INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
RAY PORATTO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 1 May 1996
Concurrence re Ray Poratto
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, Bruce (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:
Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC) for Mr Ford
Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Fox
Baird, John R. (Nepean PC) for Mr Leadston
Doyle, Ed (Wentworth East / -Est PC) for Mr Newman
Chudleigh, Ted (Halton North / -Nord PC) for Mrs Ross
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel
Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1122 in room 228, following a closed session.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RAY PORATTO
Continued review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Ray Poratto, intended appointee as member, Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council.
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The committee will come to order. We do not have a lot of time to consider the two items left on the agenda. One is the concurrence for the intended appointee Mr Poratto, and then the subcommittee report.
Before we get into that, there were a couple of requests made last week. One was that the letter Mr Poratto wrote to the Ministry of Health or the public appointments secretariat be tabled with the committee. That request was made but it has not appeared; we don't know what's going on there.
Second, there was a request for the bylaw of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council which talked about some of the requirements so the makeup of the council reflects the diversity of the community it is serving. That is here on two sides of this paper. One is the bylaw itself, and the other side is the status as of April 25, which includes Mr Poratto, I believe. Yes, it does, fourth from the top. An assumption was made to put him on there as well.
That's where it stands right now. We need a motion for concurrence for the appointment.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): So moved, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. We'll open up for debate. We start with the official opposition.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I cannot support concurrence. Let me outline some of the reasons. I understand that today I'm speaking to government members, most of whom weren't here at committee last week. I understand that. Mr Preston was, Mr Wood was and Mr Johnson was, so let me address my comments directly to you because you were here last week.
This gentleman, upon discussion, certainly indicated that he did not have a good working knowledge of the health issues in Sudbury. I think that was abundantly clear. The Chair and I don't agree on all the recommendations from the district health council. Certainly the DHC and I don't always agree with the recommendations for restructuring. The Conservatives in Sudbury and I don't always agree with the way the restructuring should take place. But let me tell you, between the Conservatives in Sudbury and myself and the minister there is room for discussion, there is room for dialogue and there is room for openness. Between the Chair and myself, there is room for discussion, there is room for dialogue, there is room for openness. The DHC and I have met, and although we don't always agree, there is that opportunity to be open, to be frank, to be honest and to look for some compromise.
We disagree, but there is one thing we all agree on, and whether it be from the DHC or from the Chair or from many of the Conservatives in Sudbury, there is legitimate concern about this appointment. I do not believe the hospital restructuring process will be enhanced by the appointment of Mr Poratto to the DHC. I have made my viewpoint known to the Chair, I've made it known to Mr Wood, and to the minister.
I believe it must be on the public record that I suggest to this committee that this appointment will not enhance hospital restructuring in Sudbury. The Chair and I, along with Ms Martel, know best the sensitivity of hospital restructuring in Sudbury. When I look at some of the appointments that have already taken place by the government that I concur with and support -- Mr Yurich is an excellent appointee; Dr Hennessy is an excellent appointee, in my estimation; Dr Zalan is an excellent appointee. There are several others. Ms van Boxel is an appointee who will present a very positive case.
This gentleman, in my estimation, from my experiences in the community -- you people saw the questioning. I do not think it was grilling. I thought the questioning was very fair, asking about hospital services and direction, which I believe a DHC appointee should be aware of. Clearly, that working knowledge was not there.
I am concerned, because of the sensitivity of hospital restructuring in Sudbury, that this appointee will not enhance the process. I'm fearful that there will only be greater division caused by this appointee within the committee itself and within the community. I believe I am here to represent the broader needs of the community. I don't believe it's a partisan issue and I don't want this to be a partisan comment against a government appointee. I have gone on record publicly today saying I support the recommendations and the appointees who have come before, and I've mentioned those I find very, very good appointees to the DHC.
This one is clearly not an appointee who will enhance the process. I let the minister know that I think Mr Poratto can cause a fight in an empty room, and I'll go on public record as saying that. His approach to the committee last week was one that I thought was demeaning towards the two parties of the opposition, but more important -- and I say this with all honesty -- I do not think he enhanced the respect of the committee members on the government side to any degree with his performance about not being able to hear the questions. I found that very distasteful, but that's just an example of what is to come with this appointee.
More important, though -- I say this in all sincerity and I don't want this to be viewed in any way as a partisan comment, because it's not meant to be -- this is not a person who will enhance the process. This is not a person who has the sensitivity necessary for hospital restructuring in our community, in our region, for northeastern Ontario. I say that in all sincerity. I don't know what else to say to try to plead a case that this appointee is not in the best interests of health care provided in the community.
