INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
RONALD EMO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 January 1997
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Ronald Emo
Mr Ronald Conway
Mr Armand Tessier
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
*Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. The first item of business is the report of the subcommittee dated December 19, on which there were two appointments for review: from the official opposition party, for the Sudbury District Housing Authority, Mr Armand G. Tessier; and from the third party, for the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, Mr Ron Conway, both to be dealt with today. The other subcommittee report, dated January 9, is for Carol Marie Pinke, also to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, to be heard on January 22; and Robert Paterson to the Lakehead University Foundation board of governors, who was originally scheduled to appear on January 22 but cannot.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Chair, if I may, on behalf of Mr Silipo I've been instructed to request a 14-day extension.
The Chair: All right; that is done. Thank you for that.
A motion to accept the two subcommittee reports would certainly be in order.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move adoption of the subcommittee reports of December 19, 1996, and January 9, 1997.
The Chair: Thank you for that. You've heard the motion. All in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
RONALD EMO
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Ronald Emo, intended appointee as member, Ontario Municipal Board.
The Chair: We can begin the review of intended appointments. The first person is Mr Ronald Emo. Mr Emo, we appreciate your presence here this morning. It's customary that you be given an opportunity to make any opening remarks you might want to make and that we then get into the questions.
Mr Ronald Emo: Thank you. Mr Chairman, honourable committee members, I appear before you today to respond to questions you may have of my nomination to be a member of the Ontario Municipal Board. I assume you have a copy of my résumé. Permit me to add a little bit of flesh to those bones.
My exposure to the Ontario Municipal Board began back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when, as an Ontario land surveyor and occasionally as the then secretary of the Collingwood planning board, I would appear as an expert witness in front of the board. I was impressed then, and continue to be impressed, by the calibre of the men and women who serve on it.
To improve my qualifications as an expert witness, I took university courses on a part-time basis, resulting in a degree in geography from Wilfrid Laurier. I then took the courses and passed the exams required by the appraisal institute for their certified residential appraiser designation, but unfortunately did not receive this, as by 1980 I had been elected mayor of Collingwood and never got around to completing the demo report, which was a mandatory requirement. In 1994, I also took the introductory alternative dispute resolution course offered by Windsor law school.
My eight years as mayor of Collingwood in the booming 1980s gave me another perspective on the board's activities as an approving and supportive agency in day-to-day operations of a municipality. My deputy clerk and I even appeared in front of the board in a vain attempt to change the education factor used to calculate the town's portion of the school levy. Through my career as mayor, I was impressed with the courtesy, interest and objectiveness displayed by the board in hearing appeals to a wide range of municipal issues.
Around 1990 I saw an item in the Globe and I became aware that appointments were being made to the OMB for a three-year period. I submitted by résumé to Mr John Kruger, who was then the chair. His response of March 1991 indicated that he felt I had the qualifications and experience to be a member and that he was passing my application on to the Premier's office. Nothing came of this application. In 1994 I resubmitted my application to Mrs Helen Cooper, who was then the chair of the board. She also passed my application on to the public appointments office of the day. I followed up with a meeting with Mrs Cooper in September 1995, at which time she kindly explained a number of details of the role and function of board members. In preparation for today's hearing, I met last week with Mr Colbourne, the current chair, who has reviewed the training and role that will be expected of me should the committee approve my nomination.
As you can see from my résumé, I have chaired virtually every local municipal committee or agency. I spent over eight years as chair of our area waste management master plan study, which included an extensive public participation program. Nevertheless, when we announced candidate sites, I had to chair some pretty wild public meetings. I have also chaired a number of formal hearings under the police act and at the hospital.
I want to assure the committee that I would not be seeking this appointment if I did not feel I could do the job.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Emo. Are there any questions or comments from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir. From the information we've been given, you certainly have a great deal of experience in areas related to the Ontario Municipal Board. As a past mayor, no doubt you've had some experience with the OMB in the past.
I was also mayor of my home town of Leamington, and I want to ask your opinion relative to the decision process of the OMB vis-à-vis local decisions; in other words, when you get involved when something has to be resolved at the local level. I wonder if you can give us some idea of how you would approach this position when often the decisions made have an impact on the local community and it's seen as someone from outside the community making decisions that affect local people. Would you have a tendency to be open to that concern about how your decision is going to affect the local municipality, as opposed to simply going by a rigid set of rules? How flexible might you be, if you could describe that?
1010
Mr Emo: The board has had a long history of impartiality and is well respected, at least by members of my community, and I think it is a forum in which an individual, a group of citizens or a corporation has a right to be heard again, beyond a decision made by the local council. I hope I would be able to render impartial decisions based upon the facts of the hearing, the statutes under which we're involved, and also some sense of fairness for the individuals involved, because everything isn't black and white in our society, especially in planning.
Mr Crozier: Oftentimes when people appear before the OMB, I'm sure it's helpful for them to be represented by experts, but in many instances citizens who have a genuine concern about the issue before the board can't afford to hire the experts that maybe a proponent for some decision can, or maybe even the municipality can hire experts and have the funds to do that, but local citizens don't. Would you, again, treat this with fairness and understanding if I were appearing before the board, but not with expert advice, and take into consideration that I'm representing my own position in a non-expert way?
Mr Emo: In any hearing I have attended over the last 30-odd years, I've seen the chair of the hearing bend over backwards, if the person was unsophisticated or didn't understand the rules, to explain how it was and maybe take a slightly harder line if it was legal counsel, who did know the rules. I felt one of the attractions was that this was certainly a body that could be fair to the most unsophisticated or the most sophisticated appellant.
Mr Crozier: Good. I appreciate that.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Emo. Particularly in the past -- I remember that back in the 1980s there was an incredibly long process before decisions were rendered, for a variety of reasons. Some actions have been taken by both the previous government and this government to change things so that the decision-making process is not as long, but I understand it frequently still takes between six and eight months for decisions to be made by the board. I presume you're aware of that; probably, with your background, you've seen the process itself. There may be some who would argue that the board itself was sometimes used as a block to things happening. You're obviously conscious of the time frame, and I presume you're conscious of making decisions, not so much based on making them quickly because it helps but that people do appreciate a response.
