Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

INTENDED APPOINTMENT
DARLA SCOTT

CONTENTS

Wednesday 5 June 1996

Intended appointment

Darla Scott

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:

Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC) for Mr Leadston

Clerk / Greffière: Tannis Manikel

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

The committee met at 1004 in room 228.

The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): We have an agenda this morning that deals with one intended appointment, a motion for concurrence, report of the subcommittee of yesterday and draft reports on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council. So let us get on with it.

INTENDED APPOINTMENT
DARLA SCOTT

Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Darla Scott, intended appointee as member, Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors.

The Chair: Our first guest this morning is Darla Scott, an intended appointment for the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund. Darla, if I could be so informal, we split up the time evenly among the three parties, about 10 minutes each, and any comments you want to make at the beginning would be most appropriate. We welcome you to the committee.

Ms Darla Scott: Good morning. Thank you, Floyd. I appreciate the invitation to appear before you this morning to express my interest in this appointment. Although a couple of people know me on a more personal level, for the rest of the committee I'd like to give you a little bit of information about who I am and why I feel my qualifications would be of benefit to this board.

I'm a business owner, having been in business in the Sudbury and northern Ontario area for almost 10 years now. Throughout that period of time, I have been involved in community activities, specifically having served eight years on the local chamber of commerce in various positions, and I am the current president.

I have also been on the Sudbury Regional Development Corp as a member of the board for six years; I'm entering my sixth year. For those of you who are familiar with the mandate of the SRDC, it is to create jobs through diversification and enhancing the quality of life in the Sudbury region. During my period on the board, I have served on the tourism committee, participated in the strategic plan for tourism marketing for the Sudbury region. I have also served on the steering committee for the Next 10 Years conference, which was a conference to look at how we will continue to diversify our economy to sustain the current jobs that we have as well as develop opportunities for new job creation. I am the immediate past president of the Sudbury Regional Development Corp.

As well, I'm now serving my second year as director of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I have participated in a number of Canadian and Ontario chamber conferences and workshops on economic development, barriers to business, transportation and tourism.

Last June, I also participated in the Industry Canada conference that was held in conjunction with FedNor in Timmins, where we were looking at the economic development strategy for northern Ontario. As a result of attending that conference, there were a number of community participants who formed a group and prepared and presented a model for growth for northern Ontario to Minister John Manley of Industry Canada. I'm pleased to say that a number of the recommendations that were presented by the group have now been incorporated in the new mandate for FedNor.

That gives you a little bit of background of the kinds of things I've been doing in terms of looking at how business can continue to develop and grow in northern Ontario, as well as my commitment to our community. I'd be very pleased to answer any questions.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Darla, welcome here today. Thank you for coming. I've got a number of questions here, so I'll just read them out and maybe you can answer them one at a time, please. With all your community experience, which qualities do you suspect will help you most if you are to serve on the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors?

Ms Scott: I believe the links I have throughout our community and throughout northern Ontario would be beneficial in bringing a balanced view to how we can continue to develop northern Ontario. Certainly qualities like energy, enthusiasm and dedication to northern Ontario go hand in hand with the commitment that would be expected from members of the board of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.

Mr Ford: Are you familiar with the changes in the mandate of the corporation?

Ms Scott: The only information I have at this time, of course, is the press release and the information I've received via newspaper and media. I'm familiar with the fact that the change is that we're to focus on tourism development, marketing and infrastructure projects.

Mr Ford: As a business owner, do you feel you will have sufficient time to devote to the needs of the corporation?

Ms Scott: Let me put it to you this way: As president of the Sudbury Regional Development Corp last year and as president of the commerce this year, I have been giving approximately 10 to 15 hours a week to volunteer activities. I would expect that demand on my time will diminish as I move to the past president next month, so I feel I have plenty of time.

Mr Ford: So you feel very qualified to do the job that's required.

Ms Scott: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question relates to the government returning $60 million to the Ontario heritage fund, plus interest. I was wondering what effect you feel that will have on northern Ontario.

Ms Scott: Obviously it was seen as a very positive move, to know that there were additional funds that can be used to improve the quality of life and improve the business infrastructure in northern Ontario.

1010

Mr Newman: How do you think that will help the ONTC?

Ms Scott: The ONTC?

Mr Newman: I'm sorry, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. I'm just wondering the effect of that.

Ms Scott: I guess at this point I'm not sure how it would affect the NOHFC, other than knowing that with that kind of funding, the possibilities for some larger-scale projects are there. But at this point I wouldn't be able to comment any further. I'm not aware of what projects are before the board.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Ms Scott, can you tell me if you have any specific goals or objectives in mind for the corporation if you're appointed?

