INTENDED APPOINTMENTS GERALD MACDONALD
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS HARRY H. CHAN
CONTENTS
Thursday 4 August 1994
Intended appointments
Gerald MacDonald, Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario
Sari Deborah Stitt, Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario
Gillian Sandeman, Ontario Board of Parole
Paul Urbanowicz, Council of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario
Harry H. Chan, Ontario International Corp
Thomas D. Smyth, Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario
Sahodra Doobay-Dial, Council of Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario
Subcommittee report813
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Présidente suppléante: Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener NDP)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Ferguson
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in committee room 1.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS GERALD MACDONALD
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Gerald MacDonald, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Elizabeth Witmer): We will begin our half-hour review, Mr MacDonald, with the official opposition party, since it was the party that selected you for review. Welcome.
Mr Gerald MacDonald: Thank you.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee, Mr MacDonald. Just looking over your CV, what are you doing at the present time?
Mr MacDonald: I'm not doing anything at the present time, other than private consulting work on a very small basis right now.
Mr Cleary: How did you find out about this position?
Mr MacDonald: It wasn't really advertised. I applied to the Premier's office appointments board. It wasn't anything in particular to do with the College of Nurses; it was just an application for an appointment to a board or commission.
Mr Cleary: Why are you interested in this?
Mr MacDonald: I guess it's to give some kind of contribution back to the people of the province for what they have given to me.
Mr Cleary: I know we have many discussions with the nursing profession at the present time. They have lots of questions for me, and I guess my question to you is, what would you feel you may accomplish in your years on this committee?
Mr MacDonald: I think I'll bring a perspective of a person who has a disability, who has to deal with the medical community, not on a daily basis but on a fairly regular basis. I also feel I would bring a different slant or a different view of things from outside of the profession and be able to maybe help direct the direction that the nursing profession will take when dealing with the general public as patients.
Mr Cleary: Do you have any thoughts on the new structure of the Council of the College of Nurses?
Mr MacDonald: No, because I'm not familiar with the college itself. I've had an orientation of the building and where it is and who some of the people are, but that's about it. I don't know the makeup of council or anything else.
Mr Cleary: How many appointees are there on this committee?
Mr MacDonald: I couldn't tell you, sir. I don't know.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thanks for coming before the committee. This is an extremely important board that you're going to be sitting on. The nurses also are going through some changes. As a matter of fact, there has been a history of lack of proper representation through the unions and even through the council itself. It is important too that you, sitting on that council, bring a kind of sensitivity. You are not a nurse?
Mr MacDonald: No.
Mr Curling: And you have no familiarity with the governing process of this board?
Mr MacDonald: No, none.
Mr Curling: Which is a challenge for you actually, coming in there and not knowing very much about them.
Mr MacDonald: I would say so; a challenge I do look forward to.
Mr Curling: My colleague has asked you about the contribution you intend to make. You must have given it some thought and you must have gotten some briefing from the people, whatever they call themselves here within the Legislative Assembly, the appointment commission. Having given it some thought, what do you think you would contribute now? I know you have done a tremendous amount of voluntary work. What sort of contribution do you feel you'll be giving to this council?
Mr MacDonald: As in response to Mr Cleary's question, the same would apply to yours. I think I will bring a different perspective, coming from the disabled community, but also just as an individual who is not familiar with the nursing profession, I have some thoughts of my own. I don't know whether I will be able to contribute to any changes or whatever within the college, but I'm certainly open to anything. I guess it's my own common sense that I have that will be my biggest contribution.
Mr Curling: The nursing profession sometimes complains about the fact that it has been dominated and dictated to by doctors. Sometimes they do the work and the doctors get the pay, and there's no recognition either monetarily or professionally that we are giving to them. Do you feel this is one of the areas that you must address? There's a move somehow in the maternity field that they would be recognized in contributing and maybe paid in that sense. Do you feel that's one of the primary causes that you should address when you get in?
Mr MacDonald: I think it probably will be within the next few years one of the main problems the college may have to deal with, but it's not just that the college has to deal with it; society has to deal with it as well, in that in society there is a hierarchy and within the medical profession there is still a hierarchy of which the physician or the doctor is the top, and then if you come under it, it's your nurses and then your patients. I really can't tell you right now what my feelings would be on it because I am not that familiar with the relationships or feelings between doctors and nurses and who is getting credit or who is getting the pay. Evidence would have to be placed and judged at that time.
Mr Curling: I can tell you the society loves nurses, but recognition is not very much there. The standards change constantly in nurses according to demand and supply and where they come from. As we change the standard of recognition and entry into the field, I hope you'll be looking at the community colleges and how they accept new nurses coming in and how they can be recognized coming from other countries too.
Mr MacDonald: I might inform you that I do have three sisters who are RNs and I know the contribution that they make to their profession.
1010
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Mr MacDonald, actually I'll just pursue the questioning that Mr Curling had embarked upon regarding the nurses. Certainly, I think one of the problems we're facing in the province is the fact that we are educating more nurses than we have space to accommodate within the jobs available in the province. I know myself, we have a nursing college in Kitchener-Waterloo, Conestoga College, and unfortunately, many of the graduates have had to look for work outside of the province. Many of them have ended up in the US. Unfortunately, it's our tax dollars being used to educate the individuals and then we don't have any placements.
What do you think can be done in order to ensure that we only educate the numbers that are required for our own province? Is there anything else that we could be doing?