Do you have any ideas or any thoughts on what needs to further happen to shorten the time frame? Also, do you think it is valid to say it is taking too long? Is it correct that there should be an even shorter response time?
Mr Emo: I read the Hansard of when Mr Colbourne appeared before this committee for his confirmation last summer. He's the chair and has been there since 1968, and I thought his points were quite cogent, that they have improved and do a number of things: pre-trial hearings, mediation, all those things. He also suggested that on simple dispute situations, where there wasn't any hope of a resolution, it come on for a hearing right away. From what I've read and what I understand, the board is moving to overcome that -- justice delayed is justice denied -- yet there are some complex things going on that take a long time. I think that under the board's present chairmanship they're moving the right way and will do the best thing they can.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gravelle. Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: I'll reserve my time, Chair. It's called a standoff.
The Chair: Okay. Are there any questions from members of the government side?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll leave our time.
The Chair: Okay. That concludes the --
Mr Kormos: No, I reserved mine.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Any time you wish, then.
Mr Kormos: Thank you. First of all, Mr Emo, you're obviously well qualified; there are no two ways about it. The résumé illustrates that. The fact that you would pursue the ADR course as a mature student -- it's an interesting course. There's one in the Bahamas this February. I looked at the curriculum. Unfortunately, we're probably going to be here, but I thought the prospect of the University of Windsor's ADR course in the Bahamas -- you didn't take the one in the Bahamas, did you?
Mr Emo: I think those fellows who are running it are making a career out of running those courses.
Mr Kormos: Yes, they're doing fine. You've obviously got the endorsement, as you tell us, of former chair Kruger, who again I've had a great deal of experience with, and Ms Cooper, who was appointed by the last government. I wasn't sitting on this committee during the term of the last government so I don't know how many OMB appointments there were. There may have been a number; I don't know. How did you manage to break through this glass wall?
Mr Emo: I guess I was lucky. I had asked for and got support. I think that lobbying is still considered a fair game in this province.
Mr Kormos: No quarrel. That's what I wanted to know. I want to know how to do it -- help. How did you go about that?
Mr Emo: My local member was helpful and supportive.
Mr Kormos: Who is that?
Mr Emo: Jim Wilson.
Mr Kormos: In what respect?
Mr Emo: He made sure that my résumé was received by the committee and whatever. I have no idea how many résumés are received and how the process operates, but eventually I was interviewed by a committee last November and I guess that committee winnowed it down. In the latter part of November I guess certain recommendations went to cabinet, and with the three times I was finally lucky and was --
Mr Kormos: I'm not familiar with this. What committee was that?
Mr Emo: There's an interview committee composed of the public appointments secretariat director, someone from the appropriate ministry -- I guess Municipal Affairs -- and also the chairman of the board, Mr Colbourne.
Mr Kormos: Okay, but what happened? Obviously that's again a crucial part of the process in terms of getting into the cabinet decision-making forum and being approved. How do you get to that committee?
Mr Emo: I don't know.
Mr Kormos: Mr Wilson facilitated that?
Mr Emo: He was very supportive, yes.
Mr Kormos: Yes, but do you know whether he called people or wrote correspondence? Do you know how he went about it?
Mr Emo: I don't know.
Mr Kormos: Did he indicate to you that he was going about it?
Mr Emo: He indicated that he felt I had good credentials and that he would support my candidacy.
Mr Kormos: Did he indicate what he was prepared to do, though, to help get you before this committee, which included the chair of the OMB?
Mr Emo: No.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Once again, as I say, you're qualified; there are no two ways about it. I've got a note here that you're identified as being a $300 contributor to the Conservatives in Simcoe West. Is that the same person as you? Are you the same Ronald Emo?
Mr Emo: Yes. I've been a member of the Conservative Party since the mid-1960s.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Mr Wilson clearly knows you then, if you've been a member of the party. That's in his riding?
Mr Emo: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Mr Wilson was here between 1990 and 1995. Did he support your nomination in that time frame?
Mr Emo: Yes, he was aware of my application.
Mr Kormos: Did he write any letters on your behalf then?
Mr Emo: I presume he did what he could.
Mr Kormos: But you don't know what he did; you're not aware of anything that he did?
Mr Emo: Well, I never got summoned for an interview in that period.
Mr Kormos: But you're not aware of what he did, if anything?
Mr Emo: No.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Any other questions? Anyone from the government side, any questions? Okay, that concludes the interview with Mr Emo. Mr Emo, thank you very much for coming before the committee and providing answers. We appreciate it.
Mr Emo: Thank you, committee.
1020
RONALD CONWAY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Ronald Conway, intended appointee as member, Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Ronald Conway to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board. Mr Conway, as you know, there's an opportunity for you to make any opening remarks you might care to make.
Mr Ronald Conway: Good morning, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. May I take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. My name is Ronald Conway. I am a resident of the township of East Hawkesbury, county of Prescott. As can be seen from my CV, which I'm sure you have, I am married and the father of three daughters.
During my working career, I spent 32 years working for Bell Canada, 22 of those years at various levels of management within the corporation. I retired from Bell in January 1994. I have spent the past three years of my retirement managing a feed co-op in the township, so we've stepped from the frying pan into the fire.
During the past number of years I have become quite involved in our community. I have served on our township council for the past 11 years as deputy reeve. I have served on various committees within the township as well as with our neighbouring communities, such pastimes as being chair of the Hawkesbury and area recycling committee. I have sat on the waste management board for the past 10 years. I have also sat as the chair of my parish council for five years. I'm a former member of the Hawkesbury Chamber of Commerce. I am a member of the Optimists. Coming from eastern Ontario, I'm also fluently bilingual.
My reason for applying for this appointment to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board comes basically from my interest in safety and in highway safety, driving safety. I acquired this while I worked for Bell. As you probably know, they have a very extensive safe driving program, and this probably rubbed off on me.
