alternative available to those women who want it. So, number one, obviously I'd like to see it expanded to the Ottawa Valley and throughout the province.
Number two, I think it's an honourable field, a very good field, and maybe I'm coming at this as a parent again. I see so many of our young children going off to university and coming out of university and not necessarily finding a job in the field they want, or we train them and they go to the United States. Obviously, this is another opportunity for those who choose to get into the field of midwifery, and I think we need or I would like to see educating them that, "Here's an alternative if you want to get into it, a very good field, I believe." And again, to reiterate back to my first statement, obviously letting people know throughout the province that there is an alternative that's provided through midwifery, and let's get it spread out.
Mr Bert Johnson: Mr Callaghan, I wanted to explore a little about choice. A lot of us in our lives make choices and hopefully they're good choices, but every once in a while a person makes the wrong choice, and some of the hardest ones we have to live with are those where we have made wrong choices. I guess the first one is cost. You're saying that women should have the choice on the birthing process and so on. Should that be even if a midwifery service is more expensive than the traditional doctor? Should the woman have the choice even if that costs more, costs you and me more?
Mr Callaghan: That's a tough question in that it's my understanding from anything that I've seen that the practice of midwifery is no more costly than any other alternative. I struggle with that one, as it's hard to put a dollar value on the choice of childbirth.
Mr Bert Johnson: Yes, because I go to see my doctor and my doctor's certificate has right on it, and I think most of them -- mine happens to be a male doctor, but he has studied medicine and midwifery. So I'm glad to see your interest in this because of your gender. It's not solely a female study, so I am ever so glad to see you in this. But I wanted to pursue this about choice, because one of the other choices that has been made, and there have been unfortunate results from choices, is the failure of a midwife to recognize other medical problems, I guess. As a member of the council, are you prepared to live with those results, with those failures, as well?
Mr Callaghan: Until I really get involved in the board and see the things that actually go on and how the structure works in that specific issue, I don't think I'm really qualified to answer that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Johnson. That is the 10 minutes for the government side, including the two minutes of Mr Callaghan's opening. Mr Bartolucci had some more time left. You had a question?
Mr Bartolucci: It's a point of clarification, I think. In response to an answer from Mr Crozier, you said that you had an expressed interest in serving on this particular board, yet when Mr Kormos asked you the question, there was some hesitation in the answer. Could you please clarify, for me in particular and other members of the committee: Did you apply to serve on this particular council or was it simply a blanket application, wanting to serve regardless of what the council was?
Mr Callaghan: I was approached by Sasha from the minister's office and he asked me if I would be interested in sitting on a board, and in particular would I be interested in sitting on the College of Midwives? I said yes, I would be interested in that because of the reasons that I have stated: because I have kids, because I've lost kids. I'm not an expert on midwifery. It is something that I have followed throughout the years because of things that have occurred in our lives.
Mr Bartolucci: Just on a further point of clarification, please, Mr Callaghan: When you applied, was it then a blanket application for a position to serve?
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: All right. Thank you.
Mr Kormos: Again, following Mr Bartolucci, I understand that you indicated to us a general interest in something in health care?
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You must have had something in mind. I mean, something must have been lurking, however modestly, in your mind as to the sort of board, agency or commission in the area of health care.
Mr Callaghan: To answer your question, what was important to me were two things: something to do with midwifery or childbirth because of the situations we went through; the other thing dealing with heart and strokes because of what happened to my father.
Mr Kormos: Did you indicate that in your letter to the public appointments secretariat, that something in the area of midwifery would have been desirable?
Mr Callaghan: No, I did not, because I was not aware of the inner workings of government.
Mr Kormos: Were you aware of this body?
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Of the College of Midwives?
Mr Callaghan: I was made aware of it, yes.
Mr Kormos: You were made aware of it. Were you aware of it when you sent your letter to the public appointments secretariat?
Mr Callaghan: No.
Mr Kormos: You didn't even know there was a College of Midwives.
Mr Callaghan: I knew there were midwives and I knew that there was a governing board. I didn't know that we called it the College of Midwives. I'm sorry.
Mr Kormos: Did you know what they did?
Mr Callaghan: I assumed that they were the governing body for midwives.
Mr Kormos: Did you know what the qualifications were for sitting on it?
Mr Callaghan: Not as a public member, no.
Mr Kormos: I see in your résumé you were involved, as has been pointed out, in financial institutions: National Trust, Guaranty Trust, Municipal Trust. Is Municipal Trust still with us?
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You moved on there to a car dealership.
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
Mr Kormos: What prompted you to leave the trust company business?
Mr Callaghan: I spent a number of years with the trust companies, moving around here, there and everywhere. Quite frankly, when we moved to Pembroke our children started to come along and we made the decision to stay in Renfrew county and in the Pembroke area. The banks were always moving you around and the opportunity presented itself to go to work for the automotive industry, where I went and did finance for a number of years. So that's what led us to go to there.
Mr Kormos: You made reference to volunteer activity in the community. You were a secretary of the Pembroke Rotary Club and you're a member of the Cobden Civitan Club.
Mr Callaghan: Yes.
1100
Mr Kormos: I don't know what the Cobden Civitan Club is.
Mr Callaghan: Cobden is about 25 minutes southeast of Pembroke. When we first moved to the area we lived in Cobden for about a year and a half. Consequently, when my children started school we moved up into the Pembroke area. We were commuting back and forth.
Mr Kormos: Yes, and what does the Cobden Civitan Club do?
Mr Callaghan: It's the civitan club of Cobden.
Mr Kormos: What do they do?
Mr Callaghan: We raise funds for community events, charitable organizations. We've been involved in such things as providing wheelchairs, crutches. We donate time and money to the CNIB for the eye bank. We've been involved in such things as building a beach down in Cobden, which they didn't have. We've built a number of docks, a docking facility down there. All that's done through the Cobden --
Mr Kormos: I appreciate your comments. You make reference to your father and therefore an interest in heart and stroke issues, and of course your own family situation and therefore an interest in midwifery, you tell us. Were you involved with the Heart and Stroke Foundation?
Mr Callaghan: Yes, we canvass for the Heart and Stroke Foundation as well as the cancer society.
Mr Kormos: And what other activity? You have an interest in the medical field.
Mr Callaghan: Other than that, that's been about it.
Mr Kormos: Did you become a member of the local hospital association such that you could vote for a board of directors?
Mr Callaghan: No, I have not.
Mr Kormos: Why wouldn't you have done that with your interest in the medical field?
Mr Callaghan: Well, I chose to do it through community groups, service clubs. I was in a job, the position with the car dealer, where I was spending 12 hours a day, six days a week, selling cars and I had to step back from a lot of those things.
Mr Kormos: And you're retired now.
Mr Callaghan: I am currently out of work.
The Chair: Can you do your wrapup, Mr Kormos, please?
Mr Kormos: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Bartolucci, you still have some time left.
Mr Bartolucci: By way of clarification again, earlier you indicated to me that Sasha had approached you from the ministry's office with a specific recommendation that you apply for this particular committee, yet to Mr Kormos's question you said that you weren't aware of this committee. Could you please just give me the time frame as to when all of this happened? There's a grey area here.
Mr Callaghan: I'm not sure I understand the time frame.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, Sasha approached you to sit on this committee. Was it before or after you applied?
Mr Callaghan: It would have been after I had sent my résumé to Toronto, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: And you weren't aware of the committee before you sent your application in.
Mr Callaghan: The committee per se, no. That there was a set committee, no.
Mr Bartolucci: And who indicated to you that you should apply for an appointment?
Mr Callaghan: No one in particular. I had just sent it up.
Mr Bartolucci: No one had instructed you as to what the process was?
Mr Callaghan: I'm a babe in the woods. Sorry.
Interjection: Babe in the woods. That's a good one.
Mr Bartolucci: Yes, all right. I won't touch it. Thanks.
The Chair: If there are no more questions, Mr Callaghan, thank you very much for coming before the committee and for helping us out as we review your appointment.
MICHAEL AYOUB
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Michael Ayoub, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Review Board.
The Chair: Mr Ayoub, we welcome you to the committee. If you wish to make any opening comments, please go ahead.
Mr Michael Ayoub: Yes, I would. There are a few things that I would like to add to what you have in front of you. I would like to say that I was born and raised in Timmins, Ontario, and proud of it. I attended Pickering College in Newmarket, Ontario, and I have lived in Unionville, in Toronto and Muskoka for the last 25 years. So consequently I have been in different areas of the province, obviously.
Also, as the cofounder and artistic director of the Muskoka Festival I was very definitely involved with different communities within Muskoka and had to choose material that was relevant for all of those different areas. We also were involved very deeply with touring across the province, and consequently I had to take into account the different community standards of different areas such as Chatham, Ottawa etc, because we toured the whole province.
I have also served on many juries, and what I mean by "juries" is not in the legal sense of courts; I'm talking about juries within the arts in terms of coming to some kind of consensus. I've done community work all my life, especially for the Canadian Cancer Society, which I'm still doing, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Metro Toronto, agencies such as PACT -- I can go on and on -- and finally, I am the father of four children. I very much appreciate coming before you and I very much want to be part of the Ontario Film Review Board.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ayoub. We'll start off with the New Democrats. Any questions, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: Yes, I do, Chair. I read your résumé and you've got obviously an active and long-time participation in both theatre as well as film production. Most recently Sid Adilman in the Star writes about the crisis within the Ontario film industry specifically because of the prospect, although it hasn't happened yet, of defunding support for Ontario filmmaking. Obviously, you've had, with your active involvement in film production -- my impression is, in Toronto especially but certainly not restricted to Toronto, because there's a whole number of communities in the Toronto area and beyond where economies have developed around film production --
Mr Ayoub: Very much so.
Mr Kormos: -- and more importantly where there's a culture of filmmaking. I'm talking about the talent, not just academically trained, but by God, they've been out there making good films successfully, so we've got a culture of filmmakers, and not just from the acting point of view --
Mr Ayoub: In actuality, the ones that are making all the money are the crew. They're buying homes. We do have a core.
Mr Kormos: That's right. What's going to happen to that community, to that culture if we see a defunding of admittedly government support for film production here in the province?