Ms Scott: I guess if there's anything that really needs to be looked at, it's an overall strategic plan for northern Ontario. At this point, that is one goal I perhaps would see as being something the board should look at. However, I have not met with any other board members nor have I met with the chair, so whether or not that's an appropriate goal at this time remains to be seen.

The Chair: Can we move to the official opposition? We'll reserve that time if you need it. It's seven and a half minutes. Mr Bartolucci is next.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Darla, good morning and welcome. We've certainly talked previous to this meeting about your appointment, so I'm going to start off by asking the two questions I will ask every Sudbury government appointee from here on in. The first question is, do you have an electronic device in your right ear that might affect your hearing?

Ms Scott: The last time I checked, no.

Mr Bartolucci: Good. The second question is, do you have any plans after you get this appointment to move to Ireland because you're dismayed with government policy, as Dr Hollingsworth is doing?

Ms Scott: Having been born and raised in northern Ontario, my commitment is to northern Ontario, so I think you could count on me being present for some time to come.

Mr Bartolucci: Terrific. Having answered those two questions and being able to hear the questions so clearly and being committed to northern Ontario, let me ask you the third question and the one that deals with the new mandate. I think there is a concern in northern Ontario as to the definition of this ministry's and this board's interpretation of what "infrastructure" means. Could you please give me your definition of what you interpret the new meaning of "infrastructure" to be, and is it in fact the definition of the board?

Ms Scott: You've asked a difficult question, Rick. "Infrastructure" means a lot of things to a lot of different people, as you pointed out. How the board would interpret that I think is a decision that the board, under the direction of its chair, has to make, as opposed to a personal viewpoint. My representation, my position on the board, certainly is one to work with the other 11 board members and the chair, perhaps to make a very clear definition of what it is. So at this point I believe my interpretation really is not valid.

Mr Bartolucci: Okay. You know what? Because I know what type of team player you are, having seen that on the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce, I accept that answer. But could you please tell me at this point in time what you define "infrastructure" to be?

Ms Scott: Infrastructure is all of the components that make a region or a city or a town viable, attractive, and a healthy, breathing economy that attracts people and supports their needs.

Mr Bartolucci: So it's more than below-the-ground pipes and it's more than pavement?

Ms Scott: It's a whole host of things.

Mr Bartolucci: Such as?

Ms Scott: A host of things. It's highways; it's roads; it's sewers; it's water; it's hospitals; it's education; it's our government infrastructure; it's the business community; it's the volunteer community; it's the people who live there. It's all-encompassing.

Mr Bartolucci: For example, you know this project is on the books in Sudbury, Science North, and you know that Science North is working with the federal government at this point in time to secure some funding for the simulator project. Would you consider an application to the fund for funding for the simulator project as a project that should receive funding?

Ms Scott: I think we have to look at Science North in the context of economic development. As we've seen over the past years, Science North has grown, prospered and attracted many visitors to our community and presented us with a lot of spinoff opportunities that wouldn't have existed had Science North not gone out and purposely created new attractions to bring people back for a second, third or fourth visit or to bring new people in. I believe we have to look at Science North in the context of our infrastructure: Is that part of the infrastructure? That's what I would hope the board would consider.

Mr Bartolucci: What about you personally, Darla? You can't speak for the entire board, but you certainly can speak for Darla Scott, and you do that well. So would you support that?

Ms Scott: I think if you look at my initiatives within the community and certainly at SRDC, Science North has always been given full support in anything I've been involved in in the past.

Mr Bartolucci: I'll take that as a yes.

A second one, and one that is very dear to not only Sudbury but the entire north, is the development of the regional cancer centres. It's a project that started at our own Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre and it has spun off to several communities throughout northern Ontario under the initiative of several people, but in particular Gerry Lougheed Jr. Is that the type of initiative, infrastructure definition, you would see the board supporting through funding?

Ms Scott: I think it all depends what part of the cancer treatment centres or the smaller regional centres we're being asked to support. I don't believe the fund is designed to provide operating funds. I believe it's designed for capital projects, and that is a very loose interpretation at this point. So if we were being asked to support a centre with operating funds, I would certainly have some reservations about that in terms of where the next step would lead them. If it was capital, I would certainly see that in a different light.

Mr Bartolucci: Then could you support startup costs for these different regional centres? Because they are throughout northern Ontario.

Ms Scott: I think each situation has to be looked at on its own merit as opposed to a blanket, "Yes, I would." Each situation has to be looked at on its own merit: What is the community providing? Is there support within the community etc?