I have served my community in the past, and I believe that by serving on this board I would be able to continue serving it in the future in another capacity. I thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Conway. Any questions from members of the government?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you for that.
Mr Crozier: Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee. I'd first like to talk about the subject of truckers and road safety. Perhaps you're aware that there recently has been a great deal of attention paid in this area by the government, some new initiatives by the government with regard to trucks in particular when it comes to road safety.
As part of the attempt to minimize the risks on our roads from unsafe trucks, it is now in the legislation that truck drivers can have their licence suspended if they are driving an unsafe vehicle. How do you feel about that?
Mr Conway: At the moment there is no legislation passed, so I can't really comment on what's going to happen. All I can comment on is what I've read in the newspapers. I understand that the trucking industry has unsafe trucks on the road, but the legislation hasn't been passed yet, and what constitutes a safe vehicle has not been passed either.
Mr Crozier: Perhaps this can be clarified. The information I have is that the bill received third reading in December. Perhaps it hasn't received royal assent yet. Has it?
Mr Andrew McNaught: There's one, a bill directed at drinking and driving. There's a second bill in the works, I understand, directed at a similar automatic suspension for truckers' licences.
Mr Crozier: Okay. But I still would like to know, if this legislation is carried forward and becomes law, how you feel about the possibility, at least at this point, that the registrar of motor vehicles will be given the authority to cancel or suspend a commercial vehicle operator's registration certificate when he or she has reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the licence holder and any other information the registrar may have, that their licence may be suspended. Do you think this would be a good move?
Mr Conway: I know it would be a good move. At the moment, we have vehicles on the road ourselves, in our co-op, with CVORs. I know if you lose a CVOR, your truck is off the road for a while. You can't operate your truck without a CVOR. Any legislation that will create an atmosphere among companies to wish to maintain their trucks at a higher standard is positive.
Mr Crozier: This is where I'd like to get some feeling as to how the general public may feel about it, though, that if a truck driver is found to be driving an unsafe vehicle, that truck driver may be fined and/or have their licence suspended. Considering the possibility that some drivers may be put in a very difficult position where they will be told to take a load, and if they don't they obviously lose some income over it, or it may jeopardize future opportunity to earn income because they're not cooperative with some trucking company owner who maybe doesn't view safety the same as we do, do you anticipate any difficulty in that area?
Mr Conway: I could see a problem if the driver was coerced to drive that vehicle. I think that should also fall under the labour laws of the province, though, if you're forced to do an unsafe act.
Mr Crozier: I guess what I'm trying to emphasize -- and we had other legislation not too long ago that stores can now stay open on Boxing Day. I think there was labour legislation with regard to that, that employees cannot be disciplined or penalized because they refuse to work on a holiday. I guess it would be reasonable to assume the law may be there to protect employees, but the law can't get inside the heads of some people who say, "Regardless of what the law is, I somehow can still jeopardize your employment and/or ability to earn an income down the road just because I'm prejudiced against you." I'm just trying to raise that difficulty and whether you have a concern about that.
Mr Conway: To get back to the truck driver, the truck driver has the ultimate authority today, whether that truck leaves the yard or not. It's his responsibility to indicate whether the truck is safe.
Mr Crozier: And that should be paramount regardless of what may happen?
Mr Conway: That's there today. He has two sheets to fill out. He has one sheet to fill out on his log when he leaves that yard, and one sheet that he fills out is his truck safety sheet. If he is pulled over without the sheet made, he is responsible for ensuring that his truck safety check is made. That's in force today.
Mr Crozier: I want to touch for a moment on older drivers and the changes that have been made with regard to the testing of drivers over the age of 80. These drivers now, rather than having to have a road test every year, will be reviewed every two years and will be required to actually take a road test only if the ministry inspector feels they should, after having some group education and provided they have the apparent physical skills. Do you think that with a group session every two years, and a vision test and a knowledge test in conjunction with that, it then should be left strictly to a Ministry of Transportation instructor to decide whether someone should take a driver's test? In other words, if an appeal were made to you because someone's licence had been suspended, do you think that a driving test, an actual road test, should still be included in it or that this new change will be satisfactory?
1030
Mr Conway: To be quite honest with you, I can't comment on that. I've not studied that.
Mr Crozier: Perhaps we'd need some experience in it, something like that.
Mr Conway: Yes, I would. I believe that within the board there are medical staff, though, but I am not familiar with that part of the operation of the board.
The Chair: Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: I'll reserve my time, Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve ours.
The Chair: You reserve yours as well. Back to you, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: I continue to reserve mine, Chair.
The Chair: Okay, and you?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll wait as long as he wants to wait.
Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, if I may, I've witnessed this tendency of the government to reserve its time. I'm not sure, but I think I know what they're doing. I appreciate that they want an opportunity to, let's say, rehabilitate one of their proposed appointees after whatever questioning occurs by either the Liberal caucus or the New Democratic caucus. I understand that. I would probably try, if I were in their position, to pursue the very same objective. I presume that's part of their responsibilities. But let's understand that the people brought before us here are the government's appointees, and I think the Chair has to make a judgement call. I'll live with whatever that judgement call is.
Obviously the Chair will note that I've generated a little bit of a standoff here so that the Chair is put in the I don't think all that difficult position of making a call: You're either going to permit people to reserve time or not. I can make any number of suggestions but I want the Chair to be cognizant, please, that these are government appointees; they're not appointees by the official opposition or by the third party.
We've got to understand that the purpose of this committee is to make inquiries to determine suitability, and if you wanted to use a courtroom analogy, it's as if these were people they're calling as their witnesses. I appreciate that all three parties have a chance to choose people, but it's not as if they're being called -- the third party isn't presenting any of these people for appointment.
I leave that comment with you as well, Chair. I'll live with your direction, sir.