Mr Ayoub: It's a good point. One of the reasons we do have or have become -- let's use Sid Adilman. He's always using the quotation "Hollywood North." One of the reasons we have become Hollywood North has a lot to do with the Canadian dollar. It also has a lot to do with what you brought up, which was very important: We do have a strong core of experienced people in terms of crew, actors, directors, film houses, production houses. This has come about over the last five to 10 years. A lot of that has come about because Americans have been coming to Canada and basically using us. I hate to use that word "using" us, but what I mean by that is they're coming here for a reason: It's cheaper. But that has benefited us.
I think that will still continue, Peter. The reason I think it will continue is that yes, we all know that funding is going to be cut everywhere; it has to be; we don't have any choice. But at the same time there is a benefit, and we always in the business use this criteria, that for every $1 invested, another $3 to $10 are accumulated throughout different enterprises. What I mean by that, for clarification, is that if someone is given $1 for film, that crew will come and live in Toronto or live in Unionville, wherever they're filming, they will spend the money in lodging, they will spend the money in meals, they will use catering, they will use different -- it's a long, convoluted exercise, but I think it will continue. I am worried, though.
Mr Kormos: That's right, the Hollywood North phenomenon may continue because of the differential in the dollar and the fact that we have qualified workers here, but what about the made-in-Ontario film industry?
Mr Ayoub: That's the one that bothers me.
Mr Kormos: That's right, that's the one that's really at risk, isn't it?
Mr Ayoub: That bothers me. I don't know if I mentioned it in my opening statement, but I'm an advocate, a very strong advocate, and always have been, of Canadian art. I do not want to see us become just an extension of the United States. We have a great giant to the south but we have a great tradition of both British and French background, and I don't want us to lose that.
1110
Mr Kormos: And a few Hungarians and Slovaks and Italians thrown into the --
Mr Ayoub: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Among others.
Mr Ayoub: I hope and I think it will, only because of the proliferation -- I'm talking about the 500 channels, I'm also talking about the specialty channels. The CRTC has certain rules and regulations and there's Canadian content and I hope that the Canadian content keeps there. As you have seen in the music industry, when the Canadian content was imposed, all of a sudden we had Canadian artists who were stars, who became international stars.
I can keep on going on. I don't know if you want me to, but I'll give you an example of Quebec. Quebec is a great example of the culture industry being able to live and survive within one province.
Mr Kormos: Which is not only a critical success, it's also a commercial success.
Mr Ayoub: Also a commercial success. In other words, the Québécois believe in their own people and they believe in their own industry and they support it. I want to see the same thing happen in Ontario and Canada.
Mr Kormos: Do you have fears, then, about the defunding? I certainly do.
Mr Ayoub: I think everybody does. I can't deny that I wouldn't have fears about it. I hope that what it does do is it forces us -- and believe it or not, a lot of this is happening -- to amalgamate with other countries and other producers. As a matter of fact, we now have within the last 10 years five major companies -- Alliance, Atlantis etc -- that have formed major associations and are producing with Americans and the British and I think that will continue.
Mr Kormos: But we get a big bang for the buck in terms of the public dollars invested in Ontario filmmaking. There's a real return on that.
Mr Ayoub: Very much so, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Mr Kormos: I think it's dumb to defund it because what we're doing is we're cutting ourselves off at the legs. It's nuts.
Mr Ayoub: At the same time, as I'm saying, we have to find -- we know it's happening -- other ways of funding it and that's one of the ways of funding, is by using coproductions.
Mr Kormos: One of the dilemmas that the Ontario Film Review Board has had is that they've been relied upon by, for instance, retailers of videos, and unsuccessfully, as defences for Criminal Code prosecutions.
Mr Ayoub: Yes. I'm aware of this.
Mr Kormos: That's right. What's your response to that? Because you've got to admit, from a commonsense point of view, although Lord knows we haven't seen a whole lot of it in the last eight, nine months here in the province of Ontario --
Mr Ayoub: Come on, guys.
Mr Kormos: They're not up to it. From a commonsense point of view, if you were a retailer or a renter of videos and the Ontario Film Review Board says, "Okay, restricted," but hell, those people watched it, it's not unfair to presume it must be legal. Right? It must be kosher.
Mr Ayoub: Yes.
Mr Kormos: And that is a dilemma. What's your response to that?
Mr Ayoub: That dilemma was tackled, I believe, in the Butler case. Is that what you're referring to? If you don't mind, if I could read something to you from that, because it has a lot of legalese developments in it. You're talking about obscenity?
Mr Kormos: Now here's a candidate for appointment who has taken the time to research, who shows specific interest, beats the hell out of a whole lot of the other people the Tories have brought through here. Go ahead, sir, sorry.
Mr Ayoub: The Butler decision, for those of you who don't know, was a very major court decision that came down, and the Ontario Film Review Board does not want to conflict with this court decision. What it had to do with was obscenity, as was mentioned, and "the undue exploitation of sex or crime, horror, cruelty and violence." It was determined that "It is the standards of the community as a whole which must be considered and not the standards of a small segment of that community."
There was also a tolerance test that was included in this, and that "does not concern what we as members of the community would tolerate being exposed to ourselves but what we would tolerate other Canadians" -- and I put in the term "Ontarians" there -- "being exposed to." I hope that answers your question.
So there are certain things that the Ontario Film Review Board is in charge of, there are certain things that the court is in charge of and there are certain things that the police are in charge of. The Ontario Film Review Board goes along with what the court decision has been.
The Chair: We'll move to the government side for questions.
Mr Leadston: Mr Ayoub, you obviously, from your résumé, have a very creative and gifted background and I'm sure will have many, many more years to contribute to the creativity of this great province.
Mr Ayoub: I hope so.
Mr Leadston: You obviously have done your own research in terms of the responsibilities. When a member views a film, after that viewing, what occurs in the process? Can you enlighten me?
Mr Ayoub: Yes. I'll have to embellish just a bit. There are 25 to 30 members on the Ontario Film Review Board. There is a chairman, who happens to be here right now, and there are seven vice-chairs. Out of that group, there are sittings of three people at each committee, and one of those people is a vice-chair. So that leaves two others. What they try to do is they try to mix -- I hate to use this kind of delineation -- a man and a woman, or a female-male composition. There are different people from all segments of society.
Before we view the film, there is also advertising that we have to look at, because we are responsible for that also. We view the film, we also take notes while we are watching it, and at the end of the film, we then make our own decision, each one of us, under four categories of what that film falls into. Those four categories are: family, parental guidance, adult accompaniment and restricted. Obviously, we would have a conference after and make a decision on that particular film. We would say, as an example, "In frame number 40, there was undue exploitation." The decision is made. We sign a piece of paper that says, "This is the category we are putting this under," and then it becomes legal. Is there anything else I can add to that?
Mr Leadston: No. Obviously there are films or videos that spark, I'm sure, in your mind, very little visual interest.
Mr Ayoub: Agreed.
Mr Leadston: Do you fast-forward them?
Mr Ayoub: You have to understand, sir, I have not been a member of the Ontario Film Review Board. I'm an intended member. I have talked to other people and they have said, to be quite honest, when you get into some of the -- how can I put it? -- more esoteric kinds of movies -- for instance, you have to watch Indian movies, you have to watch Chinese movies, you have to watch everything. There are approximately 3,000 movies that are watched in one year, and there's a heavy backlog. As I understand it, sometimes yes, there is fast-forwarding, but that only occurs if, let's say, there is a restricted element that is already at the beginning of the film. Well, you know that's already restricted. "Can we fast-forward to something else?"
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I do that too, though.
Mr Ayoub: You do that too.
Mr Ford: Is the Ontario Film Review Board empowered to censor films or does that have to be done by the courts?
Mr Ayoub: The Ontario Film Review Board is there to classify and approve. I would hate to say that it also has the right to censor, but it does, and the way that it does is that it can refuse to approve a film. That could be considered censorship. Personally, I am against child pornography. If there's anything to do with child pornography, that, to me, should be censored. In all honesty, I am not for censorship as a whole, but there are examples where something should be censored or -- let's use the word "approved" -- not approved. In that sense, if we don't approve it, we are censoring it.
1120
Mr Ford: But if there's conflict there, does it go before the judiciary to decide?
Mr Ayoub: What happens in this particular case, as I understand it, is that if there is a disagreement, the distributor who has presented the film for the review board to look at can make an appeal. Say that the film review board says, "I'm sorry, we are classifying this movie as not suitable for a certain audience" -- let's say that they want to have an AA rating and it's given a restricted rating, as an example. They can have an appeal, and the appeal is usually done by another group from within the Ontario Film Review Board who look at this film and then make a decision. If the distributor feels that group has still made the same decision, they can make an appeal. That's basically what it comes to, and then if they want to take it to court, let them take it to court.
Mr Ford: Do all films have to go before the review board?
Mr Ayoub: All films should go before the Ontario Film Review Board because they have to be categorized, and also without the approval of the Ontario Film Review Board they are not supposed to be shown whether in video shops or in theatrical release.
Mr Ford: But some of them do get through.
Mr Ayoub: There are a lot that do get through, as you have probably read, and that's the underground and that's where the police come in, and they have been raiding and stopping it. As you know, you've read in the paper, for instance, there was the whole -- is there anybody here from London? Yes, there is. There was a major seizure in London of child pornography films. There's no denying that it goes on, but we want to stop it. That's where the three of us have to work hand in hand: the Ontario Film Review Board, the police and the courts.
Mr Ford: That's good. A good response.
Mr Fox: How can the Ontario Film Review Board protect Ontarians by ensuring the films reflect current community standards?
Mr Ayoub: Good point. This is always a contentious issue. For instance, there is a statement that is put out. First of all, there are different people on this committee from different professions, from different walks of life, a broad spectrum from across the province. They're not just from Toronto, they are from all different parts of the province. They have wide and diverse professions. They form that core of 25 to 30 people that I mentioned to you. That's number one.
Secondly, the Ontario Film Review Board is open to any group that wants to come and view what we do when we are watching a film and how we rate them. So the public can do that; it is open.
The third way is that the Ontario Film Review Board also is told to go out within the community and to speak to public groups about what we are about and about what we do.