Mr Bartolucci: But, Darla, in all sincerity, do you not support the concept?

Ms Scott: The concept? Of course.

Mr Bartolucci: Then an application to the board would not be supported by you, are you saying, or would be supported by you, if we're looking at startup costs?

Ms Scott: I'm saying an application to the board has to be looked at on its own merit, and certainly if it has merit and meets the criteria that are set out under the legislation there would be no reason not to support.

1020

Mr Bartolucci: A concern I have, and we spoke about this previously as well, is the appointment of economic diversification officers from different towns in northern Ontario to the board. Do you not see that as being unfair or biased to the other cities and towns in northern Ontario?

Ms Scott: That's a very difficult question. I'm not familiar with the other members of the board, certainly not the individuals you're referring to. I don't know what their other interests are, so to pass an opinion on the validity of their appointment I think is really irrelevant.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Ms Scott. Thanks for coming. The first meeting of the new board took place on May 22 in Sault Ste Marie. I'm just wondering what came out of that meeting in terms of what decisions were made, what direction in terms of the strategy you discussed. Obviously, one of the concerns I think we all have is that for a year the heritage fund has literally not done anything. It's been absolutely in review and I think it was an unnecessary delay before decisions were made. Having said that, it's been a year.

The concerns we have now are that it's going to take a long time to get up and running. So I'm curious about the 22nd, what decisions were made, when the next meeting of the board is scheduled and just exactly how clear it was what role the board members will play in devising the strategy, in terms of what input, as in consultation, the board members really will have in terms of putting that strategy together.

Ms Scott: My understanding is the May 22 meeting was an orientation meeting. I was not present as I was out of the province on business, so I cannot answer the other questions.

Mr Gravelle: I would think you share the concern, though, that there's a need to move reasonably quickly. The fund has not been up and running for four years. Is there another meeting of the board?

Ms Scott: I have not been advised of the next meeting, no.

Mr Gravelle: It's not scheduled. Do you have any understanding, though, in terms of the role of the board members in terms of input into that strategy? Certainly one of the concerns a lot of us have is that there has not been real consultation with northerners, as has been promised. Regardless of how one feels about the appointments, I think it's important that the members who are in place have an opportunity to have real input in the process of the strategy, rather than simply being told how it's going to work. I'm going to operate from the positive point of view that that's how it will work, but do you have any indication that's the case?

Ms Scott: I haven't received any indication. Certainly, I've had a number of phone calls from individuals in northern Ontario already giving me their views --

Mr Gravelle: I'll bet.

Ms Scott: -- which is perfectly acceptable. However --

Mr Gravelle: I would think that would want to be encouraged, actually, that that would be the role you would play.

Ms Scott: Absolutely. That's what representation is all about, being able to bring the various viewpoints to the board for their consideration.

The Chair: I don't want to be too arbitrary, but you are a minute over, so I think we had better call time.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thanks for coming today. I'm just wondering, just to kind of set the record straight and for all of our information here, are you a card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Party?

Ms Scott: Am I a card-carrying member of the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr Martin: Yes.

Ms Scott: No, I'm not a card-carrying member of any party.

Mr Martin: Okay. Do you support the direction this government is going in?

Ms Scott: I think what you need to consider is that good government is supported by the individuals within the province and good government legislation is supported by individuals. I support good government legislation regardless of party.

Mr Martin: Do you support the direction, though, that this government is going in and do you consider what it's doing to be good government?

Ms Scott: How does this relate to my appointment?

Mr Martin: You're called here to answer some questions and I would hope you would have nothing that you'd be afraid of or that would concern you in terms of answers you might give. I'm just asking you if you support the direction of this government and do you think what this government is doing is good government?

Ms Scott: I'm still confused how this relates to my appointment. Obviously, as a board member, or potential board member, I would be seen as a positive contributor to the direction of the board. I'm not sure where else this goes.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Excuse me, Chair. Maybe a brief recess to administer Novocain.

The Chair: Order, please. Carry on, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: It seems to me that in acting on behalf of or as part of a board such as the NOHFC, which is so important to northern Ontario, it would be important for those of us who represent constituencies in northern Ontario to understand where you'll be coming from in terms of either your support of the agenda of this government, or in support of what in fact is in the better interests of northern Ontario and you won't have any difficulty when it comes to making those kinds of decisions.

Ms Scott: I believe my role as a board member is to work with the board to bring forward the kinds of recommendations that are in the best interests of northern Ontario and to work on their behalf. If that is synonymous with government direction, that's good.