I'll not be supporting it. I know this will probably take place. I just hope my observation will not come to fruition; however, I'm very fearful that within months my observations will be fact.
1130
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just a quick comment. It may be obvious to everybody here, but whether this committee concurs with the appointment or not, the minister can go ahead and carry on with the appointment. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that, that what we finally decide here may or may not end up in this appointment.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, I think we all acknowledge that district health councils appropriately have a great deal of power. That's a wise structure, it's one I think that everybody supports, and it's something that should be enhanced. I personally have expressed for some time the viewpoint that district health councils, like hospital boards, should be publicly elected so there is that accountability. Indeed, if they were, this type of appointment process wouldn't be necessary, although a structure might be one wherein there are provincial appointees like on police services boards to ensure that the provincial message is delivered to these councils or boards.
Having said that, I now wish to comment on the appropriateness of the appointment of Mr Poratto. Mr Poratto, as you know, appeared here and responded to questions put to him by all three parties. Mr Poratto betrayed himself, I submit to you, as somebody who, although not particularly bright, none the less possessed some crude sense of cunning or shrewdness. Certainly, he left the impression that he believed he was being more than cute in his selective hearing. As questions became more difficult, his loss of hearing became more apparent. I appreciate that he may well have some hearing loss, but it was dramatic and obvious how that hearing loss escalated as the course of questioning continued and as the volume of the questions put to him was increased in an attempt to accommodate him, recognizing that he may have had some hearing loss.
That, as I say, results in the irresistible conclusion being drawn that he was simply playing games in what I've described already as a crude sense of cunning, accompanying a man who simply isn't very overwhelming in terms of presenting himself as being very bright.
As well, there was an obvious lack of commitment to the goals that have to be achieved in the Manitoulin-Sudbury area. His responses to Mr Bartolucci's questions about the specific nature of hospital restructuring and the options available to the Manitoulin-Sudbury area indicated either an ignorance of those issues or, once again, a refusal to want to respond to them.
As troubling as the fact that somebody as crude and boorish and feeble -- and I'm speaking of intellectually feeble -- as intellectually feeble as Mr Poratto would be put forward by the province as an appointment to this board is the fact that there seems to have been a total circumvention of the process as outlined; that is to say, that appointments shall flow from a list of nominees submitted by the district health council. That's what the structure provides for in terms of process. Mr Poratto seems to have circumvented that process.
Equally troubling and raising greater concern is the fact that there was a request made for his letter of application, and the fact that that wasn't forthcoming from the government after it was requested a week ago by this committee. The reason for the deferral was to permit that, along with the information from the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council -- that is to say, their bylaw -- being made available.
One can only conclude once again that there is something being covered up here. That's the only conclusion one can reach. It's not a difficult request to accede to, and that is to say: Give us the letter this person submitted when he applied for this position.
This seems to be, if not an illegal appointment, one which verges on illegal by virtue of the fact that it wasn't an appointment recommended by the district health council. Further, the district health council had several pieces of correspondence to the government, to the minister himself, indicating its disappointment in the types of appointments being made to its council by the government. A letter of April 15 refers to a prior letter of February 15 talking about appointments of people, none of whom were recommended by the district health council, as required by the process; great concern about compliance, of a failure to achieve compliance with its own bylaw by virtue of these appointments being made.
This is an entirely inappropriate appointment. You know, Chair, that I have oftentimes not only praised government appointments when they were capable people but I have expressed frustration at the fact that at times we see very competent people being brought to this committee for their half-hour period of questioning when it's in no way, shape or form necessary. This man is a pathetic opportunist. One has to question his motives for wanting to be on the district health council. He's a dolt and totally unimpressive. I submit that he will bring disgrace and disorder and discord to the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council.
The status of health care is at an all-time high level of sensitivity here in the province, for a variety of reasons. People like Mr Poratto are not going to help us survive this very difficult period.
I can't speak for Mr Martin, of course, but I'm going to be opposing his appointment to the board in the interests of the people of the Manitoulin-Sudbury area, and I'm indicating now that there is a request for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Any members from the government side wish to speak?
Mr Bob Wood: I'm prepared to offer closing comments, but if other members want to speak I defer to them first. No member on the government side, I believe, wants to speak.
The Chair: Any further comments? We do have time, if you want to use it. Mr Wood is deferring his chance to speak until the opposition has been fully heard, if you want to make any comments. I'm not trying to drag them out of you, but if you want to.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to go on record as supporting my colleagues on this side of the table. I don't have anything else to add except that I will be voting against this appointment as well.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, could I ask for a bit of direction in terms of process? I'm a rookie here and I don't know how this committee works or I don't know how appointments work, but I really feel strongly about this. I'm worried about this appointment, I really am, and I say that with all sincerity. This is not a good appointment, period, for a variety and a number of reasons, most of which I thought I outlined at the very beginning.