The fourth element is to get feedback from those different groups and to be quite aware of what is happening within the media, what is happening within the community at large, and also, and this is most important, not only to bring my own feelings of what I think is right or wrong, but what I feel my community feels is right or wrong and what can be tolerated for the community as a whole. Consequently, I think it's very important. Does that answer your question?
Mr Fox: Very well.
The Chair: That's the 10 minutes. We move to the official opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: You know, Michael, in answer to an earlier question of Mr Kormos, I must tell you, as the Liberal arts and culture critic, it is refreshing to see a Tory who really does have a genuine concern about the cuts that are taking place to the film industry, but that's only an aside. That honesty obviously comes from your early upbringing in Timmins. Truly, in the north we know the importance of telling the truth at all times.
Let me follow up on two points because I think they're of concern to the public at large, and that's with regard to the licensing and the whole procedure with regard to videos: the display of videos, the processing of videos etc. You have enormous experience, there's no question about that. How could that segment of the review board be strengthened?
Mr Ayoub: They are doing more, and there is still more to be done. I think the way to strengthen that is, for instance -- I said I had four children. I like the idea of somebody telling me personally that not only is this a restricted movie but there is a warning attached to it that it has very explicit sex or the fact that it has undue violence. I think more of that has to be incorporated, especially with the videotapes. As I understand it, the Ontario Film Review Board wants to do that. I'm all in favour of it.
If you will notice on TV, for instance, you now have a so-called V-chip. It's happening that when you watch something on television, a "V" will come in and say, "Hey, this is a violent movie." I think the more of that the better. The thing is that we have to come to a consensus with the Ontario Film Review Board, which is important, and we have to inform and we have to educate. The more that is done the better it will be. Does that answer your question?
Mr Bartolucci: Yes, it does, Michael. Thank you very much. I was also very impressed with your answer to Mr Fox with regard to community standards. That's very, very important. That's such a hard thing to define on an ongoing basis.
Mr Ayoub: It is.
Mr Bartolucci: That's, I believe, a challenge that you will face as a board member and that certainly the board faces.
Talking about that, when I was involved with the police services boards at the Ontario, Canadian and in fact international conferences I attended, all police chiefs, from whatever jurisdiction we're talking about, were incensed that there seemed to be an undermining in the process of policing because of the board's actions or inactions at times.
Do you feel it's a very, very important part of your mandate to ensure on a rather regular basis -- and I don't mean monthly, but maybe yearly or biyearly -- that you circulate flyers or surveys to police services boards to find out what those community standards are and how they've changed over the course of time? To only have members of the board from a variety of jurisdictions in Ontario may not be enough. I think that's the argument that police services boards have been making over the course of the last several years. Do you agree with that?
Mr Ayoub: I can see the dichotomy that is there. For instance, as I stated earlier, the Ontario Film Review Board abides by court decisions. We are not there to censor; we are there, again I emphasize, to categorize and to inform. The police have their own agenda. For instance, they have to, as I mentioned earlier, go after the child pornographers. One of the articles I recently read said that's all they're doing. There are so many child pornography films out there that that's keeping them on full-time.
So, in terms of liaison, yes. I'm not sure, to be honest with you, whether or not there is the kind of information that you've mentioned already ongoing. I apologize for not knowing that. It may be; if it is not, definitely it should be done. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. We should be dealing with all aspects of society, and the police definitely are part of that.
Mr Bartolucci: Good luck, and thank you for your frankness.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It's tied into community standards, I guess, but I'm curious about aspects of violence as opposed to even, and as comparing it to, sexually explicit material. I think a lot of people would argue and say that indeed for some reason it appears to people that violence condoned on the screen is more than sexually explicit activity. We've all seen statistics on children over the years in terms of seeing more murders and more violence on television, let alone on films.
1130
Do you agree that there seems to be a different standard of what is accepted and considered acceptable in terms of violence, and do you have a standard? Is there in any way a list that says, "We only allow so many violent acts in a film," or a definition of what is truly violent? Is it gore? It's quite true that one can certainly go to a film and see hundreds of people in quite a macabre way being murdered or certainly hurt and that somehow is a film that you can bring your 14-year-old to, whereas another film that perhaps would be described by some people as being a very loving film would be restricted.
Mr Ayoub: You have three questions there, so if I can start with the first one, yes, there is more violence. There is also a tendency, because society has changed since the -- well, I will use the infamous Mary Brown days. Society accepts more violence on the whole. We've become more conditioned to it.
The second question, yes, there is a list of violence and how it can be condoned: what is not condoned and what becomes restricted, what becomes adult accompaniment and what becomes parental guidance. These are all written out. There are guidelines that we have to follow. That's the answer to your second question.
The third question is, you also run into something -- and I'll use the example of Schindler's List, which I think has been used in the past. There was an awful lot of violence in Schindler's List, but Schindler's List was a great movie. It was also an artistic movie, and it was something that could educate and inform. The board in its wisdom, I believe, decided not to make that movie restricted, decided to make that movie AA, adult accompaniment, and I go along with that wholeheartedly.
What you have to look at is the art itself. What is the artist or the filmmaker trying to do? Is he just trying to exploit or is he trying to create a vision? You have to look at the whole film in its entirety to make that decision.
Mr Gravelle: Absolutely. I guess I'm thinking in terms of the whole question of what is artistic.
Mr Ayoub: That's right.
Mr Gravelle: Obviously people in a personal sense vary their opinions very quickly. But one looks at films -- and I guess I shouldn't probably simply name a particular performer, but when you think about it, a Sylvester Stallone film like Assassins or whatever --
Mr Ayoub: It's going to be an action thriller.
Mr Gravelle: Is there a sense developing, do you think, in terms of the board too, that people view certain films which would be considered violent in terms of the carnage as having a cartoonish quality in them, and therefore there's a sense that this isn't real violence? It's a subject that we can talk about forever, of course, but it is a concern to a lot of people, certainly in my riding as well. They'll take their children to a film and be quite shocked to find out that it was more violent, and what is considered to be cartoonish by some, certainly isn't considered cartoonish by others.
Mr Ayoub: That's where, as I mentioned earlier, maybe what we have to do is put more warnings. If we not only say this is restricted but we add the warning, "Extreme violence," then a parent can make that decision. But it's not up to us to make the decision whether or not the parent takes the child to see it.
Mr Gravelle: I certainly think that parents use the classification system in a very real way.
Mr Ayoub: Yes, and I think they should.
Mr Gravelle: I'm very involved with the film society in Thunder Bay and I certainly know people have been critical of us at times, because we weren't clear enough in letting them know what this film was about. We tend to think we bring in high-quality artistic films, but I think people are critical. "Gee, we didn't know enough about the film. I wish you'd given us more of a warning." I'm very sensitive to that as well, because people really do, I think, look at the classification system and look at the detail to make a decision of whether they would want to go themselves, let alone bring their children to it.
Mr Ayoub: I agree.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gravelle. Mr Kormos, there's one minute left on your time.
Mr Kormos: As a result of what has been discussed, I think everybody's view is that we rely on artists to sort of push the envelope, to provide leadership. I recall, for instance, the incredible uproar over Robert Mapplethorpe, the photographer in the United States. Helms and the wackos were again --
Mr Ayoub: The homosexual element.
Mr Kormos: That's right. Mind you, Mapplethorpe became very popular after Helms, but most recently in Toronto there was the young artist -- I can't remember his name but his lawyer was Frank Addario -- acquitted as a result of a series of paintings now on display in London, Ontario, which were perceived by some, and certainly by the police, as child pornography because they appeared, not inappropriately, to portray incestuous and paedophiliac relationships.
How do you respond to the right and the need of an artist to push the envelope, but at the same time recognize -- because we're not talking here about those fuzzy 8-millimetre porno flicks. We're talking about quality art --
Mr Ayoub: No, I understand what you're saying.
Mr Kormos: -- and we're talking about artists who are trying to shock, provoke, confront, but none the less, say something. How do you reconcile that, especially in your role?
Mr Ayoub: I think you reconcile it the same way I mentioned to you about Schindler's List. You look at the overall artistic merit and you also look at the overall vision of what the artist is trying to do, and if it becomes something that you think is gratuitous, if it is something you think is there strictly for a sell, if it is something there to shock -- now an artist may want to shock you. That may be part of that artist's vision, but as I'm saying, that has to be discussed and there is not only myself, if I'm appointed, but there will be two other members on that board who are viewing it with me and at the same time there is a chairman and decisions will be made.
There's no doubt that arguments will be done on that. At the same time, you just have to watch, you have to -- it's very difficult, Peter, and it's difficult for society, it's difficult for the community as a whole to make a decision. No matter what you do, you're in a catch-22.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. We are out of time. Mr Ayoub, thank you very much. You've been very helpful to the committee. I think I reflect the views of the committee when I say that. You've been most helpful, so thank you very much.
That completes the review of the three intended appointments for this morning. Now we can move on to the concurrences.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Jim Yocom.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? None. Done.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Daniel W. Callaghan.
Mr Kormos: As the committee noted there was unanimous, I believe, effectively, voice vote support for the appointment of Mr Yocom, and I should tell you now I would enthusiastically support the appointment of Mr Ayoub to the Ontario Film Review Board.
Look at what we've got here. We've got a person who's prepared to serve on that board, who came here not only with a wealth of background, but meticulously prepared, both I presume for the purpose of responding to the committee, but also in preparation for the sort of tasks that in this case he is going to have to perform on the Ontario Film Review Board, familiarity with the Butler decision, indeed an important decision and one that has significant impact on the OFRB, a person who has clearly something that goes far beyond interest, but a philosophical understanding of the tensions, of the contradictions, of the difficulties, yes, of the great difficulty that the OFRB increasingly is going to have reconciling the right of artists, for instance, the right of the community to watch what it wants to watch with the need --
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it moves to --
Mr Kormos: I know what we're getting to, Chair.
Mr Callaghan, okay? These aren't always brief, but they're always relevant. I want to make some contrasts here. I want to explain why I'm saying what I'm going to say about the subject matter of the motion currently on the floor. Once again, Mr Ayoub illustrates the ideal type of appointment. He illustrates it not only with his background but with his manner before this committee, albeit in a brief period of time.