The Chair: I appreciate that, and there's nothing wrong with your doing that. I would simply, at this point, go back to where we started and give the government members the opportunity to ask any questions they might have. If at this point on the second round they choose not to, that will be the end of it, and if the Liberals or the New Democrats had reserved any time, we'll go back to give them their final go at it as well. I think that way it's fair to everyone.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Bob Wood: If we're going to go through this, Mr Chair, I would ask you to alternate. We've been starting every time. If we're going to go to this, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, I would ask you to alternate so we get called first the first time, the official opposition gets called first the second time and the third party gets called first the third time.
The Chair: Right. As a matter of fact, that's the way it was done before I took over the chair, I understand. I did it this way, simply arbitrarily, because the time of the person who's appearing is counted to the government.
Mr Bob Wood: We thought it was quite fair. On the other hand, if others don't think so, as long as you are prepared to follow that procedure we will waive our time and hope this matter may proceed.
The Chair: All right. We've waived the time.
Mr Kormos: Quite frankly, I have no quarrel with that proposition.
The Chair: Okay, let's do that, then. Do you have any questions of Mr Conway?
Mr Kormos: A few. Mr Conway, I don't have enough information here from the appointments secretariat to indicate whether this -- there have been several applications for appointment to this panel over the last few months. Was this a position that was advertised? Chair, do you know? Was this a position that was advertised in the paper?
Interjection.
Mr Conway: Myself, personally? No, I didn't see it in the paper. I heard of the job through people I know in the ministry and I applied for the job through the ministry. My CV was sent on to the Ministry of Transportation and I was contacted by the Ministry of Transportation to see if I'd accept the job. They also wanted to check my background, because they want to know if you've had any criminal, you know -- and I have none.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure you're clean. Not all of us can make that claim.
Mr Conway: I know, but I can this morning.
Mr Kormos: Was this the local ministry? I'm wondering why this wasn't advertised. I just don't know why it wasn't advertised. Was that was the local ministry people?
Mr Conway: People I know in a neighbouring riding advised me that there were positions open on this particular board, and like I stated earlier, driving is of particular interest to me. There are lots of other appointments available, but this particular appointment is to work in Ottawa for maybe one day a month, not on trucks, but basically to work on the 90-day suspension. That's what it's about.
Mr Kormos: Your bilingualism obviously is a strong, strong asset.
Mr Conway: I'm bilingual. That's right. I was brought up in a bilingual area.
Mr Kormos: So it was Ministry of Transportation staff who told you about this?
Mr Conway: Who called me?
Mr Kormos: Yes.
Mr Conway: It was a lady from the Ministry of Transportation, probably in the appointments part of the ministry, who called me to ask me if I would sit on this board, after she received my CV, though.
Mr Kormos: Okay. From the appointments secretariat?
Mr Conway: Yes.
Mr Kormos: So you had written to the appointments secretariat?
Mr Conway: I had got my CV to them through people I know in the ministry.
Mr Kormos: What I'm interested in is, are these people in the ministry from your neck of the woods or are they from Toronto?
Mr Conway: From S-D-G, from Glengarry. I submitted my CV through them.
Mr Kormos: They were local ministry staff who told you that this position was available?
Mr Conway: That's right.
Mr Kormos: As a result of that, you wrote in a CV and an application for the position to the Ministry of Transportation.
Mr Conway: That's right.
Mr Kormos: You obviously knew these people.
Mr Conway: I did. I do.
Mr Kormos: You had expressed to them earlier an interest in serving on this board?
Mr Conway: I hadn't mentioned any boards until I knew that this particular position on this board was available.
Mr Kormos: But the friends from the Ministry of Transportation --
Mr Conway: I know nobody in the Ministry of Transportation.
Mr Kormos: This is where I'm unclear, because you said it was people from the Ministry of Transportation in the adjoining riding.
Mr Conway: No, you've got me wrong there. I gave my CV to the member in S-D-G, some people I know in S-D-G, and I think they must have submitted it to the Ministry of Transportation.
Mr Kormos: Whom did you give your CV to?
Mr Conway: To the member's office in S-D-G, to Mr Villeneuve's office.
Mr Kormos: Noble Villeneuve. Okay. No problem.
Mr Conway: It wasn't to Noble himself; it was to other people.
Mr Kormos: But to his office.
Mr Conway: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That was before you became aware that this position was open?
Mr Conway: No.
Mr Kormos: It was after you became aware?
Mr Conway: It was after I became aware, that's right.
Mr Kormos: You became aware of this opening as a result of what?
Mr Conway: Of conversations with people from his office.
Mr Kormos: So you know people in Noble's office?
Mr Conway: Oh, I certainly do.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. They told you that a position was available?
Mr Conway: That's right.
Mr Kormos: And they told you that you should submit an application --
Mr Conway: A CV. That's right.
Mr Kormos: -- and that Noble would do what he could to help you get a position?
Mr Conway: No, they never said anything about that. They just said they would submit my CV to the Ministry of Transportation in regard to this position on the Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
Mr Kormos: Are these people to whom you had indicated earlier an eagerness to serve on the Licence Suspension Appeal Board in Noble's office?
Mr Conway: Would you repeat that, please?
Mr Kormos: The people who called you from Noble's office, had you indicated to them at some point during your association with them that you were interested in serving on the License Suspension Appeal Board?
Mr Conway: I never indicated anything to them until I found that the position was available on the Licence Suspension Appeal Board. Then I submitted my CV to them. I did not submit my CV to these people until I became aware, through them, that this position on the License Suspension Appeal Board was available.
1040
Mr Kormos: I'm asking that, Chair, because I'm wondering why they would have called you when a position on the Licence Suspension Appeal Board came up.
Mr Conway: They didn't call me. We just happened to be talking, and through conversation they told me this position was available. They were looking for people. After the act was passed last fall they were looking to appoint 34 people to this board.
Mr Kormos: Had you ever applied for a position with a board, agency or commission before?
Mr Conway: Never.
Mr Kormos: Why not?
Mr Conway: I never had the time to serve on one.
Mr Kormos: And now you're retired from Bell, so now you have the time.
Mr Conway: I have time, yes.