Mr MacDonald: I suppose that if would-be nurses would realize and the education system would realize that there are only so many positions out there that through attrition will be filled each and every year, that the life of being a nurse -- although I know when I was a child growing up, to be a nurse was one of the greatest things, you know, an RN behind your name, and it was a profession that everybody at one time wanted to go into. We've reached a saturation point now, oversaturation. I think what has to be conveyed to people who possibly want to become nurses is that if you do go in that direction you may not get what you want, you may not be able to work in the profession or you may have to go to small communities where the requirement is. But reality has to be that the jobs just aren't there, and to continue training people for jobs that don't exist --
Mrs Witmer: Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Mr MacDonald: It does not make a lot of sense.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that's one of the problems that we face in Ontario and probably Canada as well. We don't do a very good job of determining what jobs are available for people and then providing the appropriate educational programs. We seem to be training people for jobs that are no longer here, and we have to do something about matching people up to the jobs.
The other area that obviously you're going to have to deal with is this whole area where nurses are going to be given different responsibilities than they have now. RNAs are going to be given different responsibilities. Obviously, doctors are going to be impacted by the changes in the responsibilities. There's obviously going to be some friction, there's going to be some competition. What do you think the role of the council can be in assisting with this transition to increased responsibilities for some of the individuals involved in a change of responsibilities? I think it's going to be a difficult time.
Mr MacDonald: I believe it will be a difficult time as well, but I think it can be made much, much easier with an education process. We see it, not regularly every day in the paper, on radio or on television, especially in the northern communities, where doctors say, "I will not go. I want to be in Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton," the major cities, where the need for them isn't there, but in the north, where they are required, you cannot force them to go. But if nurses, RNs and RPNs and what not are given different responsibilities or some of the responsibilities that a doctor would be doing in those communities, I don't see where doctors can really say very much, because if they won't go there, somebody has to. It's the health system of the province.
Mrs Witmer: I just want to go back to where we started. It is my understanding that you indicated that you had not specifically applied for this position; you had applied for any position.
Mr MacDonald: Yes. When I put my application in I was told it was going to go to different ministries and that if there was a ministry that was interested in my qualifications or whatever, that ministry would take the steps. Obviously, Health was one of them.
Mrs Witmer: I don't know when you became aware of the fact that you were an intended appointee for this committee. How long ago would that have been?
Mr MacDonald: About a month ago.
Mrs Witmer: What have you done since that time to familiarize yourself with the council and the work of the council?
Mr MacDonald: Like I say, I have gone to the college and gone through the introductions of senior staff and I know what the building is like and I've been given an orientation manual. There's an orientation coming up on the 18th of this month that new public members who have been appointed to the board will take, and at that time I'll find out much, much more about what the responsibilities are and what you would be doing and what you wouldn't be doing.
Mrs Witmer: How much time will be involved? You're not aware of that?
Mr MacDonald: There are four general meetings a year that you attend as a member of council, and my understanding is that there are other committees you sit on and it depends entirely upon what committees you would be on, the amount of time you would have to set aside.
Mrs Witmer: I wish you well.
Mr MacDonald: Thank you very much.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a quick question. In some ways I probably have some very definite feelings right now because my daughter just graduated from nursing. One of the things I asked her in the last year to two years as she went through, and I asked her on a regular basis -- and I come from central Ontario, small-town Ontario -- is, "How much of your nursing education is community oriented?" I also had a situation in my family where my father-in-law had a lung removed and four days later was at home with a wife who has congestive heart failure and there was no community nursing available.
One of the things I found astounding was that as we are moving, the college hasn't moved with it yet, I don't think, in training the nurses to work more in the community, VON-type nursing. I was wondering what your feelings were on that, if that is where the nursing should head or that a portion of their education should be in that field.
Mr MacDonald: I feel that public nursing is a requirement but I'm not exactly sure what role the college would play in it as the governing body for the nursing profession. I have to wonder where in the educational system that would fit in. I suppose the college does approve the curriculum for the RNs or RPNs, and whatever percentage of that would have to be community-based I'm really not familiar with.
I would like to say that my support would be on the side of community-based nursing, where more training would be in that area because of the way the health system is today; that is, like you say, that in rural Ontario there may be a doctor 10 miles away, or there may not be a doctor for 100 miles, but if there's a public health nurse, a VON type of thing every four or five miles, there's going to be protection there within the health system. I would support that.
Mr Waters: Thank you. That's all I had to ask.
1020
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Good morning. I think you've got yourself into a very interesting position. Just from what you've been saying, you can see the enormous breadth of what could be involved, even though we obviously understand that the college doesn't plan the health care system --
Mr MacDonald: But contributes to it.
Mr Frankford: As you say, policies around what the scope of training is in the college's power will be of great importance in relation to the health care system we've got. It seems to me -- and I should admit that I'm a member of another profession in the hierarchy -- that we are perhaps in a time of shifting philosophies. The established philosophy, perhaps the dominant philosophy, is acute illness, hospitals, hierarchies, doctors giving orders, making diagnoses, doing operations and nurses working on the basis of orders, which I think in fact still has to prevail for a proportion of health care.
But we're also looking at another thing, which has not been articulated as well as it should, I feel. But now that we're getting into long-term care I think that's an acknowledgement that there is a different paradigm, that the diagnosis is not necessarily of such key importance but a description of what the problems are. I'm sure, as somebody with a disability, that you can very much understand that the actual diagnostic label is perhaps not as important as the functional capacity.
I'm not sure what question I can ask in this but just make my observations, and if you want you can respond about ways in which you could see yourself and the college perhaps helping nurses and other newer professions shifting into that alternative health care approach, which I think can be summed up in long-term care.