1140
Now, Mr Callaghan -- wow. What have we got here? A perfectly nice person. There's nothing to suggest that Mr Callaghan is less than a good member of the community and a good parent to his children and an all-round kind of nice guy, but we're proposing to appoint to the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario, with council meeting approximately two days a month, according to the information I have, being paid per diems of $150, but a very important role. Notwithstanding that this isn't a high-profile, or hasn't been a high-profile council, no less important than the appointment to any other board, agency or commission, indeed more so because of the genesis of the movement for midwifery here in Ontario back two decades-plus ago.
I have no doubt Mr Callaghan meant everything he said. That's what troubles me even more, because he had so little to say. He didn't have any comprehension of the contrast and conflict between the medical model of birthing and the midwifery model of birthing and care during gestation and post-natal care. That seems to me to be crucial, essential, to understand that it's not just a difference of deciding whether you, a woman giving birth, want an MD to participate in your birthgiving or a midwife, because as was pointed out by Mr Johnson, there are a whole lot of MDs who may well be midwives at least from the College of Physicians and Surgeons' perspective.
The fact is there's a history here. There are profound philosophical differences between the two roles. The midwifery movement has identified very clearly some very specific concerns about the medical model of birthing. Unfortunately, Mr Callaghan shows neither an awareness of these difference nor, quite frankly, an interest in these differences.
Here we are once again. There are limited appointments to the council of the College of Midwives. I'll tell you what my impression is. We had to administer Novocain, but finally enough drilling and we got there. It seems that Mr Callaghan wrote: "I want to be appointed to anything, preferably in the health care field. Just get me an appointment." He first because aware of the council of the College of Midwives when it was suggested to him that there might be an opening there. I've got a feeling that somebody had to scramble to find Mr Callaghan an appointment somewhere. So be it, but the fact remains that unfortunately I've got a suspicion that there's a whole lot of people in this province far better qualified to serve on that particular council.
Please, we don't appoint people just because there happens to be a vacancy and they happen to be on some sort of short list. We should be appointing people who demonstrate an interest and a passion, as Mr Yocom did earlier today, as Mr Ayoub did a few moments ago. Mr Callaghan lacks that. I'm not being critical of Mr Callaghan, but I certainly cannot support, in the interests of the important role that this college, this council has to perform -- I think it would be delinquent. It would be irresponsible. It would be an affront to the progress that's been made in the recognition of midwifery to appoint Mr Callaghan to that council. This is an ill-thought-out proposition or nomination. There's something here that one can't quite get a handle on as to how Mr Callaghan comes before this committee for this particular appointment to this particular council.
Please, I exhort the members of the committee to not approve Mr Callaghan. I'm sure there's someplace, somewhere where his role as a manager of small community trust companies and as a car salesman is going to be relevant. As a matter of fact, within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for instance, there are areas that deal with regulation of car dealers and car salespeople where both Mr Callaghan's financial background and his role in the automobile retail industry will be relevant, but not the council of the College of Midwives of Ontario.
Women have fought for this for decades in this province and fought some fierce battles in the face of a very powerful, wealthy and influential opposition by the medical profession, and for reasons that Mr Callaghan couldn't understand, it would be an affront to those women to appoint Mr Callaghan to this council.
The Chair: Mr Kormos has hinted that he may not support the appointment of Mr Callaghan. Any other comments?
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not going to be supporting the appointment as well, but let me tell you why. I believe the process is flawed anyway right from the very beginning, the way these types of things happen. Whether on purpose or by accident, we don't receive all the information or we receive answers that are less than frank. Nowhere is it pointed out that Mr Callaghan is the former Tory candidate in the June election, and a defeated candidate. He never mentioned that in his desire to serve. It wasn't in his résumé. He certainly wasn't frank in his answers as to what the process was.
I have to tell you that I don't mind supporting people like Mr Ayoub or Mr Yocom because they are truly dedicated, qualified and will serve and make a positive contribution. I have a great deal of difficulty supporting a person who is less than frank, because if he's being less than frank with us, I believe the role he's about to serve is important and it deserves the opportunity for the board to be a very functional, proper board if everyone is very frank on it.
I agree in large part with what Mr Kormos said. Clearly, this candidate isn't qualified for the position, nor in my own opinion does he carry this intense interest in making a difference to health care as he suggested earlier.
For that and many other reasons, I will not be supporting Mr Callaghan.
Mr Crozier: I too will not be supporting Mr Callaghan's proposed appointment. I agree with what has been said by my colleagues, and only to add to that, I am very suspect of someone who, I think in this case, was simply misleading, for no other reason than that it says so right in the public secretariat's information, "an expressed interest in serving on the council." I asked him that question directly. He said in the affirmative that he was, and I believe at the outset that he was simply approached so that he could get a job somewhere in the province.
It's really getting a little sickening. I understand how the system works, but when what I assume will be support by your side this morning to an application like this, and then -- maybe the assumption's wrong and I hope it is -- purely because this person was, as Mr Kormos has often said, a Tory hack -- for example, in my own riding three defeated Tory candidates now have provincial appointments. I'm curious when the other two are going to come along. It's going to be interesting.
You know, folks, it does get a little sickening, and it's even worse when, as has been pointed out, there must be a number of people in this province who are far more qualified for this position.
The Chair: I have Mr Kormos and then Mr Wood.
1150
Mr Bob Wood: I'm going to ask for a deferral for a week, so if Mr Kormos still wants to speak, he's welcome to.
Mr Kormos: Please, I feel compelled to, Chair.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. I must admit that I'm somewhat shocked by the revelation by Mr Bartolucci as to Mr Callaghan having been a Tory candidate, an unsuccessful Tory candidate. Let's face it, if you were an unsuccessful Tory candidate in this last election, you really were at the bottom of the barrel. They ran dogs who got elected and here's Mr Callaghan, who in this massive Tory sweep couldn't manage to acquire the support of his community. Wow. Blows my mind.
This is shocking because Mr Callaghan made his pitch about, "Ontario has been very good to me and I want to give something back." I suspect that was part of the pitch he made to the people in his riding during the course of May 1995. They didn't believe him and I quite frankly now am not prepared to be quite as benign about my comments to Mr Callaghan.
I inquired about the Rotary Club and the Cobden Civitan Club and he indicates these are ways in which he wants to give back to the community, huh, Chair? He wants to give something back for all that he's received from this great province. He omitted to mention that he was offering himself up in May 1995 in anticipation of the June voting day. One has to come to the irresistible conclusion, one can only draw one inference from his omission. After he attempted to pad his record of public service now that he's an unemployed car salesman, that he didn't mention his candidacy to me is an omission that amounts to an outright lie. The man clearly lacks integrity, lacks honesty and I am not prepared to stand by what I said earlier.
As I say, the revelation that he was a Tory candidate in the last election, that he failed to divulge that, in my view one can assume safely and one can infer that there's a whole lot more that hasn't been divulged here as well, including the process whereby he was prevailed upon to apply for a board, agency, or commission, the fact that here's a few hundred bucks a month for somebody who hasn't got a job and appears not to have acquired one since April 1995, appreciating of course that in this Tory Ontario, as more and more jobs disappear -- indeed, the Lincoln County Board of Education and the Niagara South Board of Education last night announced, in Niagara South's case, that junior kindergarten was cancelled and that in excess of 200 teachers were being laid off in Niagara South. In fact, this government has created 500 new jobless in Ontario as of yesterday down in Niagara region, in addition to the thousands across the rest of the province, including hundreds in the Bancroft area, as a result of a fax I received yesterday.
In any event, that's not the point, is it? That's a different debate. This clown couldn't get the support of his community in the midst of an almost unprecedented Tory sweep. This guy lied to the committee by failing to mention that, notwithstanding a number of opportunities. This guy's playing fast and loose. He's an embarrassment to the people who put his name forward and I, once again, have even less confidence in his ability to serve in this very sensitive role in terms of regulating the role of midwifery. I tell you, the women who fought for midwifery as a professional status in this province are going to be outraged if they discover that this hack was bumped into a position so important to women and so hard fought for. Obviously, I haven't changed my mind about not supporting his nomination.
The Chair: Members, of course, will have their own views. The Chair is uneasy about some of the words. I think you could make an argument about sins of omission, if you will, from the intended appointee. I don't know about "lie." That bothers me, because I didn't detect one in his presentation. However, people will have their own views.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think there's the slightest scintilla of evidence that this man lied to anybody. I think it's quite unfortunate that some of the members suggest that without any supporting evidence whatever. However, I would ask, pursuant to the standing order, that this consideration be deferred one week.
The Chair: A motion has been put that the --
Mr Bob Wood: I don't think it's a motion, sir. I think I'm entitled to that under the standing order.
The Chair: Okay. You could be right. So you wish this deferred until next week to discuss it during the concurrences at that point.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, just a clarification --
Mr Preston: Bob, wait a second, you're number two after me.
Mr Crozier: The Chair hasn't recognized anybody, but I'm willing.
Mr Preston: Regarding this omission, with the type of vitriolic effluvia visited upon some people who come here by my friend across the floor, I would probably try to hide my allegiance to anybody except for his particular party, because if you're of any particular party but his, you're subjected to what I said: vitriolic effluvia. I don't think that's necessary here, even though the person has gone. I think we were saying something about respect, and you're quite right when you say that we don't call a person a liar. He may have omitted something.
The Chair: Before we get any further down this road, Mr Wood's suggestion is correct. This appointment will be deferred for seven days, which is in the orders. You're quite right, Mr Wood. We won't deal with Mr Callaghan's appointment until a week from today. I don't think it makes sense then to debate any further Mr Callaghan's appointment since we'll be dealing with it next week. So we'll put that behind us.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chairman --
The Chair: On another matter?
Mr Kormos: In response to Mr Preston, I think it was Wittgenstein who said, "Whereof one does not know, thereof one should remain silent." Mr Preston should have remained silent in this regard. Mr Preston should recall that there were any number of obvious Conservative Party members and supporters who appeared before this committee whose nomination was enthusiastically supported, not only by myself but other members of this caucus and indeed the opposition. When Paul Godfrey was here, for instance, it was trite to ask him whether he was a Tory. It was irrelevant. Clearly Mr Godfrey, along with a whole lot of other people, was an overwhelmingly competent appointment. There's no two ways about it.