Mr Kormos: I appreciate I've got a Ronald E. Conway who donated $200 to the Conservative Party in the last election.
Mr Conway: Probably, yes, maybe more.
Mr Kormos: Are you that Ronald Conway?
Mr Conway: That's me.
Mr Kormos: Or maybe more. What riding are you in?
Mr Conway: Prescott and Russell, a Liberal riding.
Mr Kormos: Why wouldn't you have talked to your member in your riding?
Mr Conway: I know him well too, but I know the member in S-D-G better.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Did you ask your member to write a letter of reference to assist you in seeking this appointment?
Mr Conway: No, because I'm sure he's looking after his own people.
Mr Kormos: But you live in his riding.
Mr Conway: I say I'm sure he's looking after his own people.
Mr Kormos: You mean people who belong to his political party?
Mr Conway: Who belong to his political party.
Mr Kormos: So you went to people who belong to your political party to look after you?
Mr Conway: That's right.
Interjection: Can't be any more honest than that.
Mr Kormos: God bless.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Kormos?
Mr Kormos: Sure.
Mr Conway: Besides, this is a one-day-a-month job. We're not looking at a fortune.
Mr Kormos: One or two days a month.
Mr Conway: That's right.
The Chair: Mr Conway, that completes the questioning of you. We appreciate your attendance here this morning.
ARMAND TESSIER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Armand Tessier, intended appointee as member, Sudbury District Housing Authority.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Armand Tessier. Mr Tessier is here all the way from beautiful downtown Sudbury. Welcome to the committee this morning. As you know, it's not necessary, but feel free to make any opening remarks you might have to the committee.
Mr Armand Tessier: I would, please. Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee, my name is Armand Tessier. I'm here to present myself to be a member of the Sudbury District Housing Authority.
I've lived in Sudbury all of my life, except for a few years in Calgary, Alberta. I have been involved in real estate sales, management and development of land -- residential, commercial and industrial -- for many years, in one fashion or the other, to this day and I feel the expertise I have gained would be of some help to the authority. My time allows me to stand for this position, and I should be an asset in the decision-making of the housing authority in Sudbury and this great province of Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tessier. We go to the official opposition first this time. Are there any questions? Mr Bartolucci, welcome to the committee this morning.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm sorry I couldn't make it earlier, Mr Chair. You know how much I love being here to question these witnesses, especially when they're from Sudbury. It's so nice to see Mr Tessier again.
Mr Tessier, this is a standard question I ask everybody from Sudbury: Do you have any problems with hearing?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Great, terrific. After you get this appointment, will you leave the city and the country, maybe, to continue your education or explore job opportunities in Europe or Ireland or the British Isles or anything like that?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Bartolucci: We've had some bad history about some of the appointees who have come before us. Your good friend, Ray Poratto, and I know he is your good friend -- you remember Ray?
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: By the way, did Ray encourage you to apply for this position?
Mr Tessier: No. Through a friend I heard there might be an opening, and that's the only reason.
Mr Bartolucci: Who's the friend?
Mr Tessier: Bernie McDowell.
Mr Bartolucci: Oh, Bernie. Bernie is the big-time Tory fund-raiser in Sudbury; he's the money man in Sudbury. He's a good man. I taught his children. I like his family very much. He's very, very proud of the fact that he raises money for the Tory party in Sudbury and for Mike Harris in particular. He's pretty proud of the fact that he arranges the annual Mike Harris fund-raiser in Sudbury. You know that, of course.
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you been there?
Mr Tessier: Yes, I've been there.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think it's worth the money you pay for it?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Good. Do you think he's worth the money you pay for it?
Mr Tessier: Absolutely.
Mr Bartolucci: I sort of thought you'd say that, Red.
I know you're a long-time member of the Sudbury community. You said in your résumé that you've involved yourself in lots of community activities. Maybe you can outline to the committee some of those activities you've taken part in, let's say, in the last five years.
Mr Tessier: I just moved back two and a half years ago from Calgary. I was there for 14 years prior to that. I'm involved in real estate sales, and also I've been involved in numerous projects such as health care. In fact, I built a nursing home a while back. I've had a number of apartments that I have managed, owned and built in Sudbury and area.
Mr Bartolucci: You bring up an interesting question about building a nursing home, and I know you were a part of that. What do you think of the government's latest initiative to transfer or download this responsibility to the local municipality, nursing homes being one and social housing being the second one? We're going to define that after, or I'm going to ask you to define it after, but first of all, what do you think of this latest announcement by Janet Ecker, and Al Leach, of course?
Mr Tessier: I'm not informed that much, but as long as the care of the people is still there, which I hope it will be, I have no reason to say that they will not carry on.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think there might be some problem with that, when you look at the municipal tax base of Sudbury, as an example?
Mr Tessier: There are always problems when there are changes, but sometimes they're for the better. It's to be seen.
Mr Bartolucci: Come on, Red, you're a part of the community; you know what's happening in Sudbury. You know how our tax base, our assessment base, is not increasing. You know the impact Voisey Bay is going to have on the community, so come on, let's be real. Do you think this latest transfer, this latest downloading of responsibilities is good for Sudbury?
Mr Tessier: I don't think I have enough knowledge to really comment on that at this time.
Mr Bartolucci: That's fair. Let's ask for your definition of social housing. What do you think social housing is? Both ministers mentioned social housing yesterday. I'm having trouble with the definition; that's why I'm asking you for help.
Mr Tessier: I'm not an academic, as you are.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not an academic when it comes to this government's definition, so what do you think social housing is?
Mr Tessier: Social housing is to help the people who are in need, to provide adequate housing at all times, and it has to be met in the best fashion the province can afford.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you question why you're even here today, or why there's a request for an appointment to a district housing authority, when in fact district housing authorities will not exist a year from now? It's my understanding that if it's transferred -- and follow with me, Red, just to make sure. Armand's nickname is Red, okay?
Mr Tessier: I used to have red hair.
Mr Bartolucci: Can you follow through with me for a little while? If it is transferred to the area municipality, do you think you'll exist a year from now?