Mr Martin: And if it's not?

Ms Scott: If it's not synonymous, then we have a lot of work to do to reach compromises that satisfy the interests of northern Ontario.

Mr Martin: Okay. Certainly in the north Sudbury is seen and known by those of us who live up there as a community that has done some tremendously good work over the last 10 to 20 years to restructure an economy that was faltering, that was struggling, as the downsizing of INCO and Falconbridge and all of that happened, and that has gone after some significant number of government jobs. The taxation centre was brought to Sudbury, Science North arrived in Sudbury, and all of that was seen to be a very valuable and important contribution to the north. In the short time the Conservatives have been in power in Ontario, we've seen a diminishing of government presence.

We've also seen in my community -- and it's the only community I can speak of intimately because I'm very much involved and concerned about what's happening there -- two decisions have been made so far that are probably going to cost my community somewhere between $40 million and $50 million a year in economic activity. The decision to take 22% out of the resources of the poorest in my community, those people on social assistance through no fault of their own, costs my community about $2 million a month and will ultimately therefore cost about $24 million to $25 million a year in revenue coming in that's spent in some of the businesses that probably are represented by your organization, the chamber.

By way of the downsizing of the government operation itself, we've just had a study done that indicates we stand to lose, and these are conservative estimates, something like 1,700 jobs in Sault Ste Marie because of the downsizing of the government by this present government in less than a year, and even with a mitigating tax break, if people spend all of the tax break, we'll still lose about 700 jobs. If they spend half of that, the estimate is that we'll lose 1,200 jobs. So far we've seen nothing from the NOHFC by way of a plan to mitigate. I had a meeting with some of the staff of northern development and mines and they've lost all their programming. I suggest to you that --

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: You'll have to help me with this, but as I understood the standing orders, when there is a reference to a report, it's incumbent on that member to produce the report and I was wondering if this member will be producing same.

Mr Martin: I'd be more than happy to do that.

The Chair: Perhaps he could do that later, but I think we should not cut into his time.

Mr Martiniuk: Thank you.

Mr Martin: The board, to this point, has not been operating. It's been sitting in limbo as the government decides what it is it's going to do. Up to this point, it's done nothing but cut and decimate. Does that cause you any concern?

Ms Scott: Obviously there is concern that the board has not met and that there are a number of projects before it. This is a concern, I think, shared by many individuals throughout northern Ontario, as you have expressed. I believe that once the appointments have been made official, the board will be given its direction to move forward as quickly as possible, and I'm prepared to work to move projects forward as quickly as possible.

1030

Mr Martin: The impact I've described for you re Sault Ste Marie, is that the same experience for Sudbury?

Ms Scott: I believe that every northern Ontario community has grave concern when it loses one job, let alone several hundred jobs. As individuals and as representatives on various committees and boards we have to work extremely hard to replace those jobs and seek out new opportunities. That's being done in your community, my community and other communities in northern Ontario. We have to come together and move those views and opportunities forward as quickly as possible to create new opportunity and sustain the jobs we currently have. Yes, it's of concern, and I'm prepared to work to do that.

Mr Martin: The difficulty I have in all that is the hunch that some have who are watching the scenario unfold that all of us in the north have to deal with, that this government is into major reduction in expenditure in the north. Municipalities have lost literally millions of dollars to their budget, which goes into the maintenance, for example, of the road structure, which is infrastructure, and have been saddled now with the maintenance of even more roads compared to before.

If it turns out that the northern Ontario heritage fund is to some degree simply an attempt to spend money that was normally spent in stimulating, creating and working with entrepreneurs in the north to try to develop new industry and jobs to replace money to maintain roads and other infrastructure projects that aren't going to be replaceable and repairable now because cities aren't going to have the money they had before, would you be willing to stand up and say that's not an appropriate expenditure of this money and that, as those of us who have been watching this have said up to this point, this is simply another shell game?

Ms Scott: I'm not aware at this point of what infrastructure means in terms of the fund, so I can't say that it's going to be used to replace funding for northern Ontario roads. Certainly there are always concerns about one fund being used to replace another, that kind of thing. However, as citizens of northern Ontario we have always been very clear in speaking out on what we believe are issues that are important to us. I don't think that being an appointment to this board changes the way we continue to address government, whatever party is represented by the government.

Mr Martin: So you're telling me --

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Martin, that's the end of your time. I know it went quickly, but that's the 10 minutes that have been allocated. There are a couple of minutes left if government members want to use them, but you're obviously not required to.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): We won't use it; we'll waive it.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. Ms Scott, thank you very much for appearing before the committee. We appreciate your presence here. You will hear through the process as it unfolds. You're welcome to stay or leave, whichever you wish.