Mr MacDonald: I think it's extremely important to understand that there's a third side to that, and that is the preventive side. Maybe RNs or RPNs in the college may well have some responsibility in that area to take steps. That would be my feeling on it, that yes, there's the acute care and the nursing in the acute care and, like you say, there's long-term care, but there's also preventive. The preventive is really in rural more so than here.
Mr Frankford: I believe health promotion was put in as one of the acts of nursing when the legislation was put in. I'm not sure whether one should make things exclusive. I've no objection to nurses doing it, and obviously, with a college one can demand some standards, but I think this is also something that can be done by people without any formal professional affiliation.
Mr MacDonald: I think we all have to work together, the physicians, the nurses, society in general. We're not going to get anywhere going in three different directions. We all want one thing, and we should all go together in that direction, I agree.
Mr Frankford: I know it's not really the function of colleges to discuss economics and methods of payment, although we always seem to get into this when we have these discussions with people from health disciplines. Do you have any thoughts about --
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Excuse me, Dr Frankford, I just wanted to point out that your colleague Mr Malkowski is on the list and there are only three minutes left. Do you mind --
Mr Frankford: No, I'll defer. Go ahead.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Thank you and congratulations on your appointment. This is definitely a new challenge for you. My understanding is that your responsibility will talk about standards for training, program standards, professional ethics. There are a lot of different committees and a lot of different colleges, such as physicians and surgeons, nurses, midwives as well -- there's a new college -- and there are varying philosophies within these different colleges on the provision of health care services.
One of the challenges for public members is that often it can be confusing talking about different options in provision of care. The public members are the people who use the service, the consumers of the services. Your résumé is very impressive, the skills there, but could you tell me about how you can contribute to this college, what kind of information and education you can provide to it on different issues, say, related to small communities, northern communities or rural communities' access and standards of service, so that service could be provided to benefit all consumers? How do you feel you could contribute or what could you do in that area?
Mr MacDonald: Well, sir, as I'm sure you're aware, I'm not exactly familiar with how the college works or the council or committees or anything else. I do not know what my limitations are within each of the committees or within the college itself. As far as contributions to rural Ontario are concerned, I really don't know. I would have to say that I would have to use my own common sense and the knowledge I have gained in the volunteer work I have done, which takes in perhaps three quarters of Canada, from province to province to province. I would just have to use my own common sense and make judgements at that time. I don't know what might come.
Mr Malkowski: What kind of skills and knowledge do you bring that you can contribute to the college?
Mr MacDonald: My history with legislation may be one. Although I did deal with federal legislation at the time, I don't really see where it's much different between federal legislation and provincial legislation in terms of an understanding of the process it has to go through. That would be dealing with people. That would be it. Like I say, I am not exactly familiar with the workings of the college, so I can't tell you what I can contribute because I don't know what will be asked of me.
Mr Malkowski: But I feel it's important to have you as a public member because it's important to have public members. There are members from a nursing background, but also you as a public member not from a nursing background have a lot to contribute. I think you'll make a great contribution.
Mr MacDonald: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr MacDonald, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
1030
SARI DEBORAH STITT
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Sari Deborah Stitt, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario.
The Chair: Welcome, Ms Stitt. If you wish, you may make a brief opening statement or we can just start into normal questions of the committee in rotation. Do you want us just to start with questions?
Ms Sari Deborah Stitt: That would be great.
The Chair: All right. This is a selection of the government party.
Mr Waters: Good morning. Welcome to the committee. In the background they gave us on the institution it says it is under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. It goes on to say, "The practice...is the provision, fitting and adjustment of subnormal vision" -- for which some of us in this room, I guess, qualify -- "devices, contact lenses or eyeglasses." It's contact lenses I'd like to question you about.
I know you're not of the background of an optician, but as also a consumer, I'm curious: There's been a lot of discussion, and I think we hear it on a regular basis in the papers or on the news, about contacts and whether they're good or bad. In your opinion, does the college or the council have enough control over it or should they check into it more? I'm a bit concerned about people's eyes. They're rather important and I just wonder at times when, for cosmetic reasons, we put these things in, are we doing enough to protect vision, in your opinion?
Ms Stitt: That's an interesting issue and I hope that as a member I'll be able to get a good handle on it and make sure that it is in the people's best interests and not just for cosmetic purposes. As a user, I'm quite sensitive to that issue because I did once wear contact lenses and now I'm back to glasses.
Mr Waters: I won't ask why. You're an accountant.
Ms Stitt: Right.
Mr Waters: Interesting profession. What would bring you to the college? What are your interests? What do you think you can bring to the college from your background, not only being a consumer but with your professional background, that would be of assistance to you?
Ms Stitt: I think my background will be of assistance because accountants are also a self-regulating body and have maintained very high standards for themselves and have a very good reputation for that. I can bring my experiences from going through that in our own system and keeping our own regulations. So I know what's needed to maintain the very highest standards for the opticians as well.
Mr Waters: I never thought of that. You're right. You work within something where it's self-regulated, and therefore would have to have an understanding.
Ms Stitt: Even our day-to-day work involves maintaining very high standards within the companies we're serving, not just our own profession but to make sure that their statements are of the highest standards.
Mr Waters: I think it's called the taxman who comes back and hits you. Actually, I have no other questions.
Mr Frankford: Actually, continuing on professions, I guess your profession also links with other types of accountants and it seems to me that opticians are only one part of the turf related to eyes. There are also ophthalmologists and optometrists. Do you understand yet the interrelatedness and the problems that may be out there in relation to those different disciplines?