Mr Tessier: I have no idea, but I feel I can fulfil something in these times, with what has been going on and had been going on. But for me to answer this at this time, I could not. I'm not familiar enough.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, that's fair too. What about the mandate of a district housing authority? What do you think the mandate of a district housing authority is?
1050
Mr Tessier: It's to oversee probably the costs and what not, the different ways of accepting people and whatever. We're not setting the rules; we just follow the rules that are set out by some people.
Mr Bartolucci: You just follow the rules; you don't set the rules?
Mr Tessier: Yes, and put whatever recommendation, I would think, to your input, what it might be. I don't know at this time. I cannot answer that, really.
Mr Bartolucci: You can't. So you don't think your position on the district housing authority is going to allow you the opportunity to formulate policies for the housing authority to operate in Sudbury?
Mr Tessier: The thing is that everybody can have an opinion, but we're not the ones who set out the rules. It's the authority in Queen's Park or whatever. We are only there to oversee. That's all we do, I would think.
Mr Bartolucci: Then you simply say, "Whatever Queen's Park says I have to carry out as an appointee to the district housing authority."
Mr Tessier: The thing is that we are not the governing body in setting up any of the rules; we just follow the rules that are set out for us, I would think.
Mr Bartolucci: Red, you have a history in Sudbury of being an independent thinker, you know. That's why Senator Rhéal Bélisle had so much faith in you: because you were an independent thinker. You're saying that this government doesn't want you to use that independence in formulating what's good for Sudbury? That's why it's called the Sudbury District Housing Authority.
Mr Tessier: The reason I'm here today is because I have some spare time now and I feel I can give you something. I believe in Sudbury and the province very, very strongly, and the people who live in it.
Mr Bartolucci: And you believe strongly in social housing?
Mr Tessier: I believe social housing, as far as I'm concerned, is certainly a need that is there, yes.
Mr Bartolucci: You would advocate then for those who needed social housing as a member of the district housing authority?
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Bartolucci: How would you do that?
Mr Tessier: It's a very difficult question to answer, because like I say, my mandate is not to rule the thing; I can only put my little personal opinion into it. Right now, at this time while I'm talking to you, they are still operating in the same way, and I can't answer about what will happen later.
Mr Bartolucci: You know, Red, Bernie is a good Conservative, and I know your political stripe. That's fine too; I respect that. But I think the people of Sudbury and this committee want people who are independent thinkers, and I want you to use some of that independence when you get there. I want you to use some of that creative thinking you have, so I want you to tell this committee what type of creative thinking you have for the district housing authority in Sudbury.
Mr Tessier: Again, my personal view is that I am for the people and will work for the people of the community and the province.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, Red, let's talk a little bit about the district housing authority.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you researched the district housing authority at all? Do you know anything about it?
Mr Tessier: To some extent, but I am not that --
Mr Bartolucci: How many property managers are there?
Mr Tessier: I don't know.
Mr Bartolucci: How many units are they responsible for?
Mr Tessier: I don't know exactly. I can't give you those figures.
Mr Bartolucci: Who handles the maintenance?
Mr Tessier: I have not done anything of that nature.
Mr Bartolucci: Nothing.
Mr Tessier: I didn't even know if I was going to be appointed, so consequently I don't know.
Mr Kormos: I got the impression when Mr. Bartolucci was asking you questions that you weren't of his political persuasion. It left me suspecting that you might be a New Democrat.
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: Oh, my suspicions were wrong. That's okay; that's not the point. But I don't know Bernie.
Mr Bartolucci: Bernie McDowell.
Mr Kormos: I don't know Bernie.
Mr Bartolucci: Bernie is Mike Harris's best friend in Sudbury, next to George Lund.
Mr Kormos: Who is the fellow here in Toronto who has the barbecues every year who's Jean Chrétien's best friend? What's his name?
Mr Bartolucci: Joe Foti. He's a good man.
Mr Kormos: Please.
I'm looking at the material the government gives us here. I took a look, and it's the 1995 one, which means it's pretty dated. It looks like there were a lot of members whose terms expired in June 1996, so obviously the government is catching up on getting some people, because there are 11 members, including the chair, on the Sudbury District Housing Authority. But I'm looking at the candidate search process, because this wasn't advertised in the newspaper, unless I'm wrong.
Mr Tessier: I don't know, I'm sorry.
Mr Kormos: It said that letters seeking candidates were mailed to things like tenants' associations. Do you know whether or not a tenants' association --
Mr Tessier: I have no idea.
Mr Kormos: Because you've known a lot of tenants in your lifetime. You've owned buildings.
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: You don't know if one of your tenants might have submitted your name.
Mr Tessier: I don't know.
Mr Kormos: Social planning councils?
Mr Tessier: I have no idea.
Mr Kormos: Housing advocates. What are some of the things that housing advocates -- they operate housing for difficult-to-house people. Would the housing advocates have submitted your name?
Mr Tessier: I don't know.
Mr Kormos: Do you know whether the community legal clinic might have?
Mr Tessier: I'm sorry, I don't have any idea.
Mr Kormos: Had you ever had any contact, over the course of your years as an owner of buildings, with the community legal clinic?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Kormos: Your MPP is -- I'm not sure whether it's Mr Bartolucci.
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: It indicates here that the Ministry of Housing would have sent a letter to Mr Bartolucci requesting suggestions about possible appointments. Do you know whether Mr Bartolucci submitted your name?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Bartolucci: Chances are that didn't happen. Chances are the minister didn't send me a letter requesting names either.
Mr Kormos: You were made aware that there was a vacancy. You were made aware that there was a need for one or more people to be on this.
Mr Tessier: Possibly only; I didn't know. I received a letter back saying it might be in the next month or two years or more. Then I received a letter to appear here, that's all.
Mr Kormos: So initially you wrote a letter to someone.
Mr Tessier: Yes. I made the application.
Mr Kormos: To whom?
Mr Tessier: To the ministry, whatever.
Mr Kormos: What prompted you, though, to do that?