The next item is the question of concurrence or otherwise.

Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Scott.

The Chair: Okay. Do you wish to speak to that?

Mr Bob Wood: Not at the moment.

The Chair: Okay. Does the official opposition wish to speak to it? No. Third party?

Mr Martin: I will support this appointment, given that I heard Ms Scott say to us this morning that given a choice between fighting for, as her community has always done over the last 10 or 15 years, that which is essential and most important to her region and to the whole region of northern Ontario when it comes in conflict with the agenda of this government, which up to this point seems to be to shift money around so that in the end it simply spends less, she will be a strong voice on behalf of the small businesses in northern Ontario -- in Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, Timmins and North Bay and all those very important, vital and valuable communities that now exist in northern Ontario -- that now operate in those communities and that she will not compromise her principles or her strong feeling for our special part of this province. I sense from her answers that she will have the courage and strength of her commitment to stand up and speak for the north as this government continues its agenda of devastation and destruction.

The Chair: You've provoked Mr Bartolucci now, Mr Martin.

Mr Bartolucci: You have, and I'm not going to try to change Tony's mind. Let me tell you that (1) I consider Darla to be a friend, and I want that on the record; (2) I have serious concerns about her definition of "infrastructure" as it applies to northern Ontario and in particular to this board; (3) I honestly and firmly believe in these regional cancer centres, these community centres that I believe must be funded through this board because their importance is critical.

I would have wanted a direct answer of support and I didn't get that from Darla. I'm not questioning Darla's ability to fight, because philosophically we've certainly had our opportunities to disagree, always very favourably, but to disagree. I would suggest in this instance, because she didn't give a clear answer on the composition of the board with regard to economic diversification officers from other towns in northern Ontario, which I consider to be an unfair advantage for those towns, because I'm not satisfied with her definition of "infrastructure" and because I'm not sure that her commitment to the regional cancer centres is as pronounced as I would want it to be and as pronounced as I'm sure it's going to be over the long term, I will not support the appointment.

Mr Bob Wood: We think she has a lot of good business experience and a lot of good community experience and we think she's going to be an excellent member of this board.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? If there are not, the motion has been put before the committee and the opportunity is here to vote on it.

Mr Martin: I don't want to get into a discussion with Rick but I want to say, because Darla's still here and to the members of the government, that if this fund becomes simply another way of funding those agencies, organizations and institutions that we see as absolutely essential to any viability in the north -- health care facilities, roads and bridges, municipal works of various sorts -- which is not what it was intended to be in the first place, then we've lost the focus of the NOHFC and we might as well close it down, because all it has become is another funnel of money politically wrapped so that it looks like this government is spending a whole pile of money in northern Ontario when it is not. It's simply replacing money they're taking out from mainline ministries to services that we just cannot afford to lose.

The reason that I'm going to support Darla this morning is that I know that she won't let that happen, that she will be a voice for the north that is, as so many of the voices before her, intelligent, sensitive and understanding of the fact that it just doesn't make any sense to be replacing one source of money with another and to be in any way in that shell game diminishing the level of service that we get in the north, because we need it up there and we need it closer than Toronto or London, which is where a lot of the people in Sault St Marie right now have to go for medical care. That's a real hardship for some people.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr Martin. Are the members ready for the vote? I don't want to rush you.

All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion, please show. All those opposed? The motion is --

Mr Bob Wood: I wonder, Mr Chair, if we could have a recorded vote, please.

The Chair: The rules say you have to ask for it before the vote.

Mr Bob Wood: In that case, I'll simply note for the purposes of the record, the NDP and the Conservatives supported this and the Liberals opposed it.

The Chair: Okay. The motion is carried.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just want to make a comment that some time earlier this year I think there was some suggestion that this committee would try to operate on a non-partisan basis. Then later, Mr Wood confirmed for us that many of the appointments would be partisan. Then again this morning, in order to subvert the rules, Mr Wood has made the comment he has just made.

I take that a bit as an affront. The rules clearly state how a recorded vote will be made. I am sorry that you feel that you have to take this kind of approach, because we've been able to get along pretty well on this committee. I just took it, Mr Wood, as a personal affront to me to subvert the rules as they're intended to be followed. It just again shows that, notwithstanding what might be said from time to time, this simply is a partisan committee.