Is there a way for a further delay? I'm prepared to go to the minister and meet with him. I'm that concerned about health care services in Sudbury, and with the sensitivity of the level we're at right now, I don't want anything negative or anyone who may bring a negative tone to a structure that's already caused so much division in a region and in an area. If there's any way we could delay this again, I would do it, because I feel very strongly that this is not in the best interests of health care provision in the region of Sudbury, northeastern Ontario. I don't say that often. I'm not one who comes to the committee and yells and screams and demands that these people not be appointed. If they're competent and qualified, they should be appointed. The partisan nature of it is not relevant to me.
This one, the competency and what he brings to the DHC, disturbs me. It disturbs me because I know it's not going to be positive; I know there's going to be division. Our community -- the region, the structuring, the process, the commission -- really doesn't need this type of influence. I say that most sincerely.
I ask for some direction. I don't know. Someone mentioned a 14-day delay. Is that a possibility?
The Chair: There's nothing I can read in the standing orders that allows for more than a seven-day deferral. I don't think there is an opportunity for any further delay in the process, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Bartolucci: If I were to appeal to the committee, is that --
The Chair: If there's unanimous agreement? The standing orders still say a seven-day deferral, so I think the committee really should deal with it today.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, I'm appealing -- I don't know if it's legal, I don't know if it's in order, but I do know it's right. I feel strongly enough about this and enough members of the community feel strongly enough about this, that this is not an appointment that will enhance the process. I know, because I've talked to the minister, that the minister is concerned about the process in Sudbury and about a positive determination. If the members of the committee feel strongly enough as well, I would ask for a deferral of this.
Mr Bob Wood: Can I just ask the matter to be stood down for two minutes? I'm not asking for a caucus; I just want to pass a note down to see if we have unanimity on what we're going to do about this.
The Chair: Sure. We won't adjourn; we'll just wait for a minute.
Mr Bartolucci: Maybe while they're doing that I can talk about hospital restructuring.
The Chair: Why not?
Mr Bartolucci: While we're doing this, let me give you some history. There's not only a difficulty with the recommendations that have come forth, there's a difficulty with the implementation of those recommendations, there's a difficulty with the consensus of those recommendations, there are ongoing difficulties with each particular aspect of restructuring. It is clearly dividing the community, and the community wants direction. They want some type of plan that will enhance hospital services, health care services, but what they want is a clear, positive direction. That's not happening in the community now.
There are a lot of things I don't agree with in Bill 26, but when it comes to hospital restructuring in Sudbury, if it's not done appropriately and fairly, if it's not done with the broader issues of support, confidence and clear management in the system, it's going to be a disaster. In order to do that, all the partners must be involved, must work together. That hasn't happened. It won't happen with this particular appointee. It could happen with the quality of the appointees that have taken place before Mr Poratto's appointment.
I better stop, because I think everybody --
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): We got the message.
The Chair: I think we know what Mr Bartolucci's position is.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Chair, is this the quality of appointments, which Mr Bartolucci's referring to, that you were talking about in question period the other day?
The Chair: This is true. But you notice I'm staying out of this debate. You're absolutely correct. I'm glad you follow that.
Mr Baird: I always follow you, sir.
The Chair: Yeah, yeah.
Mr Bob Wood: I guess we have to have unanimity to do this, and the reality is, we don't. We cannot give unanimous consent to your request, and therefore --
Mr Crozier: You can always vote against it, though.
Mr Bob Wood: When does it expire?
The Chair: The problem is that the standing orders say that after a seven-day deferral, then we must deal with the concurrence. That's the problem.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Mr Chairman, can you give us five minutes?
The Chair: Sure, if there's agreement, we'll give the government members five minutes. Why don't we take an actual break and shut off Hansard so you can have a short caucus? Just keep in mind the clock: five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1145 to 1150.
The Chair: I think we can get back to work.
Mr Bob Wood: We've had an opportunity to consider this and we do want to proceed with the vote today. We appreciate the comments offered by Mr Bartolucci, which have been carefully considered, not necessarily to an ultimate conclusion he might agree with. Another member from that area was kind enough to pass comment along as well, and that was passed along to the minister.
We see this gentleman as having community experience, business experience and, we felt, a good knowledge of the topic. We're satisfied to vote now and vote concurrence in the appointment.
The Chair: Concurrence has already been moved and debated, and there has been a request for a recorded vote, which is appropriate.