Mr Tessier: I had some spare time and I like to do a little bit for my community, that's all, like I've always done.
Mr Kormos: So you had always had a passion for serving on the district housing --
Mr Tessier: It's related to my type of work that I've been involved in all my life.
Mr Kormos: You decided, now that you've got time, that you're going to write a letter. You wrote it to whom, once again?
Mr Tessier: To the ministry. I don't have the application here, but I sent it in and in due course they wrote back and said they had my name on file and that they would consider it. About two months later I received a letter to appear here.
Mr Kormos: What's Mr Bartolucci saying, then, when he's trying to make some connection with Bernie? Was Bernie involved with this?
Mr Tessier: He asked me how I found out, and I said I had heard from different people that there might be an opening on the Sudbury housing authority and I sent it in.
Mr Kormos: So he asked you how you found out about the opening.
Mr Tessier: Yes. Not necessarily an opening; they mentioned the Sudbury housing authority. They said there might be an opening or there might not be, and I sent it in. That's all.
Mr Kormos: Okay. But Bernie approached you.
Mr Tessier: No, I approached him. I was looking for something to do.
Mr Kormos: You went to Bernie.
Mr Tessier: We were just meeting. We were having coffee together.
Mr Kormos: Sure. No problem. So you raised the issue with Bernie.
Mr Tessier: No, I did not raise the issue with Bernie. We were having a discussion and I said I might be available for an authority. He mentioned to me that there would be -- and I submitted. I submitted before for other positions and then turned them down, not for any political reason or anything else.
Mr Kormos: You can't be sure of that.
Okay, during a conversation with Bernie you mentioned that you were interested in serving on the housing authority --
Mr Tessier: Or another --
Mr Kormos: -- or another position. What other sort of stuff?
Mr Tessier: Anything that is related to me. You know, you've got the book in front of you.
Mr Kormos: What did you have in mind? You've got an extensive background in --
Mr Tessier: Numerous things.
Mr Kormos: -- land development. Licence Suspension Appeal Board?
Mr Tessier: Not really, no. But anyway, I submitted, period.
Mr Kormos: After you spoke with Bernie.
Mr Tessier: I don't know what you want from me.
1100
Mr Kormos: After you spoke with Bernie, you then sent a letter to the ministry?
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: So Bernie directed you to send the letter to the ministry?
Mr Tessier: No. I wrote in for the form, got the form and submitted it, that's all. Bernie was not a big item in this. I wanted to be of service to my area.
Mr Kormos: Were you interviewed by anybody before you came here to this committee?
Mr Tessier: I haven't seen anybody -- nobody.
Mr Kormos: Did you speak with the chair of the Sudbury District Housing Authority?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Kormos: Nobody spoke to you from the government before you came here?
Mr Tessier: No.
Mr Kormos: We might not have gotten the full package, but I've got a one-page work background here that identifies your work background from 1950, miner, and then beginning in 1956 with property development through to 1996. Is that what you sent in to the ministry?
Mr Tessier: I sent it to the ministry. Then I received a call from the chair and she said she would mail me the Hansard. I received it and that was it. I made contact with whatever was written in the letter and then I spoke to, I believe, your secretary or something.
The Chair: Of the secretariat, I would think.
Mr Tessier: Yes. In fact, Donna Bryce. I can see the lady now. I made contact with Donna Bryce, and she sent me the Hansard and instructions to be here today.
Mr Kormos: Did you send anything more to the ministry, other than this, when you made your application? I've got one page that says "Work Background."
Mr Tessier: That's it.
Mr Kormos: It doesn't even have your name on it, though.
Mr Tessier: Well, I don't know. I forget now.
Mr Kormos: Is there more here that was attached? Have I been shortchanged in terms of materials?
Mr Tessier: That was attached to the form. My name was on the front of it.
Mr Kormos: It was attached to the form. Okay. You sent that to the Ministry of Housing in Toronto?
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: That's the address that was on the form?
Mr Tessier: Yes.
Mr Kormos: And nobody from the Ministry of Housing called you?
Mr Tessier: Yes. A lady by the name of Judy Burns called me, and in turn she sent me a fax with instructions to meet with her and she sent me this.
Mr Kormos: Fair enough. That's what I want to find out: What happened between your letter of application until you got here. So a woman called Judy Burns -- whom is she with?
Mr Tessier: I'm going to start to give it to you exactly.
Mr Kormos: Please.
Mr Tessier: I sent the application. I received the letter, I'm going to repeat it again, and I received forms saying they would consider me, that it might be a while, a year or whatever it is. Then I turned around and received, about two months later, a letter from the Office of the Premier signed by Judy Burns, who requested that I have a meeting with her last night, then today to appear here. I brought back the tape and whatever, and that's it. After that I received a call from Donna Bryce, from the Chair's office, and she sent me the instructions to be here at 11, because I thought it was to be a different day; I didn't know. It was a two-step deal, period.
Mr Kormos: Mr Bartolucci had much more time than I did, Chair.
The Chair: It just seemed that way, Mr Kormos. We will now go back to the government members. Do they have any questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: Mr Tessier, thank you. You've endured your trial by fire before the committee. We appreciate your presence here this morning.
That brings us to the final item on the agenda, which is the concurrences for the intended appointees.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Emo.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Do you wish to speak to it? Okay. All those in favour --
Mr Kormos: I want to speak to it.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Kormos. Sorry.
Mr Kormos: Once again, as I indicated to Mr Emo when he was here, in taking a look at his résumé, he, no doubt about it, is qualified for this position. Mr Emo was very candid, as one would expect him to be when seeking an appointment to this quasi-judicial sort of body. His integrity is confirmed by his candour here.
But I do raise notice. I'm going to support his appointment to the OMB but I make note of the fact that here we have a person who candidly admits to having contributed to the Conservative Party during the course of the last election. I think we'd better take note of that, because we'd hate to see this government fall into the patronage trap, where the qualification ultimately is that you feed into the coffers of the Conservative Party. Having said that, I have every intention of supporting Mr Emo as a qualified applicant for this position.