Ms Stitt: Yes, I've looked into the difference and I think I understand that the opticians are the ones who actually dispense the glasses or other devices such as contact lenses, but they're not allowed to write the prescriptions or make any diagnoses. That's left to the optometrists or ophthalmologists, which are also two separate groups.
Mr Frankford: Although the optometrist may in fact provide the glasses, having done the testing, I believe.
Ms Stitt: Pardon?
Mr Frankford: The optometrist may in fact be dispensing glasses.
Ms Stitt: So that overlaps, right.
Mr Frankford: Yes. This is something you'll learn about, I imagine, but I think there may well be turf overlaps and the different disciplines claiming they should exclusively be doing one or the other. Does this not also get into questions about the organization and payment and are not many opticians working for larger chains?
Ms Stitt: Right. The industry is dominated by a couple of large chains.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any idea how this relates to the college? Do the chains also dominate the college, do you know?
Ms Stitt: No, they're not supposed to have any influence over the college. It's separate.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Normally, in these regulatory bodies there are a certain number of public members and a certain number of members of the profession. I believe in this case there are less public members. It says here between five and eight, and then between seven and 10 who are actually members of the profession. How do you see your particular role as a public member of this regulatory body?
Ms Stitt: I see my role as bringing in a perspective other than as a professional. Being more objective and not being as close to it, I can step back and look at it as just a general member of the public rather than as somebody who's working in the profession.
Ms Harrington: Making sure you have your say.
Ms Stitt: Right, standing up.
Ms Harrington: What is your background? Do you have any connections with health-related issues in your past?
Ms Stitt: As a consumer of eyeglasses, and I also have three young children, so I'm very concerned in general about health care and that we maintain high standards and that the public's aware of its rights and understands what it should be receiving.
Ms Harrington: I was going to ask you how you came to apply for this position.
Ms Stitt: I'd heard of it through a friend who's been appointed as a public member on another body and I thought it sounded very interesting and a very good opportunity to get to know a little bit more about the health industry in Ontario and to help out, and I'd do whatever I can to make sure we maintain the high standards.
Ms Harrington: Thank you. I wish you well.
Mr Curling: Let me welcome you, Ms Stitt, to the committee. I was reading your résumé and it's quite an impressive résumé. Of course, accountability is one of the main things that most of the boards and commissions here are lacking anyhow, and I think qualified people and people who can be quite objective could be of great assistance. This is what this government committee is all about.
As a matter of fact, it's rather interesting. I was listening to your answers. These same questions were put before to those who did not have the related professional skills for the committee, and on bringing other professional skills and how you could add to that, I thought you answered pretty well.
Asking you this might be quite unfair in some respects, but I know that in the next coming years, especially in this field, changes are happening and professionals are being monitored in a different way. Do you, not knowing the profession itself in detail, see any challenges ahead or some of the issues that should be addressed that we should be paying attention to, coming in the next couple of years or so, that these are the issues we should be looking at? Do you have any in mind?
Ms Stitt: As you said, once I'm working for the college, I'll find out a lot more and I'll be able to study up on the issues more thoroughly. But my understanding of the current issue is that, as was mentioned, there is a lot of control by big businesses. I see that as an important issue, to make sure that the public's interests are being put first and not the businesses'.
Mr Curling: I just wanted to make that comment and also to welcome you. I don't have any other questions to ask you. I'm just concerned basically to address the upcoming issues, if you had any suggestions for us. But I want to wish you well in your appointment and I'm sure your contribution will be one that will be deserving.
Ms Stitt: Thank you.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to welcome you here, Ms Stitt, and I would certainly concur with Mr Curling. As I sit and listen to different individuals appear before the committee, I'm sometimes extremely disappointed that given the fact they were notified of their appointments weeks or months ago, they've really done little research to determine what their responsibilities might involve or even be. A lot of them weren't even interested in the particular position to which they were appointed. I think you've certainly investigated what's going to be involved.
Obviously, you don't have a complete understanding of your role or of the role of the opticians and the college and the council, but I was impressed with the responses you gave. I think you will give all the issues a complete and thorough airing. I think you'll look at all sides of the issues, and when you do make your decisions, I think they'll be well balanced and well thought out. I'm quite assured that you will do a good job.
We've talked about the fact that there's a lot of competition in the industry right now, in the whole area of eye care. You've mentioned that big business is very involved. I think that will be your biggest challenge, to somehow make sure that the interests of the public are preserved and that they not be overlooked and big business benefits.
Why are you interested in this particular council, or did you express an interest in any council?
Ms Stitt: I did express a general interest in any council. They all interested me, including this one. I think eye care is a very important part of the health care system and so I'm as equally interested in it as the others.
Mrs Witmer: You're pleased with this particular appointment, then?
Ms Stitt: Yes, I am.
Mrs Witmer: Do you have any idea at the present time as to the workload involved, how often meetings take place, what type of subcommittee involvement there will be?
Ms Stitt: I have a general idea. Are you asking what it's going to be?
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
Ms Stitt: I've been told a minimum of four days a month, probably around that, depending on what's going on, that it's not that predictable.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. I don't have any further questions. You certainly are one of the candidates I will feel comfortable approving. There are many who come whom I don't. But I think you're well qualified and I wish you well in your endeavour.