Ayes
Baird, Chudleigh, Doyle, Bert Johnson, Maves, Parker, Preston, Bob Wood.
Nays
Bartolucci, Crozier, Gravelle, Kormos, Martin.
The Chair: The motion for concurrence is carried. That's dealt with.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Moving to the final item on the agenda, it's the report of the subcommittee on business dated Tuesday, April 30.
Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to move adoption of that report.
There's one amendment I do intend to propose, which I have discussed with Mr Crozier and Mr Martin. It appears that Mr O'Keefe cannot attend on the 29th, and from our discussion I gather there's some agreement to give Mr O'Keefe the option of attending on May 8 or May 15, and to amend the schedules accordingly. Presumably he'll be available on one of those two dates.
The Chair: Well, the 8th and the 15th are both could possibly do it on the 8th. No, we have two people.
Mr Bob Wood: We can do three, of course.
The Chair: We could try it on the 8th. The 15th is when we'd already made a commitment to the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council for two hours. The 8th, which is next Wednesday, would actually be better. He hasn't informed the clerk that he's not available that day.
Mr Bob Wood: No. I got that from the minister's office. I can only report what I've heard. I've not spoken to him directly myself. I would move it be amended by inviting Mr O'Keefe to come on the 8th.
Mr Crozier: My colleague has raised a problem with that, in that there is a particular member of ours whom we'd like to have here the day he appears and there may be activity in our constituencies since it's the day following the budget. The 8th is not a good day. That hadn't come to mind before, Mr Wood. I apologize, because Mr Wood spoke to us beforehand.
Mr Martin: There is, another option, which is to extend 14 days beyond the 30 days. If the 8th is not doable and the 15th is not going to work, we can go an extra 14 days and have Mr O'Keefe in at a further date.
Mr Bob Wood: That's true. We would prefer to get this done within the 30 days if possible, which I think the 29th gets us just within.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): What's the problem with the 15th?
The Chair: We have the health council coming for two hours.
Mr Bob Wood: Unless we can deal with them in an hour and a half?
The Chair: I don't see general agreement on that.
Mr Bartolucci: An hour and a half would be fine.
Mr Bob Wood: Well, we have some agreement.
The Chair: Mr Raised Eyebrows?
Mr Martin: Sure.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll invite him in, then, for the 15th and reduce the health council to an hour and a half. We will take at least our third of the reduction.
The Chair: Any preference as to which you want to do first? Are we going to do Mr O'Keefe first?
Mr Bob Wood: I think that makes sense.
The Chair: Okay, but we need to start it on time and get right into it at 10.
Mr Bob Wood: Start it with whoever is here or whoever isn't.
The Chair: Is that agreed? Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: Thank you. I appreciate the cooperation of the members on that point.
The Chair: May I make a suggestion that next week, since Tuesday is budget day, we do not need a subcommittee meeting. You have the schedule laying out the next few weeks, and I don't think we need a subcommittee meeting.
Mr Bob Wood: The only thing we'd need it for is to designate whatever appointments are desired. I agree that that day is bad. I guess the Chair might be in a lockup, would he?
The Chair: I won't be, no.
Mr Bob Wood: As I understand it, we're going to have orders of the day and then the House is going to adjourn. I wonder if that's the time to do it.
The Chair: Some people will still be in the lockup.
Mr Crozier: It wouldn't be convenient for me. One of my colleagues can attend the subcommittee meeting; that's fine. I won't be able to.
Mr Bob Wood: The only thing I'm concerned with is keeping the appointments current.
The Chair: We can still meet at 1 o'clock. I'll be available. I don't know about you.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't have a problem with that.
The Chair: Tony, do you? Will you be in the lockup, or do you know?
Mr Martin: I've made a habit recently, without telling anybody, of being at home on days when budgets come down.
The Chair: Does the whip know this?
Mr Bob Wood: We won't tell him.
Mr Martin: You won't tell him, no, but Bert might.
The Chair: What about 1 o'clock on Monday? Is that agreed? Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: Have we dealt with the subcommittee report, by the way?
The Chair: As amended, yes. Is there a motion to accept it?
Mr Bob Wood: So moved.
The Chair: All in favour? None opposed. Carried.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, in keeping with the objectives of this committee, I thought I should mention that in the order in council of April 24, there was an appointment to the Township of Colchester South Police Services Board of a Joyce Anne Cherry. I just wanted to be on record as saying that this appointment fits all the non-partisan criteria of appointments, and I think that will be an excellent appointment.
The Chair: By non-partisan you mean she has no political affiliation whatsoever, right?
Interjection: She's strictly Liberal.
The Chair: That's right. Okay, we are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1159.