The Chair: Is the committee ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Conway.
The Chair: Comments?
Mr Kormos: Once again, this position has modest remuneration. At the moment it requires, according to the government's guide to agencies, boards and commissions -- it's not this government in particular; it's the generic guide -- one or two days a month. I suspect the workload may be increasing, and the government can decide then either to appoint more members or that these people are going to be called upon to work more frequently.
It's a position where I suspect the primary guidance is common sense, hopefully not the sort of common sense we've seen around here for the last year and a half, because that has smeared any indication of that.
Once again I feel badly because Mr Conway felt it was inappropriate to go to his member, his MPP, to seek this position and instead went to the member for the S-D-G riding, Noble Villeneuve, whom I have high regard for, as you well know. I feel badly about that because that suggests to me -- because Mr Conway candidly said he suspects that the member for Prescott and Russell has taken care of "his" people -- I assume, I think fairly safely, that meant Liberals.
I grew up during the 1950s, during those pre-Robarts and then Robarts years, through to the Davis years, when pork-barrelling was at its most intense level, back in days where, truly, the road paving would stop at the boundary of a riding. I remember that. You've got a few years on me, Chair, more than a few, but that much more experience, and I'm sure you could recall even more phenomena.
Mr Conway made no bones whatsoever about the fact that he was a long-time Conservative supporter and a financial contributor. I'm concerned that what we're witnessing, though, is that this government has created, clearly, the impression that it's going to engage in patronage à la 1950s and 1960s. That is very troubling. Mr Conway gave the impression that he sensed that, because he wouldn't go to his own MPP for a reference or for assistance, he went to Mr Villeneuve, because he was one of Mr Villeneuve's people, to wit, a Tory. That's troubling because that confirms to me that this government has embarked on a course of, yes, turning the clock back over 30 years to those days of Tory pork-barrelling. I'm going to support Mr Conway, but I note that he again, and with candour, acknowledged being a long-time Tory supporter, a Tory financial contributor. We've got to keep an eye on these because there may be a pattern developing where the only way you get appointed is by being a Tory supporter and/or a contributor to the Conservative Party. That's troublesome.
1110
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): That's a smart move, a very smart move.
Mr Kormos: It may be a pattern.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Are there any other comments on Mr Wood's motion for concurrence? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
The third concurrence?
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Tessier.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comment?
Mr Kormos: Once again, after Mr Bartolucci spoke to Mr Tessier I thought we had basically one of two options, that Mr Tessier was either a Conservative or a New Democrat, because the impression one got from Mr Bartolucci's questioning was that he clearly wasn't a Liberal. That is not to say that Mr Bartolucci isn't a Liberal; Mr Tessier wasn't a Liberal.
The Chair: I could have clarified that for you, actually.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure you could have. But then I figured Mr Tessier is from Sudbury, which has been a hotbed of social democracy for decades, and I figured maybe Mr Tessier was a New Democrat. I thought maybe the pattern we had begun to witness was being broken by the government, that maybe they had recognized their addiction to patronage, their addiction to Tory appointments. Do you know what also went through my mind, Chair? I thought maybe this is one of those token New Democrats the government was appointing, because as I say, until it was confirmed for me that Mr Tessier wasn't a New Democrat, I thought maybe he was one of those token ones governments are inclined to throw in every once in a while to try to create the illusion of there not being a pattern of patronage.
I wish Mr Bartolucci could have stayed, because I think we would have had some interesting interplay, but obviously he had obligations that he had made previous commitments to and he left Mr Crozier here, which is more than fair and more than appropriate. What troubles me about Mr Tessier is that it took a little while to understand the pattern or the course of his application for this position.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): That was your lack of understanding.
Mr Kormos: I can only say this to Mr Tessier: In view of what appears to be a very intense connection to Tory bag people up in Sudbury -- and no quarrel with that. You've got every right, and boy, Tory bag people need all the help they can get right now because those bags are just full of cash and it ain't coinage, let me tell you; it ain't small bills.
In view of that, Mr Tessier, you should have held out for something that had a little more currency and a little more longevity to it, because these housing authorities that supervise public housing are doomed as a result of the announcement made yesterday. Mr Tessier will be responsible, I suppose, perhaps for the selloff of these. His being on the board may well prohibit him from considering buying them because that would be a conflict of interest, but, Mr Tessier, you should have held out for something with a little more longevity and at least a modest stipend, like Mr Conway is going to get, one or two days a month. In view of your connections, you should have held out for more. You've been shortchanged by this government. You've been a faithful Tory and a strong supporter and you deserve --
Mr Preston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I object to a person's motives being called into question. Mr Tessier stated he wanted something that interested him. That was the end of the story. Now his motives are being called into question on a monetary basis and I think it's a crock, as everybody else does here.
The Chair: Speak for yourself, Mr Preston. To be fair --
Mr Preston: Then there are only two people who don't think it's a crock.
The Chair: That is not a legitimate point of order. Mr Kormos, continue.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Chair. Do I have to back up a little bit?
The Chair: I don't know.
Mr Kormos: Are we okay with Hansard? I didn't want to interfere with Hansard, because sometimes there's a gap where they have to just put three or four dots.
In any event, Mr Tessier, I'm going to support your appointment, but I tell you, you've been shortchanged. This government has done far more for people who have done far less than you have for the Conservative Party. I would have a talk with Bernie if I were you and straighten him out and tell Bernie, "No more big cheques to fund-raisers unless they clean up their act a little bit," because if you're going to do patronage, by God, people like you are the people who deserve it. You've been working a lifetime, it seems, for the Conservative Party, and working hard.
Thank you, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you anyway, Mr Kormos. I appreciate that. Any other comments? Are you ready for the question?
All those in favour of the concurrence? It's unanimous. Thank you for that.
That completes the business. Next week we have only one person scheduled, but there will presumably be a subcommittee to deal with by then as well, so I assume we'll carry on with the meeting next Wednesday.
We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1116.