CONTENTS
Wednesday 17 April 1996
Subcommittee reports
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:
Vankoughnet, Bill (Frontenanc-Addington PC) for Mr Preston
Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Ross
Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel
Staff / Personnel: David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee on government agencies will come to order. You will recall, committee members, that at the last meeting of this committee, Mr Kormos had the floor, debating a motion by Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I might indicate to my friend Mr Kormos that, pursuant to the agreement made by the House leaders, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in the event I do get the floor. So when that happens, I propose to withdraw my amendment to this motion.
The Chair: Is it clear, Mr Kormos, that you have to cede the floor to Mr Wood in order for him to withdraw his motion?
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Sure.
Mr Bob Wood: It's the amendment that I intend to withdraw, actually.
The Chair: Correct.
Mr Kormos: I understand that, Chair. This is a real test of trust, isn't it? And honour.
Good thing I'm not a parking attendant out at the east wing when John Hastings is in a hurry to get to the washroom. Did you read that little bit in the Sun this morning? Incredible. Of course, you can't believe everything you read in the papers, but Gary Dunford, who's an interesting columnist, talks about how yesterday, John Hastings, in a miserable mood obviously, pulls up at the east side and finds a three-car motorcade blocking the east archway at Queen's Park. But that's where he wanted to park. The High Commissioner of India was paying a courtesy call, of all things. He didn't inquire of the RCMP, or Metro security present, as to how long he might have to wait. In fact, the cars were about to be moved to face the exit. He yells at the poor parking attendant in the rudest way, slings his Ford Explorer halfway across the sidewalk, locks it, and stomps into the Legislature, only to send an aide out around an hour later to move the car on to the sidewalk, to the great inconvenience, obviously, of persons with disabilities or the sightless.
I was actually looking forward to Mr Hastings being here this morning as I was commenting on this motion by Mr Wood, because of course I was going to make a whole lot of hay about that type of rudeness. But I will cede the floor on that understanding and on my regard for the word of Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood: I hope Mr Kormos will note that I did that on the record. I'm sure when he was in the legal business, he liked to have undertakings on the record.
Mr Chair, I'd like to withdraw my amendment.
The Chair: Okay. The subcommittee report of March 26 -- just so we're all perfectly clear on this; we don't want any confusion afterwards -- says, "That the time for the motions for concurrence will be split evenly between the parties." That would stay, and what would be removed would be the amendment that says "for the three appointments will be limited to 10 minutes per party." Are we in complete agreement?
Mr Bob Wood: That's my understanding of it.
The Chair: Okay. That's in agreement then. Thank you, Mr Wood.
Can we proceed then to the reports of the subcommittee?
Mr Bob Wood: I think I have a motion on the floor, Mr Chair, which is the adoption of the report of the subcommittee of Tuesday, March 26.
The Chair: Sorry. I'm reminded that the subcommittee report of the 26th, with these intended appointees, is what was being debated.
Mr Bob Wood: I think that's now on the floor, as I understand.
The Chair: You're right. Who had the floor? Did you?
Mr Bob Wood: Unless anyone else has anything more to add to this, perhaps we might proceed to a vote.
Mr Kormos: I believe we're referring to -- let's identify this -- the Tuesday, March 26, 1996, subcommittee report. The one that deals with the selection of John Rossetti, among others.
The Chair: Correct.
Mr Kormos: Which is academic now, in any event.
The Chair: Yes. No, wait a minute.
Mr Bob Wood: I think, Mr Chair, the report itself may be moot, but presumably we should adopt it.
Mr Kormos: I'd ask for clarification on what is paragraph 2 of that, "That the time for the motions for concurrence will be split evenly between the parties." As a matter of fact, I'm going to move that that be deleted from the report of the subcommittee and I so move, that paragraph 2 be deleted.
The Chair: Okay. Did you wish to speak to that?
Mr Kormos: I think it's self-evident.
The Chair: Okay. Does anyone else wish to speak to Mr Kormos's motion that paragraph 2 be deleted?
Mr Bob Wood: I think, Mr Chair, it basically lacks teeth. I'm not going to oppose the motion.
The Chair: Okay. All those in favour? Opposed? Then paragraph 2 is deleted. Thank you for your cooperation on that.
What needs to be done now is this subcommittee report has to be approved, as amended, because it's been amended now. Is there a motion for that? It's already there.
All those in favour? All right. We'll get through this. Thank you.
Can we move then to the Tuesday, April 2, subcommittee report?
Mr Bob Wood: If it's in order, I'd like to move the adoption of the report of the subcommittee of Tuesday, April 2, 1996.
The Chair: I assume that the date on that which says, "Date for consideration: 17 April..." will be altered subsequently on the April 16 subcommittee report.
Mr Bob Wood: It'll be amended by our next one.
The Chair: All right, it's been moved for the subcommittee report. All in favour? Carried.
Can we move then to yesterday's subcommittee report?
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, I'd like to move adoption of the report of the subcommittee of Tuesday, April 16, 1996. I think I have to move an amendment to paragraphs 3 and 4 in that "31 April" I think is in fact "May 1."
The Chair: Yes, paragraph 2, as well.
Mr Bob Wood: I think it may also appear in paragraphs 3 and 4. So, if I may, I'll move the report of the subcommittee and then I'll move those two amendments as one amendment. I move the adoption of the report of the subcommittee of Tuesday --
The Chair: With that change of May 1.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm in your hands.
The Chair: Yes, that's okay. With that change of May 1 noted. It's just the wrong date.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay.
The Chair: Okay, that's been moved. Accepted? Nobody opposed? Okay.
I believe that it's understood that the committee will now, in closed session, deal with the report on the Social Assistance Review Board. Is that understood, that that was to be in closed session, I believe?
Mr Bob Wood: That's my understanding.
The Chair: It's a draft report that we're dealing with.
Interjection: What does "closed session" mean?
The Chair: Closed session means that only committee members and staff are here.
Interjection.
The Chair: No, not this part because we're building a report, or trying to put together a report.
Interjection.
The Chair: Same thing. Okay?
The committee continued in closed session at 1014.