There have been incredibly competent Conservatives as well as non-Conservatives who have gone through this board. At the same time, there have been some incredibly incompetent nominees before this board, and I tell you in this instance we're witnessing one and we're witnessing one who smacks of old-fashioned political patronage. No room for that in this Ontario, sir.
The Chair: And deal with that in the concurrence debate a week from today.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, on a point of order: You've ruled that Mr Wood can defer this for a week. Can you tell me what paragraph it was?
The Chair: If I'm reading it correctly --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. There's been a request for the rule to be read.
"The committee shall determine whether or not it concurs in an intended appointment at the conclusion of the meeting" -- which is now -- "held to review the appointment unless any member requests that the committee defer its determination for up to seven calendar days to a future meeting of the committee. In its report, the committee shall state whether or not it concurs in the intended appointment and may state its reasons therefor."
Mr Crozier: My point is then, and I was trying to determine that we're all equal on this committee, that should any other appointee come before us -- I simply wasn't aware of this -- I then can simply have it deferred for a week.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Crozier: Good. I just wanted to clarify it.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move concurrence in the intended appointment of Michael Ayoub.
The Chair: It's been moved for Mr Ayoub. All in favour? Opposed? None. That's done. Confirmed.
1200
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: We now should deal with the subcommittee report, the meeting which was held yesterday.
Mr Bob Wood: I would like to move adoption of the report of the subcommittee. I think in paragraph 2 the report is not perfect. I intend to move an amendment to paragraph 2.
I'd like first to move adoption of the report of the subcommittee, and I'd then like to move that paragraph 2 be amended to read, after "for concurrence," "for three appointments will be limited to 10 minutes per party total," which is I think what happened yesterday.
The Chair: Sorry, can you do that again?
Mr Bob Wood: I think how it should read, we should get rid of "will be split evenly between the parties," although that's true, and we should add "for three appointments will be limited to 10 minutes per party total," which is what I think was agreed upon yesterday at the subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay, so each party would be given 10 minutes to debate the concurrences of each intended appointee.
Mr Bob Wood: No, of all three.
The Chair: Ten minutes for all three.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. So each party has 10 minutes to deal with all three, divided as they wish. That was my understanding of what the subcommittee agreed upon.
The Chair: I think that is correct. The total was 10 minutes, you're right.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes.
The Chair: Do we have debate on this?
Mr Kormos: This is an interesting little bit of closure in anticipation, obviously, of yet more and even more repugnant nominees for appointment to various boards, agencies and commissions. Clearly, this government has no intention of attaching any importance or meaning to this particular committee's work. Clearly as well, the government has a majority, a strong majority of membership on this board. It's interesting that they've all been whipped into shape. They're being good little campers, why the little perks -- you know what's remarkable, Chair? It's that Monday the bill which basically prevented the termination of social contract recovery for MPPs' wages was passed first, second and third reading, as it should have been, but passed all in one day without any debate.
I know that all three House leaders agreed to that, but boy oh boy, Chair, you don't know how I wanted an opportunity to speak during the course of that bill, indicating that I was going to support it, no two ways about it -- not that I supported the social contract, mind you. As you know, I voted against the social contract. But the fact is that MPPs don't have a collective bargaining agreement, so in that instance, in the case of MPPs, it wasn't a matter of violating the collective bargaining agreement. You don't know how I wanted to speak to that agreement.
Mr Ford: Why didn't you speak if you wanted to speak?
Mr Kormos: I would have loved to point out the window-dressing nature of it. Of course Mr Harris, the Premier, the revolutionary, was in the paper saying, "Harris government quashes 5%-plus so-called raise." Fair enough. But what we didn't get a chance to talk about was the porcine troughing that's going on in this Tory caucus among the government members.
Mr Preston: Peter, who are you trying to impress? We're all here.
Mr Kormos: It's going to take a while if I keep getting interrupted, Chair. So here we are, because what we've really got to talk about is the fact that these government members talk a big game. Here they are, they want to be seen as the proverbial Taxfighters. You saw what they did, Chair. They beat up on poor folk. They did the big cut to welfare.
Mr Preston: We can't take any more.
Mr Kormos: Here we go. Every time that interruption happens, I lose my train of thought and we feel compelled, almost, to back up and start at some point where I had been earlier. So bear with me, Chair, because this might take a little longer than it would have under other circumstances.
So here we are. The Tories want to talk a big game -- right? -- about fiscal conservativeness, fiscal savings, I suppose on the matter of --
Mr Leadston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm not sure where the honourable member is going and I'm not sure whether he knows where he's going with his --
Interjection: Rambling.
Mr Leadston: -- comments, but are we not here to deal with Mr Wood's motion in terms of the time allotment?
The Vice-Chair (Mr Tony Martin): We're dealing with the amendment that Mr Wood made to the report of the subcommittee and Mr Kormos is speaking to that.
Mr Leadston: Forgive me in my ignorance, but in terms of clarification, we're all reasonable men and women, and I think in the interests of productivity and time -- and I'm sure the other members here would concur -- isn't it more appropriate to stick to the issues instead of going off on a tangent? Is this normal practice for certain members?
The Vice-Chair: I would ask Mr Kormos to please speak to the amendment.
Mr Kormos: Of course, and it's specifically this closure, this gag order that I am speaking to. One has to bear with me for a couple of seconds while I flesh out, lay out the foundation of my position, the argument that I propose to make against this amendment to the report of the subcommittee dated Tuesday, March 26, 1996, the one that in paragraph 2 -- I'll not read paragraph 1 of it because of course paragraph 1 isn't germane to the discussion about the amendment, but the one that says in paragraph 2, "It was agreed that the time for the motions for concurrence will be split evenly between the parties," and then an amendment is moved which -- because, you see, one of the problems is that the amendment clearly wasn't the result of any sort of agreement among subcommittee members.
I think the agreement among subcommittee members was accurately stated in the subcommittee report, and the fact is that now avoiding, going beyond or basically detouring around the subcommittee, Mr Bob Wood, MPP, tries to unilaterally change the consensus that might have been agreed upon by the subcommittee.
Mr Preston: The Chair said that was his recollection.
Mr Kormos: So I put to you, Chair, that we have to talk here in the context of what this type of gag order means -- entirely inappropriate. Because what we're talking about is the government clearly doesn't want certain things to be spoken about. The government wants to effectively cut this committee off at the knees and turn it into nothing more than a rubber stamp, which gets back to why I said I wanted to -- and again, I respected the agreement of the House leaders that there was going to be agreement that the bill proceed one, two, three on Monday, because once again obviously all of us -- I believe all of us -- in the New Democratic Party would have supported the bill. But, see, what we had a chance to talk about during the course of the debate about that bill was the fact that these guys, the Tories, talk a big game but they don't deliver, huh? Because these guys are troughing in a way that if the public knew, all hell would break lose.
Take a look at what's going on. Take a look. And I appreciate there are some members of each of the other two parties who have similar positions and roles, but take a look at the large number of Tory members who are, firstly, PAs. Bingo. Jackpot. There's another one, two, three, four, five-digit supplement to your base income. Chairs, bingo. Vice-Chairs, bingo. You won again, huh? Those per diems that these nasty, greedy, little people persist in taking when the committee like this and others are sitting in between House sittings where these guys are grabbing $103 a day tax-free. Bingo, bingo. It's like three lemons showing up on the VLTs that this government's going to start putting in every little corner store, tavern, beer joint in the province of Ontario so that the poor folks of this province can line up with their nickels, dimes, quarters and finance, obviously, the perks that these guys are on to.
The real question to be asked -- I want to take a look at some of the corporate credit card accounts in some of these ministries, including the Premier's offices. What's that, the hotel up there on Bloor Street West, you know, the one west of the Park Plaza? What the heck's the name of that?
1210
The Chair: The Inter-Continental.
Mr Kormos: The Inter-Continental. I'm told. Far be it from me to state this as truth, but I'm told that there are more than a few Tories who gather there on a pretty regular basis, hogging down, chowing down --
Mr Preston: Point of order: While you were out, the Chairman directed Mr Kormos to stick to the subject. He's about as far off the subject as that hotel is.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: We are debating the motion, just so that it's clear, of Mr Wood on the subcommittee report that would restrict the debate for each party to 10 minutes on the concurrences.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair, of course -- which is precisely what I'm speaking to, because obviously, a 10-minute restriction on any discussion as a result of a motion of concurrence, and as I understand it -- mind you, as I say, I'm not privy to those posh breakfasts up at the Inter-Continental on Bloor Street West. That's out in sort of the Holt Renfrew district, you know -- what's his name, the clothier, Dylex -- no, Dylex is trying to unload. What's that fellow's name with the --
The Chair: Harry Rosen.
Mr Kormos: Harry Rosen. Harry Rosen up there. Thank you kindly. That's sort of up there in Harry Rosen turf. Those are pretty classy digs, pretty classy digs, and for taxfighters to be chowing down on taxpayer-paid credit cards really contradicts the type of image these people would want to put forward. For this government to want to talk about this committee or, quite frankly, any other of having any real relevance when it tries to impose a 10-minute limitation on discussion -- once again, as I understand it, and I'm sure somebody is going to stand up on a point of something and interrupt me, and I hope they don't because, again, as I told you, Chair, I lose my train of thought when that happens. But, as I understand it, the 10-minute allotment is maximum 10 minutes for concurrence on one, two, three subject matters of a motion for concurrence. Can you believe that, Chair? Can you believe that?
Not only were the jackboots marching out there, outside of Frost and Whitney, when Harris's police were beating the hell out of lawfully and rightly acting people out there exercising their democratic right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under longstanding labour relations legislation -- mind you, of course, this government has little regard for labour relations legislation. Look what they did with Bill 7 and the repeal of Bill 40 and their total disregard for the rights of working people to freely and collectively bargain. I understand that, because what we are talking about is the muzzling of the community.
The reason I make reference to jackboots, of course, is because the jackboots not only were marching out there outside the Frost and Whitney blocks, but they seemed to be marching in here too, because there's more than one way to effect violence and to put democracy under attack. Violence was effected in a very brutal and physical way, and democracy was put under attack when those neo storm troopers beat up on people conducting themselves lawfully and peacefully. It was the Tories who literally stumbled -- huh? -- stumbled over the fallen, unconscious body of one of the victims of that violence.