Ms Stitt: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Stitt, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Members of the committee, we could have a break until 11 o'clock. The advantage of that would be that the subcommittee could have its meeting now rather than at 12 o'clock, if we can find Mr McLean. If not --
Mrs Witmer: If not, I've got his sheet.
The Chair: Oh, great. Would you like to have the subcommittee meeting now and then we'll have the rest of the committee resume at 11 o'clock? Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1043 to 1109.
The Chair: We're going to resume our review of intended appointments. We apologize for being 10 minutes longer than we had planned with our subcommittee meeting.
GILLIAN SANDEMAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Gillian Sandeman, intended appointee as member, Ontario Board of Parole.
The Chair: Welcome, Dr Sandeman.
Mrs Witmer: Just as an introduction, perhaps you could indicate to the committee why you are particularly interested in this position and also what you feel you can bring to the board.
Dr Gillian Sandeman: I'm really interested at this stage in my life in finding some areas in which I can work to be of service to the community from my home base of Lakefield. One of the threads throughout my whole worklife has been involvement in justice and corrections. When I became aware there were part-time positions available on the parole board, it struck me that that would tie together many of the interests I've had.
In terms of what I can bring to the board, I can bring a fairly in-depth knowledge of the corrections system in Ontario and across the country; experience in decision-making around legal issues from my many years on various legal aid committees; a knowledge of the community; some understanding of offenders and how they present themselves and what their problems are; and some understanding too, I believe, of the needs of a community that must welcome back -- "welcome" is sometimes the wrong word -- must receive back into it people who've been incarcerated.
Mrs Witmer: Are you currently employed?
Dr Sandeman: No.
Mrs Witmer: One of the issues, of course, that has been facing the legal system now for some time is the whole issue as to how we treat the victims of crime. Many people are concerned that scant attention is given to those individuals. Certainly, one of the questions raised has been the rights of victims of crime in relationship to the criminal justice system, the right to be informed of the release of a parolee etc, and also the opportunity to testify. What's your opinion? What more should we be doing in the province of Ontario as far as balancing the rights of the victims of crime is concerned?
Dr Sandeman: It's hard to say what more we should be doing. We've come such a long way in the last 20 or 30 years. When I started working in corrections, nobody really wanted to hear from victims. Now victims have the opportunity to make victim impact statements, to have their opinions heard by the parole board and so on.
One of the things that I'm not sure about and that I'd like to find out about at the parole board is how assertively the current parole board and indeed the whole ministry of corrections attempt to alert victims to the rights they have. I think it's a delicate situation because victims can be victimized a second time by intrusive and heavy-handed requirements of the court.
I, for instance, don't feel it's appropriate that all victims of all crimes should always be approached and asked to take part in legal proceedings, whatever they may be: court hearings, parole board hearings. I think this has to be a matter of choice. They are not the offenders. We can require an offender to be in court. We can require a witness to be in court. But after that, people must be able to make their own choices whether they wish to remain involved in the system.
That's why I say it's really important that we make it clear to people how they can be involved, without coercing them, intimidating them, revictimizing them. In fact, in many cases, particularly for cases in provincial court, people are happy to say: "It's over, it's done. The court is looking after this. There's been a punishment. Don't bother me with it again. It was bad enough at the time." Others, on the other hand, want to be heard. It's those people we must make sure we reach out to and make them aware they have the opportunity.
Mrs Witmer: I hear what you're saying. I guess the problem is, this has been an ongoing concern. This government says that it's interested. Cam Jackson from our party has certainly put forward different initiatives to make sure that the rights of victims are recognized, but nothing's happening. How can we be assured that you're going to take any action whatsoever to ensure that the rights of victims are given due consideration?
Dr Sandeman: I think there are two things. Some things in fact have happened. There's a very good leaflet now dedicated to explaining to victims what rights they have, and that wasn't available until 1992.
One of the ways in which a member of the parole board can take action, I think, and as I say, I don't know yet what the parole board is doing, but I do believe that at hearings, if there's a sense that, for instance, a victim has wished to make a statement, the board has been informed of that and we don't have it yet, I would be asking my panel co-members to consider a deferral until we have it. I wouldn't consider the information complete. I'd really want to have that statement if they've exercised the right to phone or write and say, "I want to make a statement." "It's not in my documentation. I'm sorry. My documentation isn't complete."
Mrs Witmer: I certainly hope you will give the attention that you've indicated you're anxious to give, and I wish you well.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a couple of questions. When somebody is released on parole, do you believe the victim should know that they've been released?
Dr Sandeman: If they wish to, and they have that right. As I said before, many people don't wish to continue to be involved with the justice system. Many crimes are victimless crimes. It would be difficult to know in many cases who the victim is, for instance, in a commercial crime of fraud, cases of that kind.
What we really are concerned about when we talk about victims are people who are victims of things like break and enter, which can be extremely frightening and upsetting for individuals and families, people who are victims of assaults. If they wish to be informed, they have the right to be, and again I come back to what I was saying to Ms Witmer, that I'm not sure what steps the parole board is currently taking to make clear to victims that they have that right.
I think that would start very early in the process. At the time of a victim being a witness and a sentence happening, I would hope there are opportunities in the court for people to receive all the information they need so that if they want to get that information, they can. And they can do that, of course, without having made any statements to the parole board. They have the right to phone for the information.
Mr McLean: There was a committee that reviewed the information with regard to the victims, on request, and there was a report done. Are you familiar with that report?
Dr Sandeman: No, I'm not.
Mr McLean: Your appointment can be made for one, two or three years. What is yours, a one-year, two-year or three-year appointment?