The Chair: On the same point of order, Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: I'm as concerned as Mr Crozier, but not with the same passion. Clearly, Mr Wood screwed up. He screwed up big time because he blew it and forgot to call for a recorded vote, so he tried to do some cleanup. God bless. In that respect, it was a little bit innovative, but it's the type of innovativeness that we all admire and he's on record now as having clearly demonstrated that he screwed up. The poor guy screwed up, Mr Crozier. He blew it. He fumbled. He dropped the ball. Don't embarrass him, for Pete's sake.

The Chair: Have we not beaten this horse to death?

Mr Bob Wood: I don't want to embarrass the Liberals further by their impolitic vote.

The Chair: Okay, that's disposed of. The motion as put by Mr Wood has been carried. We can now move on to the next item of business, which is the report of the subcommittee, a meeting that was held yesterday.

Mr Bob Wood: I move adoption of the subcommittee report.

The Chair: Mr Wood has moved adoption of the subcommittee report. Does anyone wish to speak to that?

All those in favour? Opposed. It's carried.

The next item of business is in closed session because it deals with a draft report on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Health Council.

The committee continued in closed session from 1044 to 1144.

The Chair: We're back in open session. Do you want to wait for Mr Wood or do you want to start?

Mr Newman: Can we wait for Mr Wood?

The Chair: You want to wait for a minute. Is he on his way?

Interjection.

The Chair: I believe you. Can we start, because it's almost 12 o'clock. I'll ask the clerk to read the motion. We won't call any votes or anything at this point, but I think we should get started. I'll ask the clerk to read the motion and then open it up for debate.

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): Mr Wood moves that the Chair be instructed to present the report on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to the House.

The Chair: We can have a discussion on that motion now. Mr Kormos.

Mr Kormos: Mr Chair, Mr Martin had to leave the committee room. I'm moving deferral of this motion to June 19 at 10:30 am.

The Chair: So you're moving deferral of this one --

Mr Kormos: Yes.

The Chair: -- till the 19th. Okay, on this --

Mr Bartolucci: Before you rule on it, Mr Chair, I would ask, if there's a motion of deferral -- because Mr Crozier just left -- for a 15-minute adjournment so that I could find Mr Crozier.

The Chair: I'm a little disturbed by this because I thought there was an agreement that we would move into open session for the purpose of debating this, Mr Wood's motion. So I'm troubled, after having had that agreement, that we now move a deferral. I think it's in order, but --

Mr Kormos: No, Chair, if the Chair's understanding was such that it would bar that type of motion --

The Chair: I think you're in order, but I'm just troubled by it.

Mr Kormos: No, no, I know I'm in order, but if the Chair's of the understanding -- and I respect the Chair's perception that there was an agreement that this type of motion not be brought. Is that --

The Chair: More or less. I mean --

Mr Kormos: Fair enough then. In view of that, I withdraw my motion because I wouldn't want to upset the consensus that had been arrived at by the committee while it was sitting in camera without there being a record. I appreciate that when there's not a record it's not something one can refer back to. I respect the Chair's interpretation of those events and I withdraw the motion for deferral.

The Chair: I appreciate that. Do you wish to speak to Mr Wood's motion at this point or not? Mr Wood's motion is still before the committee.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps we could re-read that motion, please.

Clerk of the Committee: Mr Wood moved that the Chair be instructed to present the report on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to the House.

Mr Kormos: May I move an amendment to that, which I believe is in order, that the report be reported to the House and recommended for debate.

The Chair: And that what?

Clerk of the Committee: And that the recommendations in the report be adopted?

Mr Kormos: No. The motion now is that the report be presented to the House.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Kormos: I am moving an amendment that it be presented to the House with an addendum that it be recommended for debate in the chamber, in the Legislature.

The Chair: So, do you wish -- sorry.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Chair, it would be my opinion that he cannot amend it. He changes the intent of the motion. I don't think it's an amendment, I think it's a different motion.

Mr Kormos: On that point of order --

The Chair: Yes, that's an interesting point, that it may be you can't amend a motion that contradicts the motion itself, right? That's my understanding of the rules of order. It's a question of whether or not that does do that. I don't think it does. I think it's just adding on to it, but on the other hand that's debatable. I acknowledge that. Okay, I seek your advice on this.

Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, in my limited knowledge of procedure, the Chair must rule whether or not the amendment is in order before we have further debate. If you move that it is in order, then we debate and vote on it. If you move that it's out of order, then it's out of order and we move to the main motion.

Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, could I speak to this point of order?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

Mr Bob Wood: I think Mr Johnson is right and the issue is, does the amendment negate the motion? I think, given the rules, in fact Mr Johnson is right and it does. The two choices we have are to table it or to recommend it to the House for adoption. Those are the only two choices we have under the rules. What Mr Kormos's motion does, and that's of course his position and he's perfectly entitled to that -- his amendment has the effect of negating the motion. I think the proper procedural way to do it is to vote on my motion and if it passes, obviously it becomes academic; if it fails, Mr Kormos can then move his motion. I think it's a procedural thing. It's as long as it is wide.

Mr Kormos: I want to speak to the point of order, but once again, the motion is one to merely table the report. That's how the motion reads.

1150

The Chair: You're saying that it shouldn't just be tabled; the recommendation should be tabled and scheduled for debate.

Mr Kormos: Yes.

The Chair: That's the difference.

Mr Kormos: Yes. But Mr Wood used language there -- what was the language? -- "tabled" as compared to "reported."

Mr Bob Wood: That it be tabled, period.

Mr Kormos: And you're saying my position is recommending that it be reported to the house.

Mr Bob Wood: Yes.

The Chair: And debated.

Mr Bob Wood: The rules say we have to choose between A and B. I have moved A and you're saying, "I want to amend your motion by in effect making it say B."

Mr Kormos: Have you got a set of those rules, Chair? I didn't bring mine this morning.

The Chair: The clerk may have some nearby. I know at the end of the day I have to make a ruling on this.

Mr Bartolucci: I'm trying to speed up this process because I'm looking at it and we're running out of time. I asked for it to be in open committee so we could debate it. We're running out of time. Three minutes isn't going to be enough. Really, when you look at whatever your interpretation of the motion is, whatever our interpretation of the motion is, whether our amendment is in order, whether it's not in order, ultimately and finally, with all due respect -- Mr Kormos can read the standing orders -- at the very end of the day, though, we know who has to make the decision and it's the Chair ruling it's either in order and it's debated, or it's out of order, and we move to the main motion. Regardless of what our interpretation is, we're wasting valuable time.

Mr Bob Wood: It's a procedural matter. I think Bert Johnson is right.

The Chair: Because it's either/or, that way or that way --

Mr Kormos: Chair, please, I'd like to refer to the specific wording of the rules because it could be a conjunctive "or" or an exegetical "or."

The Chair: I suppose that's true. I'm going to make a ruling and because I see it as either one way or the other -- I see it not as a friendly amendment but as one that negates the intent of Mr Wood's motion, so I will rule it out of order and ask that we continue debate on Mr Wood's motion.

You had finished speaking to it. Did you want to speak to Mr Wood's motion, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: Is Mr Wood going to speak to the motion, having moved it?

The Chair: He has.

Mr Kormos: Okay. He's completed his --

The Chair: I think he has.

Mr Bob Wood: I may make submissions at the end.

The Chair: Okay. So we're debating Mr Wood's motion that it simply be presented to the house, full stop.

Mr Bartolucci: Procedurally again, because we seem to be hung up on procedure this morning, when a motion is introduced, is it not at least discussed by the mover of the motion? Normally it is.

The Chair: To be fair, Mr Wood did discuss his motion when he moved it, so it's not as though it hasn't been, and he doesn't have to either, besides. He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to, so that's really neither here nor there.

Okay. Is there any further debate?

Mr Kormos: Now this is on Mr Wood's motion.

The Chair: Yes indeed.

Mr Kormos: I don't know if the clerk has found the statute or not, not that I'm going to raise my -- but again, on the distinction between reporting and merely tabling. What's interesting is that more than a few of these government members have had occasion over the course of the last -- by God, it is almost 12 months now, isn't it? Does it seem like a lifetime for you too? -- 12 months to criticize on more than one occasion the plethora of reports that find themselves to be dust magnets in various shelves and in various library places around ministries' offices and Queen's Park.

One of the things the committee should be very concerned about, including Mr Wood, is whether or not this thing receives the attention it deserves. Clearly, the matter is of great significance to northern Ontario, and in a very not so indirect way to people in southern Ontario as well for a variety of reasons.

Again, here's a government that talks about business and small business and the interrelationship between what happens in the south. Whether or not they can do business and engage in trade and support economies in the north in no small part is impacted by the abandonment of air service in northern Ontario. There are, it's acknowledged, no government members from the north. If I'm wrong in that regard, I'm sure somebody's going to rise to correct me.

Interjection: The Premier is from North Bay.

Mr Kormos: I know, but North Bay, Parry Sound -- that's the typical southern perspective of the north.

Mr Bartolucci: North Bay yes; Parry Sound no.