The Chair: Let's get back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: Wait, because I'm talking about the violence and the attack on democracy --
Mr Preston: The motion is to prevent this verbal diarrhea.
Mr Kormos: -- that's inherent in the sort of amendment, the sort of motion being put forward now by Mr Wood, because it doesn't have to be done with billy sticks, it doesn't have to be done by bloodying people up. You can also attack democracy by shutting down the voices, by imposing closure on the members of a committee.
This committee's job is incredibly important. Clearly, the government doesn't regard it as such; clearly the government sees this committee as merely something they can showcase -- they're sometimes very good appointments. Let's face it, there have been some very good appointments come through here, not all of them Tories, but more than a few of them Tories, no two ways about it.
At the same time -- you know what? You weren't here, Chair. This really is relevant, because this demonstrates the power and the need and the appropriateness of having an unfettered period of debate over the issue of concurrence. One of the first people these guys, the Tories, brought through this committee withdrew his application for the position after he had appeared in front of the committee. You weren't able to be here, but Mr Martin was here and this guy actually withdrew his application for the position after the committee was done with him. That meant the committee performed an important function. The committee clearly -- I suppose some people maybe scared the guy off, but rightly so, in the same way that you wouldn't want skunks rooting through your garbage in your back yard for fear the dog's going to get sprayed down and you'd want to scare him off by making some loud noises on the back porch.
Again, a mere 10 minutes for three caucuses -- because we're not just talking about three caucuses. Every member of this committee has and should have a right to speak to any given motion to concur with the appointment of the nomination of a person appearing in front of this committee. There's Bob Wood, MPP, there's Julia Munro, MPP, there's Gary Fox, MPP, there's Gary L. Leadston, MPP, there's Peter Preston, there's Mr Ford, MPP, and then there are two more Tory MPPs -- that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- that's eight people there. Then there are three Liberal members, Mr Crozier, Mr Bartolucci and Mr Gravelle -- we're up to 11 members. Then there's Mr Martin and myself. That comes to 13 members. What that means is that among 13 members, this government purports to use its majority -- and one of the most important and something these Tories have never understood from June onwards -- we're talking about that 10-minute restriction on time frames, you know that, Chair, you know exactly what I'm talking about, I know you do.
The Chair: I'm trying to hang in there with you.
Mr Kormos: God bless you, Chair. Look, we've got a majority of Conservatives, that's acknowledged. There's eight of them, and only five members representing the two opposition parties. That means that at the end of the day, the Tories -- because these guys are whipped, you know that. They wouldn't say merde if their mouth was full, it would be impossible for them, unless of course they were given their marching orders to say so. The fact is they're going vote the way they're told even if they were faced with the most repugnant set of circumstances. The question is, why would they want to restrict discussion on a motion for concurrence to a mere 10 minutes? Think about it: Thirteen members, all of whom not only have a right but a responsibility to indicate to this committee why they -- especially in the case of non-support.
Over the course of the last several months I've oftentimes not only apologized to people appearing here but been critical of our process where people who are eminently good appointments are being compelled to be brought before this committee. The committee shouldn't be here to pat people on the back, not that there's anything wrong with patting people on the back, but because we are talking about restricting to a mere 10 minutes of time, the committee should be here to screen out inappropriate appointments. You know that was the rationale for the creation of this committee: to subject nominees to some modest scrutiny.
1220
Let's look at the relative time frames. What we've got is a nominee for appointment appearing here for a mere 30 minutes. I appreciate and I don't dispute the proposition that any time that nominee might use in making an opening address comes from the government's time for questioning, but already we have but a maximum of 10 minutes per caucus -- that's a maximum, right? -- to question people appearing before this committee, to make interrogatories, to make inquiries.
Look what happened already today. Wow. Mr Bartolucci obviously has staff who generate information for him -- not "generate," but produce, provide, because "generate" information would imply they made it up. Look what would have happened had there been a mere 10 minutes to discuss concurrence. We would not have had the full revelation, and I suspect we've only begun to scratch the surface about perhaps the raison d'être of Mr Daniel W. Callaghan of Pembroke, Ontario, being here before the committee applying for this position on the council of the College of Midwives. We're speaking to the importance of permitting a reasonable amount of debate and discussion. Look what would have happened. If there had only been 10 minutes today, I've got a feeling there would not have been an opportunity -- that means less than a minute per member, significantly less than a minute per member, to put on the record their reasons for supporting or denying support to a given nominee.
Chair, please, isn't it important that a nominee understand why any given member may or may not have supported him? Isn't that fundamental? Isn't it essential that for a person appearing here, if they haven't been approved, or indeed even if only some members of the committee have not approved their appointment, that the rationale, the reasons, be clearly put on the record? I think it is, Chair. I think this committee owes it to those persons who are appearing before the committee to make it clear why they're being supported or why they're not.
Similarly -- and this is why the period of 10 minutes is far too brief, far too brief -- if it's 10 minutes still to be split equally, look what we've got now: three and a third minutes, a mere three minutes and 20 seconds. In the case of the Liberal caucus, if each one of those people wants to put on the record why they held a particular position with respect to a particular nominee, that means they're restricted to a minute apiece. Until today, I haven't heard any unduly lengthy representations to this committee. I appreciate that today I'm spending more time than -- I can't recall a committee meeting where I've felt compelled to address an issue as thoroughly or as lengthily. Indeed there have been times when I have, yes -- because we're talking about a mere 10 minutes for the committee to address the issue of concurrence, literally three and a third minutes per caucus.
But then think about this: You've got three nominees, right? Think about this, members of the committee. This motion to amend this report of the subcommittee doesn't really mean three and a third minutes per caucus for each nominee. It means one and one ninth minute per caucus for each nominee. Figure it out: one and one ninth, right? Mr Martin knows that, Mr Crozier knows that, and the Chair knows that. It means one and one ninth minute per caucus for each nominee. Please, Chair, that is absurd, that is ridiculous, that makes a mockery of anything and everything this committee purports to do. One and one ninth minute per caucus per nominee. In the case of the Liberals, with one and one ninth minute, we're talking about less than 20 seconds per member of caucus if they want to put on record why they're not supporting a particular nominee. That is ridiculous. That's dumb. It's stupid. It's arrogant. It is an affront against the role of the committee.
Chair, you know that a Chair has a residual power, for instance, to determine that there's been sufficient debate -- not to interrupt somebody who's got the floor as long as they're on the point, certainly not to do that; I know you know that, Chair. But the Chair has a residual power, once the Chair or the Speaker, for instance, understands that there's been sufficient debate, that we've gone around the circle often enough, right? That's one of the things that makes me concerned. I suppose it all depends on the Chair and on the Speaker. I know I've been disturbed by the closure motions that any number of governments have imposed, because there is a power inherent in the Speaker or the Chair to say: "No. We've clearly discussed this matter fully. Any number of people have spoken on it. The matter has been hashed out, dealt with properly. It's time to get down to the brass tacks. We're at the wire. Let's just have the vote." The Chair has the power to do that. You know that.
So we're not talking here about any member of the committee or the committee itself at risk of being, let's say, held hostage by lengthy debate. To boot, this committee can't meet while the House is sitting once the orders of the day start, so this committee has to retire at 1:30, for instance, and then I presume it will. I don't want to in any way usurp the position of the Chair -- far be it from me. And I certainly wouldn't want to criticize the Chair -- again far be it from me or any other member of this committee.
In terms of the amendment being made by virtue of this motion, do you know what I suspect, Chair? I'm going to tell you what I suspect. This is just a suspicion, but if somebody ain't gonna come clean -- I wish these guys would come clean once in a while, say what they really think. I'm inclined to do that. But I wish they'd spit it out. You only get a chance to call a hand every so often so you can see the cards. These guys are the guys who fold rather than show their cards because as often as not they're bluffing. You know that. The emperor has no clothes. They're playing fast and loose with Scarne's -- that's the gambling authority, I think -- rules of order, not Robert's or Bourinot's but Scarne's rules of order.
There you go. Look what they're doing to this committee. I've got a feeling that they're increasingly embarrassed about the pathetic, miserable, unskilled, unqualified little bits of Tory flotsam they've been running through this committee by virtue of appointments to various boards, agencies and commissions. I know you haven't been able to be here, Chair. Mr Martin, I tell you, was outstanding and exemplary, and I certainly hope this caucus sees fit to pick him for a Chair's role at some point. He deserves that much. He has a family and the increased economic burden of living -- but then again, so do you. You've got that increased economic burden of living in the north, which is very different and, although it provides a great lifestyle, has associated with it some economic costs that southerners simply don't have.
In any event, Chair, the motive -- see, we've got to talk about the motive, the motive for wanting to restrict debate to 10 minutes. Although I appreciate that today's discussion here in the committee is lengthier than any discussion has been, so far as I'm aware, since this committee started its sittings after the last election -- I wasn't on this committee last time around. I had been on other committees, you know that, and I had never witnessed a problem, I really hadn't. I had never witnessed a problem of there being anything, let's say, dilatory -- I think that's the word, isn't it, dilatory? -- about the conduct of any given member. I appreciate some may well perceive my comments today to be dilatory, and I want to apologize to anybody who's not going to have his full lunch, as they would have been able to otherwise. You see, they could scurry off, but then we could vote on something and they wouldn't be here and we'd pass it, we'd defeat this motion.
The Chair: Back to the motion.
1230
Mr Kormos: While we're talking about the 10-minute amendment and the motive, it's important to deal with the motive behind this motion. By the way, earlier this morning I was reading one of the press items -- this goes to motive behind this motion -- and somebody, one of the Tories, said the reason the police had to beat on the lawfully organized and gathered OPSEU strikers and their supporters was because if only Liberals and New Democrats got in and the Tories didn't, the Liberals and New Democrats could have passed a motion of no confidence and brought the government down -- mind you, in itself an attractive proposition. Boy, would I love --
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: Yes, sir, to the motion. Would I love to see us go to an election tomorrow. Man, oh, man.
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: You should have heard what the cab driver said on the way over here this morning.