Dr Sandeman: I don't believe I've been informed. Have I? Somebody from the parole board here might know that. I think they're all normally for one year. My understanding is that all community appointments are initially one year, renewable.
Mr McLean: Somebody from the back has indicated it is for a one-year appointment.
The other question I had is with regard to the victim of sexual assault, if the victim so requests, being interviewed only by a police officer of the same gender. Would you have any comments with regard to that? That was part of the victims' bill of rights. I guess the bottom line is, do you agree with the victims' bill of rights?
Dr Sandeman: Yes, as long as the bill of rights for victims results in some action for victims, and when we're talking about victims of sexual assault, I think certainly for most victims it's self-evident that they probably would prefer to be interviewed by a person of the same sex. But that's not going to help the victim if the person of the same sex doesn't have the sensitivity and understanding to handle that interview well. I think there have been enormous strides made with community agencies, rape crisis centres, people working with victims of violence and the police over the last several years to train police, to have the police working closely with communities, with hospitals if there has to be a medical examination. So a bill of rights that protects the right to have someone of the same sex, yes, that's helpful, but it goes way, way beyond that in training and sensitivity and understanding so that, as I was saying earlier, the process of investigation doesn't revictimize the victim. That, I know, is at the core of the notion of a bill of rights.
1120
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome, Gillian, to this committee. I've known you for, I think, more than 25 years, so the information on your biography is something that I've seen happening and I know at first hand the kind of contribution you've made both as a volunteer and in the various jobs that you've held. It seems to me that you're almost overqualified for this position and I'd like you just to remind us of some of the things that you've done that are very relevant indeed to this.
Dr Sandeman: Jenny, your remarks are very kind, but I think it's hard to be overqualified for a position that is so sensitive and carries with it a huge responsibility. But I have been involved with the criminal justice system as a civil servant, an employee of the Ministry of Correctional Services. I was one of the few civil servants to be elected to the Legislature, and because of my experience being an employee of the ministry, I was made the critic for corrections, which made for some interesting discussion at estimates time between the opposition critic and her former colleagues. After my brief stay in the Legislature -- I hope all of you have a longer stay than I did --
Ms Carter: We have already.
Dr Sandeman: -- I decided not to exercise the option to go back to the civil service, but to look for voluntary sector positions in the justice field. I worked then with the Elizabeth Fry Society and during that time I became very active in national bodies dealing with criminal justice. I was president of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and in that capacity spent a great deal of time with people at all levels of the corrections and justice system.
I then worked in an agency which dealt with young offenders and continued my interest in the justice field. I was a probation and parole officer, and back in those days the federal parole officers did most of the supervision of the provincial cases. There has been a great deal more emphasis now on the province taking the responsibility for its own parolees. As I said earlier, I'd be really interested in the opportunity to work again in the corrections field in parole, which I think is an extremely important facet of corrections, and use some of the things I've learned along the way.
Ms Carter: There's just one specific question I would like to ask you before I hand over to Mr Malkowski. Sometimes people are paroled and they turn out not to have been trustworthy and crimes are committed, and then of course this hits the headlines and there are questions in the House and so on. Obviously, it's very difficult for anybody to know, even if they've interviewed a person, whether that person is pretending to be repentant and so on or whether they're actually going to go out and do it all over again.
Apparently, it's been argued that it might be better not to base these decisions on personal judgement, but to use a statistical approach, because there is some correlation between a person's actual record and whether they're likely to reoffend. Do you have any opinion on whether it might be a good idea to grant parole on that kind of basis rather than on the current practice of making a personal judgement?
Dr Sandeman: I don't think it's either/or. The whole business of assessing risk is very, very difficult and any tools that one can use to help in that assessment are valuable. People are doing more and more sophisticated kinds of forecasting, which of course can be wrong. You can have all kinds of false positives and false negatives if you just rely on that.
I think we have to remember that offenders are human beings, the community to which an offender is returning is made up of human beings, and the value of the face-to-face interview can't, in my opinion, be overstated. But that has to be based firmly on hard information as well as the opportunity to question people to find out a little bit more about their attitudes, the realities of their life, than any paper trail will show about them.
One of the things that I think is difficult in interviewing people for parole is that of course people want to put their best face forward, of course they are going to say, yes, it's all going to be fine. I think one of the purposes of the interview is to do a little reality checking with people and, in as non-threatening a way as possible, really have a look at that pre-parole report and see if there's some basis of reality there and whether they're in touch with what's going to be waiting outside.
Mr Malkowski: I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment to the board. This is certainly going to be a very challenging position. From your experience, you've been a front-line worker as a parole officer, you've been a community activist, moved into a management level, then critic of the correctional system, so obviously you have a very holistic approach in terms of having been involved in the system in a variety of aspects.
Of course, there's a lot of criticism on the parole system in general, that I'm sure you're very much aware of. What I'd like to ask you is whether you feel there is a need to establish a mechanism specifically looking at accountability for people who are members of the parole board, or what type of mechanism do you think needs to be included in the system or to be established in terms of making sure that the members of the parole board are accountable to society?
Dr Sandeman: My understanding is that the parole board is currently working towards a set of standards for community members of the board and also for full-time members, and that part of the requirements should be at least an annual review of all members, their performance, how they're doing on the job. I think that is absolutely indispensable in any job, particularly in a job that carries the kind of responsibility and the possibility of negative results that the parole board appointment does.