Mr Kormos: Okay, North Bay, because North Bay is the Gateway to the North.

Laughter.

Mr Kormos: Chair, was that funny? Chair, please. Just yesterday the Speaker himself made an appeal -- well, it wasn't yesterday; it was several days before that in a newspaper clipping I saw where he identified Chris Stockwell, Dominic Agostino and myself as the three worst disruptive people in the Legislature, which I thought was grossly unfair.

Mr Bert Johnson: I move concurrence in that.

Mr Kormos: Well, there we go. I've got two Speakers now. But in an appeal for order and decorum here --

The Chair: It's certainly not true of committees.

Mr Kormos: I go no further than to mention North Bay as the Gateway to the North and you start chuckling. Perhaps it was just some sort of -- allergies are rampant; it's the season.

In any event, it seems to me imperative that this is the sort of thing that has to be dealt with by all members, especially in view of the dearth of government representation of the north, conceding of course that Mr Harris is representative of the Gateway to the North, which is the very southern extremity of the north and a far cry from a whole lot of communities like Chapleau, Wawa, Hornepayne, Geraldton, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances, Elliot Lake, Gore Bay, even Sudbury -- although it's not that far from Sudbury in the total scheme of things -- Earlton, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Kapuskasing and Hearst.

What makes it more imperative is the fact that there were strong dissenting views expressed in the course of not only preparing this report -- Mr Wood earlier talked about the SARB report, where there was consensus reached within the committee. When there's that sort of consensus, I think it's far more appropriate to talk about mere tabling as compared to reporting back. I know Ms Manikel is still looking for that section.

The Chair: I've got it. Any time you'd like it to be read, indicate.

Mr Kormos: Please.

The Chair: There are a couple of sections here that are appropriate for this discussion. Listen to this one:

"Committee reports shall be presented to the House by the Chair with a brief statement from the Chair only, and where a report includes a request for consideration by the House," which is basically what the opposition is asking for, "or where such consideration is requested by a petition of 12 members filed with the Clerk," so there is that option there for members of the opposition as well, "a government order shall be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration by the House."

The other section that's appropriate is: "When presenting a report the Chair of a standing or select committee may move the adoption of the report if it contains a substantive motion. After moving the adoption of the report the Chair may make a brief statement and then shall adjourn the debate," which is basically what's being asked here. "The adjourned debate shall be carried on the Orders and Notices papers daily to be called by the government House leader in the same manner as government orders." That's done at the discretion of the House leader of the government, and may or may not be negotiated with the other House leaders. The government House leader can arbitrarily call them.

Mr Bob Wood: If I could speak to this point of order you have raised --

The Chair: I'm not sure it was raised as a point, but okay.

Mr Bob Wood: The bottom line is, if 12 members want to have this put on the government orders, it can be put on. Obviously, we're in the hands of the committee as to whether we want to spend a lot of time on this, but whatever disposition we make of it, if 12 members want it on, it will be on.

Mr Bartolucci: Because of its significance and importance and because the actual fate of northern Ontario is at risk, as I see it, I suggest that because we're past the hour, we adjourn. But looking at the schedule for government agencies for June 12, if we don't have time on June 12 -- I guess it would be putting people out who are to be interviewed if we were to ask them to cancel. Why don't we move this to June 19, ask Mr Lacey maybe to appear before the committee later? We're already dealing with one aspect; let's deal with the second one on June 19. Let's leave for the summer with both these issues obviously resolved.

The Chair: I think I heard you notice the clock. Am I reading you correctly? Then we really must adjourn until next week.

Mr Bob Wood: I don't know whether he might be persuaded to briefly avert his eyes, for maybe three minutes?

Mr Bartolucci: Is it for another piece of paper?

Mr Bob Wood: My point is that we can certainly spend time on this and you're entitled to do that if you want to, but whatever disposition we make of it, if 12 members want it on the order paper, it's on the order paper. I really don't know, at the end of the day -- we're prepared to go on record as supporting the position I put forward earlier. Why don't we do that? If you want it on the order paper, at last count there were more than 12 Liberals and more than 12 NDP members.

The Chair: What have you decided, Mr Bartolucci?

Mr Bartolucci: I'm going to look at the clock.

The Chair: The clock has been brought to the attention of the Chair, so we will adjourn and carry on this debate next week. Next week we have three interviews scheduled already, so next Tuesday, the subcommittee will have to make some determination about when we proceed with this debate. The other one has already been moved to the 19th, the one on the health council.

Thank you for your patience this morning. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1202.