The Chair: The motion won't get us there. Come on.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. We're talking about this 10-minute restriction on debate. What is the motive? As I said, we've had -- you could hear them barking all the way up the hall -- some real dogs run through. Some very qualified people, no two ways about it --
Mr Preston: A point of order, Mr Chairman: The remarks made by the Speaker the other day regarding respect I think directly relate to the comments my friend across the table continually makes about government dogs, about government hacks, about people barking all the way down the hall. I think it's inappropriate, even in committee.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I recall the Speaker's ruling. Do you remember when the Speaker, the other day, ruled "asinine" out of order, Chair?
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: He either misunderstood the word or he misheard it and thought somebody was saying something else.
Anyway, we've got to talk about the motive. I knew I was at that point already, but with the interruption, I've got to back up a little bit.
Wait a minute. Okay, I know where I was now, Chair. We've got to address the motive behind this motion. Here we are, we've got members of this committee all making 42 grand-plus a year, making, what, 13 or 14 grand-plus by way of tax-free stipend, and then you've got the government members making a whole lot more because of the little perks and the troughing, the literal troughing, they engage in. Why wouldn't they want to sit here for a reasonable period of time to discuss a motion for concurrence? Why not? My God, that's the business of this operation, this place, as far more erudite people than I would refer to it.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: That comes from the ex-Clerk Lewis's book, doesn't it, "this place"? Remember ex-Clerk Lewis? You recall, of course, Clerk Lewis. I think he began the tradition of referring to this as "this place."
Why do we have this 10-minute gag rule, this 10-minute closure, on discussions relating to concurrence? I am concerned, Chair. I am very concerned.
Oh, thank goodness. That noise was very distracting. I appreciate the clerk turning off the fan. Thank you.
I am concerned, Chair, that this government isn't interested in hearing people put on the record their reasons for voting for or against a particular nominee. Why wouldn't they be interested? Why wouldn't they want the public to know why a person who is here as a nominee, be it today in the case of Mr Yocom, who is a nominee for appointment to the police services board up in Espanola region -- why wouldn't they want to know why a particular member had a position that might be expressed in three, four, five, six minutes about Mr Yocom?
By the way, I was up near Espanola this past weekend. It had been a long time since I had driven through there. It was back around 1972, the first time I had driven through, because I was working in the mines up in northern BC.
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: We're speaking to the motion, and of course we're concerned about why this committee wouldn't be interested -- least of all Mr Wood, because Mr Wood made the motion. Mr Wood is sort of the whip, or the whipette, the mini-whip for this caucus, I think, because of where he's seated and just because of his demeanour and style. It's he who made the motion, right? It is "he"? Yes, it's "he" who made the motion, not "him." It's not him who made it, it's he who made the motion to restrict total debate.
We're not talking about 10 minutes on a -- look, you know what? I would probably not be addressing this matter if the motion had been to restrict the debate, on any given motion for a concurrence, to 10 minutes for that single motion of concurrence. I appreciate that there's got to be a point of finality, a point where you say enough is enough, where there's some closure. There's a point at which you've said all you can say in any given period of time.
Here we are. For instance, look at what would've happened today, Chair, had there been this -- really, this goes beyond silly. It goes to downright dangerous, frightening in that regard. Look what would've happened today had this motion been in effect, had this rule been -- you see, the other consideration is that this motion could be entirely out of order, right? Think about that, Chair, that this could be entirely out of order.
The standing orders, the rules that govern -- this committee's pretty unique in that regard, isn't it, Chair? Unlike other committees, which don't have their process laid out in the -- is it the standing orders or the Legislative Assembly Act? The standing orders? Yes, of course. It wouldn't be the Legislative Assembly Act. What an oversight on my part. I'm sorry, Chair. Just think, the real question could be -- I'll get back to my arguments against the motion -- that this motion isn't in order.
This is a very unique little committee. It ain't like resources, it ain't like general government, it's not like the regulations committee, which are simply struck, declared to be there. This is the only committee I'm aware of -- well, there could be some passing references to other committees in a more general way, but look how we constantly have to go the standing orders. I'm just reflecting for the briefest of moments on whether this motion's in order, because the standing orders lay out some pretty distinct procedures. They lay out the time frames during which this committee must receive, for instance, lists of given nominees. They lay out the types of material we're required to have and, similarly, that we can't have.
This standing committee seems to have its rules laid out in a pretty full way under the standing orders. The other thing is that I'm not sure any committee has ever established closure, because that's what we're talking about here, isn't it, Chair? We're talking about closure, and the only closure I'm aware of -- and you've been around here much longer than I have. You've been around here a long time, Chair, you've been around here for a millennium.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: No, please, because we're dealing with significant stuff here. The only closure I'm ever aware of being imposed on a committee is the sort of stuff that comes out of the Legislature, right? You know that. To be fair, it happened under the -- heck, I've only been here for eight years and already I'm witnessing my third government. Time sure flies when you're having fun, I suppose. It happened under all three governments. I acknowledge that. I'm not dumping on the Tory government for the mere fact of -- well, no, that's not true. You'll recall I never voted for closure regardless of which government imposed it. What we're talking about here is closure, time allocation, and the only time allocation I've ever seen -- I know Mr Johnson here, who's the Deputy Speaker, is familiar with these rules and processes, and he's had to rule on that sort of stuff.
1240
Mr Bert Johnson: No, I don't know anything about it.
Mr Kormos: Now Mr Johnson says he doesn't know anything about it, but he's the Deputy Speaker. Please, give me a break, Mr Johnson. You can't have it both ways. That's why you're paid the big bucks -- another one of the perks. Did I mention that when I talked about the list of perks, the Deputy Speaker? I know there's one in the NDP caucus, but that's a little bit of grease, a little bit of payola, juice, that makes the system run.
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: The only closure I've seen, the only time allocation that I've seen, has come from the House. We saw it, sadly -- remember Bill 26? Wow. Talk about dogs. That one was rabid. That one was a pit bull. That one should have had the courtesy of being put down. Lord knows we tried, Chair, we tried.
The Chair: Back to the motion.
Mr Kormos: Quite right, Chair. I'm talking about the issue of closure. You'll recall, with respect to the matter of closure, that it was agreed that for Bill 26, we were going to come back for one day in the House -- but no, before that, because I'm talking about the committee now, and the power of a committee, and questioning whether a committee has the capacity to impose that sort of closure.
Chair, you've been here a good 30, 35 years.
The Chair: What?
Mr Kormos: That's what I've been told. It may not have been quite that long, but I suspect it seems that long to you. You've been here longer than any other member of the Legislature, other than perhaps Sean Conway from up Renfrew way, and perhaps Dave Cooke. Cooke, Laughren and Conway are certainly the three longest-serving members of the Legislature, but you've never seen a committee impose its own time allocation. You've seen the House impose time -- oh, that's right, I was talking about Bill 26. We saw it with Bill 26, because as you'll recall, a whole whack of amendments were put forward on Bill 26. What the House did by way of a motion -- because it is by way of a motion in the House -- what the House did was dictate. We saw the tyranny of the majority.
What I'm fearful of here most, in an overriding way, because of this imposition of a 10-minute time allocation, gross, which means in the case of the Liberal caucus a mere 20 seconds for each of the Liberals -- I'm defending their interests here, Chair, I suspect in a very non-partisan way and in a way that's consistent with the best traditions of the Legislature.
I'm also concerned, of course, about the Conservative Party members of this committee. I'm concerned about them being deprived of their right to address a particular -- look, think about this, Chair. This just can't work, because every member of the committee certainly has the right to speak to a motion for concurrence. If, as a result of this motion, the three-person Liberal caucus has but around 22 seconds per member to speak to a given motion, there are almost three times as many Conservatives as there are Liberals, so you've got to divide that by three. We're talking about around seven seconds apiece the Conservatives would have to speak to a motion for concurrence.
Well, I'm prepared to stand up and be counted as being prepared -- look, I disagree with what they say. You know that. As often as not, I disagree with their ideology, but, by God, I'll defend to my death their right to say it. I will not sit here and see these Tory members denied their right to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the nomination of a given appointee. Think about it. If we're down to that time frame, recognizing that that time frame is global for all three motions for concurrence, we're talking about less than six or seven seconds per Tory caucus member to address a particular motion.
Well, they deserve better than that. These people were elected by their constituents. They won more votes than anybody else did in their given riding. Thank goodness, you can't blame the folks in Welland-Thorold for what's happening in Ontario now, or the folks in Nickel Belt or in Sault Ste Marie. Those folks can't be held accountable for the mess Ontario's falling into or, more significantly, for the -- this is an atrocious motion. It's an atrocious proposition.
I know the Chair made a gratuitous comment, but that doesn't imply a negativity, in response to Mr Wood. He said, "Oh, that's not what happened." Remember, when the report of the subcommittee -- because that's what we're speaking to, a motion to amend this report of the subcommittee. When the report was tabled -- I suppose that's the right word; well, at least Ms Manikel distributed it to all the members of the committee -- Mr Wood went: "Oh, that's not what really happened. There was a 10-minute restriction." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the Chair said something to the effect of, "That's the way I recall it." So it seems there was 10 minutes being discussed during the subcommittee meeting.
Now, was that 10 minutes the way Mr Wood would like us to believe? Was that 10 minutes a global 10 minutes for all three; in other words, that the aggregate time of all comments on the whole of motions for concurrence shall not be longer than 10 minutes?
The Chair: If I could just make clear, Mr Kormos, it's 10 minutes for each party on all three concurrences. It wasn't 10 minutes in total, as I recall. It was 10 minutes -- and the amended motion would reflect that -- for each party on all three concurrences.
Mr Kormos: All right. We've got to recalculate some of these numbers, then, for the sake of the argument.
Look where we're at. We've got 10 minutes for each caucus. Fair enough. If we've got 10 minutes for each caucus, we're talking about a maximum of 30 minutes of debate on concurrence, or, if you want to look at it this way, we're talking about a maximum of 10 minutes for a debate on each motion for concurrence, right? I appreciate your direction, because you shed new light on this. I'm not sure we're not even worse off in view of your interpretation, because I heard Mr Wood's head go up and down -- I was watching him -- and this has been helpful. Look, with this 10 minutes, now we're down to a maximum, gross, of 30 minutes for all debate or all discussion. Let's talk about it as discussion. This isn't debate, it's discussion. This committee has a far less partisan tone to it than most committees, because this committee really is more interested in the competence and suitability of a given appointee. Look, we don't take cheap political shots here. No, that's not what this committee is all about. There are other places to fight those partisan wars, not here.