I would hope and I understand that the board is serious about holding people accountable, and I would think too that this committee -- I don't know if you review people at the time of reappointment or if you only talk to people like me at a first appointment. Ultimately, the parole board is responsible to the Legislature of Ontario. I hope this committee would take its responsibility seriously and call back members at reappointment time as well as the normal staff evaluations which should and must go on regularly.
1130
Mr Malkowski: Of course, there's also a huge challenge in terms of media reporting. Sometimes there have been mistakes made, and the media at times I think can be misguided in terms of how issues are reported. How are you going to deal with making sure that real facts get out to the community? Certainly there are problems within the parole system, but how do you balance what the media may overplay or may misrepresent with the facts, the negatives and positives of what goes on in that system? Can you give me some ideas of how you would deal with that?
Dr Sandeman: First, I should say that I don't think it is the responsibility of an individual community member of a board to be directly commenting to the press on parole decisions that have been made where a decision becomes newsworthy. I would hope that the training available to parole board members would make it clear to me what the protocol is if, say, the Peterborough Examiner were to call me. I imagine I would defer questions much further up the line than myself.
But in general, I understand that in some areas of the province already the board is being proactive in trying to inform editorial boards and newspapers and television stations about the facts about parole by sending them a very user-friendly fact book. I would hope that becomes common practice and that perhaps the board might want to meet, for instance, with the editorial board of the Toronto Star to try to do some basic provision of facts.
Everybody in this room knows that you can't control the press even if you give them all the facts, but I think there is a responsibility for some real action on the part of the parole board in general to try to keep the media informed so that when things do blow up, at least they are beginning from a basis of fact and not from a perception, for instance, that 85% of parole releases fail rather than the fact that 85% of parole releases in fact are successful.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Bob Rae, when he became the Premier of Ontario, and previously when he was Leader of the Opposition, indicated that it was his desire to see such things as the legal system depoliticized and suggested that patronage appointments would certainly be rare. That was certainly the impression created. Do you believe that your appointment, having been a former NDP member of Parliament and having worked for the present Rae government in an office of a minister and for the government as a whole, would give the impression that the Premier is going back on his suggestion that he would try to depoliticize appointments to the legal system?
Dr Sandeman: I think if you try to depoliticize appointments, what you're saying is, "We will appoint people who have the qualifications necessary for the position." I believe I have the qualifications necessary for this position. I also have qualifications related to my political career, and I'm not ashamed of those. In some situations, if I were applying for other jobs, they could well be the things I would highlight. But as long as I am satisfied, the parole board which interviewed me is satisfied, and you are satisfied that I have the qualifications for the job, the fact that I've also been involved politically is probably irrelevant.
If, however, I were applying for a position for which I had no qualifications, no experience, and I came before you in that kind of situation, your supposition might be correct. But I don't think it's correct in this instance. You're inevitably going to find people of all political persuasions appearing before you for jobs for which they have the qualifications.
Mr Bradley: I guess the question was asked in light of the fact that Mr Rae gave an impression that things would be significantly different, and I have not found that to be the case in a general sense.
Second, I think there would be a perception, and you will correct me if I'm wrong, that you would be considered to be a small-l liberal on legal matters as opposed to a small-c conservative on these matters. At a time when the public appears to be somewhat less than small-l liberal on matters of crime and justice -- I heard Ms Carter indicate that you perhaps would be overqualified for it. There are a lot of overqualified people making decisions right now with which the public at large disagree, which brings me to the question, what role should public opinion play in the activities of the parole board of the province?
Dr Sandeman: The parole board obviously has to be aware of public opinion, but parole decisions, if they are to be fair and just, must be based on a whole variety of information. The climate of public opinion would be in my view one thing the board would be keeping in mind, but it would be grossly unfair, whatever the public opinion, whether it were extremely liberal or extremely conservative at any given time, if parole release decisions were to be based upon that. They have to be based on the likelihood of success of the individual, the safety of the community and all of the normal criteria that the parole board works on.
There are different ways in which public opinion might come into that decision-making. The likelihood of success, for instance, of a parolee whose plan is to return to a neighbourhood which is extremely inimical to him is small. One would want to look at the parolee's plan and suggest, "Maybe this isn't very smart on your behalf." But I don't believe we have a criminal justice system which puts responsibility on individuals to make decisions and then expects them not to make informed decisions but to put a finger up to see which way the wind is blowing.
Mr Bradley: I don't think that was my suggestion, but you have come around to what role public opinion should play. The public out there is angry enough with politicians who they feel do not reflect their views, but they can get at me, they can throw me out. They can't throw appointed people out as easily or they can't throw the civil service out, and that is the context in which I asked the question.
There are a lot of people in the province of Ontario today who are almost afraid to walk the streets at night. Do you believe their fears of crime are exaggerated?
Dr Sandeman: Yes, I do. Statistics in fact and the courts and police records show that we really don't have a huge increase in random violent crime on our streets, and that's why people are frightened. I walk myself at night, I'm a walker, and I know that we are safer on the streets when a lot of us are walking. This is an aside really, Mr Bradley, but one of the bad results of a climate of fear is to remove a lot of people from the streets and to make the streets a more friendly environment for the one odd person who wants to do a mugging, who looks and sees that the street is empty except for you or me, whereas 10, 20 years ago, we were all, I hope, walking the streets.
Mr Bradley: Do you believe that the Young Offenders Act as it is presently constituted requires some tinkering or some substantial change to toughen it or to make it more liberal?
Dr Sandeman: I'm not sure that the Young Offenders Act has ever really been given a fair chance by a large portion of the population, who frankly don't know the details of the legislation. How many of us know the details of any piece of legislation unless you happen to be working on it at the time?