1250
Okay, now that we've been clarified, we'd better make this perfectly clear, because all of us are going to have to vote on this, and I suspect there may well be other people who want to debate this matter as well. We've got an aggregate of 30 minutes. What that means is that a caucus has 10 minutes. Is that fair? If the NDP caucus has 10 minutes and there are only two of us, that's five minutes each, if we were to divide it equally, right? But look, is this fair to the Liberal caucus? They've got three members, and 10 times 60 is 600 seconds, so that's 200 seconds per member. Yet in the NDP caucus, it's 300 seconds per member, literally five minutes apiece.
I know this seems peculiar, but once again I come to the defence of, advocate for my colleagues in the Conservative caucus. There are eight of them, right? Divide that into 600 seconds; that's 75 seconds a member. Is that fair? I say no. I say my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, members of this committee, all of them picking up their little $103 a day, tax-free, for doing their jobs by virtue of sitting on the committee when the House isn't sitting -- boy oh boy, they line up, because that $103 a day, tax-free, sure comes in pretty slick.
These are the guys who want to talk about making sure all income is fairly taxed. I wonder if they tell their constituents what their greedy little fingers have plucked out of the public treasury by virtue of those per diems, $103 a day, tax-free. Lord love a duck. No wonder that consultant's report was able to gross up the average MPP's salary to the tune of -- what? -- $70,000, $80,000, $90,000. Little piggies at the trough, as this government is.
First of all, is it fair that it be done on a basis where -- somebody said all of us are equal. Somebody said that very specifically before we began this particular discussion. Well, obviously we're not. Mr Bob Wood is trying to skewer his own colleagues, and they don't know it. They're being manhandled and mangled in the course of what's happening, yet I suspect they're prepared to nod their little heads and raise their little hands in unison when called upon to vote. They may not even know what they're voting for, because what they're voting to do is to restrict their ability to speak in gross, in toto -- they're prepared to submit to an in toto time restraint on discussion about concurrence.
Look what happens. Let me speak again from the Conservatives' point of view. Mr Bartolucci today, in the case of Mr Callaghan -- notwithstanding that Mr Callaghan's lips were zipped when it came to making any mention of his eagerness to support his community by virtue of being a Tory candidate in June. Far be it for me to suggest that that's why he would've been plucked out of this huge cauldron of letters of application for various positions. So here it was. Mr Bartolucci made the claim that Callaghan was a Tory candidate in June 1995. Ahah. I believe Mr Bartolucci. But look what happens. Mr Callaghan was the second person -- I'm putting this in the context of what 10-minute time restraints mean -- to be discussed.
If we had spent a considerable amount of time, for whatever reason, on the first applicant -- in today's case, we didn't. Mr Yocom was a darned good appointment, and it was nice to meet Mr Yocom. I know he's a friend of Mr Martin's, although I don't think they belong to the same political party, but they're colleagues. Mr Martin referred to him as a mentor. It was kind of neat to see Mr Yocom here because, as I say, I was up in that area on the weekend. The first time in Espanola was in 1972 when I was driving to work in the mines up in northern BC, in the copper mines --
The Chair: The motion?
Mr Kormos: Quite right. I'm speaking about Mr Yocom, because we're using him to illustrate and using today's experience. But the copper mines in northern BC were something else too, Chair. I know you're familiar with mining. I was just a kid, but man, it really was a brave new world for me. I worked my buns off, but I had the time of my life and got to know a whole lot about mining while I was up there.
Had we spent even a modest amount of time talking about Mr Yocom today, you'd use up a considerable chunk of the time talking about Mr Yocom. Then we move on to Mr Callaghan.
Howdy. We're joined by a new member from somewhere in the Tory caucus.
Mr Ayoub was not only non-contentious, because "non-contentious" implies reasonably neutral, neither here nor there. What's the phrase? Ça m'est égal, oui? "It's all the same to me." "Non-contentious" implies that, but Mr Ayoub was --
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: I'm trying to use today's experience to illustrate what this motion by Mr Wood would do and do to us and how it would detract from the capacity of the committee to indeed perform its role.
Mr Ayoub, as it was, at the end of the day was not only non-contentious; he was an exceptional nominee by the Conservative government. I say an exceptional nominee. Look what would have happened. We're talking about what would have happened had this silly amendment by Mr Wood taken place. We would have exhausted a considerable chunk of time -- Mr Leadston knows this -- discussing Mr Yocom, as was appropriate, entirely appropriate. Then we'd have Mr Bartolucci with this shocking revelation, Mr Bartolucci with a shocking revelation about the fact that Mr Callaghan, notwithstanding a résumé and notwithstanding some pretty thorough questioning -- let's put this in the context of what 10 minutes means.
Look at some of the questions that were asked of Mr Daniel W. Callaghan by both the Liberal members and by people in our caucus here, the New Democrats. We had made repeated requests and inquiries about: "Exactly what is it that brings you here before this committee? Is it an accident that it was only after the Tories got elected to government that you make application to be on some sort of board, agency or commission? You purport this profound interest in midwifery." By God, it was getting a little tough to cut to the quick. One was increasingly concerned, I suspect. But then here is the revelation by Rick Bartolucci, MPP.
I was up in his riding too, by the way, up in Sudbury, this weekend past. The weather in Sudbury was exceptional. In Sault Ste Marie -- driving from Sudbury to the Sault, all of a sudden, snow pellets and the works. Rick Bartolucci prompted me to think about that. The roads were really getting greasy and slippery, and I didn't have my truck. I had a rental car, a front-wheel drive, which I cannot tolerate. I'm just simply not tuned in. I don't believe they're anywhere near as safe in most driving circumstances as a rear-wheel drive, especially a pickup truck.
In any event, Mr Bartolucci makes this revelation: "You, Daniel W. Callaghan, are here under false pretences. You have not revealed your true history, your full history." I know the Chair spoke of it. I suggested that Mr Callaghan had lied to the committee. The Chair, in a most generous way, speaks of Mr Callaghan as merely having committed a sin of omission. In any event, at the end of the day, a very important part of Mr Callaghan's biography was omitted from the record. Was it a typographical error? I don't think so. I doubt that very much. Was it a mere oversight on the part of Mr Callaghan? Once again, I don't think so. One's left with the irresistible conclusion, one feels compelled to draw the irresistible inference that it wasn't a mere -- for instance, remember he told us he was doing Heart and Stroke Foundation work? He didn't put that on here, but he felt comfortable revealing that, as he should. Why not?
1300
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order: The resolution of the House provides for this committee to meet between 10 am and 12 noon. I've granted the member the indulgence of one hour. If he wants to complete his remarks in a couple of minutes, I'll continue with that indulgence. If he doesn't, I'll ask that the committee be adjourned pursuant to the resolution of the House. It's up to him.
The Chair: Just so we all have the same understanding about this, the committee can sit until 12 but can sit beyond that if the clock is ignored by members of the committee, as I understand the rules. If it's raised that it's gone beyond and we should now adjourn, the debate takes up again a week from today. Mr Wood has suggested that if Mr Kormos wants to wind up, we get on with it; that if he doesn't, we should adjourn and come back next week with the debate.
That raises a second question, if I could presume that Mr Kormos doesn't agree to that, because he's shaking his head, and that's his right. If that's the case, this report will not be passed which calls three more people before the committee next week. Therefore, I'm very uneasy about calling people in next week, and I'd seek the guidance of the members of the committee on this. If we call these people in next week and the debate goes on for a substantial amount of time next week, what are we doing to those people we've called in here, I know one of whom is from Sudbury, for example? We need to think about that, how you do that.
Another possibility would be to refer this motion, the amended part, back to the subcommittee to talk through, but that doesn't really resolve the problem of next week with the full committee hearing. That's what we need to think about before, if we are going to adjourn now.
Mr Bob Wood: I might say, sir, it's really up to Mr Kormos. A motion is before the committee, and if he'd like to wrap up his discussion within two minutes, I will not pursue my point of order.
The Chair: No. I think he said he has no intention of doing that.
On the point of order, Mr Martin?
Mr Martin: I would move that we defer discussion on this amendment back to the subcommittee so we could discuss it further and have a look at the implications. I also have some concern about the changing of the wording that's here -- mind you, not as severe as Mr Kormos's. In the spirit of the discussion of the subcommittee, I thought what was here covered it, but I would like to have that further discussion perhaps at the subcommittee level as opposed to continuing the debate today.
The Chair: But the problem with that is that this debate should be first up at the next meeting of this committee, which wouldn't resolve the problem. We'd have the people invited here next week and they could be here for some time.
Mr Leadston: Mr Chair, if people have been notified and been invited to the next meeting --
The Chair: Not yet.
Mr Leadston: Well, I think it would be quite appropriate to follow through with the invitations, invite them here, and in fact, in order to give them a perspective of what is occurring, give them the minutes of Hansard. It would clearly demonstrate to them the democratic process that I'm sure the member is trying to portray in this standing committee. It would clearly demonstrate to them the conduct of the honourable member at this committee.
The Chair: I also, as a Chair, am reluctant to presume what's going to happen next week at the committee. I think it's not fair on my part to make that presumption. We can go ahead and simply adjourn the committee now. We have to deal with Mr Martin's motion to refer this matter back to the subcommittee.
Interjection.
Mr Bob Wood: I would share Mr Kormos's view that that's out of order. There's a motion before the committee.
The Chair: That's true. Let's simply adjourn, and next week we'll deal with the debate on this particular amendment at the beginning of the committee. So we're all clear, we'll go ahead and send the invitations to the three people who are to appear before the committee next Wednesday.
Mr Preston: And I would bet there is going to be a lineup of newspapers out there, because this honourable member will make sure of that.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, I would just like to be on the record that I think it's irresponsible of us to invite anybody to appear before the committee next week not knowing whether we will in fact be able to hear them. I want to be on record as disagreeing with that.
The Chair: It's awkward, but at the same time, certainly I as a Chair can't presume anything about the debate next Wednesday. I understand your concern, but I think we should go ahead and in the regular way, and next week we'll deal with this issue first, which Mr Kormos is dealing with, and he'll be first up next week, and then get on with the rest of the committee work. Is that in agreement? Okay. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1306.