I think the core philosophy of the Young Offenders Act requires an extraordinarily difficult judgement about the blend of responsibility of a young person for their acts and at the same time the recognition that this is a young person who is not yet fully an adult, with all of the abilities that we adults are meant to have to distinguish between right and wrong, to understand the results of our actions, to think before we act and so on. I don't think people have really come to grips with how difficult that piece of legislation is to deal with.
For some people the notion of treating young people differently because they are young has gone out the window -- these are the folks who say this act isn't tough enough -- and for some people the notion of treatment and forget the criminal responsibility for a young person has gone out the window.
So my concerns about the Young Offenders Act are not the ones that we are seeing in headlines at the moment. No, I don't believe that we should be sending a young offender to prison for 25 years.
1140
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. One question I might have is, when this opening came on this committee, did you approach the government or did they approach you?
Dr Sandeman: I wrote a letter of application to the unit in the Ministry of Correctional Services that deals with these appointments.
Mr Cleary: Having been an NDP MPP and then an official in this government, I take it you feel that experience will help you perform your duties much better.
Dr Sandeman: Yes. Actually, it's interesting, because I think one of the things you learn as an MPP is to listen to very broadly and widely differing opinions which may be different from your own, to take a reasoned approach and to learn to work in a collegial kind of way, as I'm sure all of you do on committees. Yes, I think that is useful. Am I understanding your question?
Mr Cleary: Yes. When we speak of the eastern region, what are the boundaries of your duties?
Dr Sandeman: The eastern region actually is very broad. It goes all the way over to Ottawa, Quinte and way north of Peterborough. My understanding is that in the interests of looking after the taxpayers' dollars, the board tries to use its community members in the local area. So I would expect that the major part of my work would be connected with Millbrook, Peterborough, possibly Lindsay, Cobourg, and not be spread across the whole region, although I would expect to be trained and be part of meetings for the whole region.
The Chair: I'd like to thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning, Dr Sandeman.
PAUL URBANOWICZ
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Paul Urbanowicz, intended appointee as member, Council of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.
The Chair: Good morning, Dr Urbanowicz -- Mr Urbanowicz.
Mr Paul Urbanowicz: Thank you for the upgrade in the title, Madam Chair, but no. Good morning to everyone.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. You were selected by the official opposition. We'll start with Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: It seems to me it is a standard question that we ask now because it seems quite relevant -- today should be an NDP day, anyhow -- are you a member of the NDP?
Mr Urbanowicz: Yes, I am, proudly so.
Mr Curling: Very good. I ask that too because yesterday I got a speech from Mr Duignan about the Liberal time and how things have changed in appointments. Even yesterday it seemed that if we know people in the right places, we get an appointment. How did you come to know about this job, about this appointment?
Mr Urbanowicz: Just to give you a brief background if I might, please, I currently serve in the city of Brantford as an alderman there. This is my second term. Through that, I also sit on the Brant District Health Council, and have for years, in my view, thought that health is a major issue within the province of Ontario in dealing with people. Through my term on the health council itself, dentistry in that area has come up on more than one occasion in regard to proper dental care within Brant county itself for not only seniors -- there were a couple of issues -- but as well for the children in schools.
When going through the different appointments that I could have, I looked at that and thought that this would be challenging and that I would like my name to stand for that position.
Mr Curling: I'm getting from your response that part of your interest would be in children's dental care. Did I get that right? Where would you think your emphasis most would be placed while you're sitting on this committee?
Mr Urbanowicz: I don't necessarily believe it's children's health care, but that prompted me to look into what is going on within the province itself at this particular point in time. I found that on dental care within the province, if most people ask about it, they don't really understand it. I thought that being able to serve on a board like this, maybe we could bring dental care to the forefront in terms of people understanding. As far as serving on the committee is concerned, in whatever capacity would be needed, be it a main committee or a subcommittee, I would be quite open to sit on any of those committees and help bring dental care forward within the province itself.
Mr Curling: My colleague Mr Cleary asked a very interesting question of the previous nominee who came before us, or the person who was appointed. As Mr Malkowski is always saying, the persons who will come before us have already been appointed anyhow. But I thought it was a rather interesting question. He said, and I'll ask you too, do you think that as a member of the NDP, it would assist you and help you in being a member of this committee?
Mr Urbanowicz: I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're asking. In terms of party affiliation with the governing body at the time?
Mr Curling: Yes, if it would help with the Royal College of Dental Surgeons, if sitting in there it would help you being affiliated with the NDP and knowing the government, Norm Jamison and all those there, if it would be helpful in carrying out your duty.
Mr Urbanowicz: It may be helpful to the college in order to get its message across, and if there are any inquiries from the public itself, it's always good to know people who are not only governing, but even people who are in opposition, because they can sometimes break down the barriers that you might need in order to get a message across or get the message across to the MPPs who are now sitting within the government.
Mr Curling: So you think that the message you will bring to the college itself, the philosophy of the party, that you understand that and bring that message to the college, will be better transmitted, better translated.
Mr Urbanowicz: I don't necessarily feel there's a message or any kind of dogma that needs to be brought to the college from any particular party, to be quite honest with you. The help I was trying to explain was in terms of, if the college was trying to get a specific message across or if we felt there was a certain law that needed to be passed or certain legislation that needed to be passed, then the affiliation with the NDP might be helpful in terms of that way, in order to bring that to the forefront for them.
1150
Mr Curling: There is also a concern that dental health is not supported as much as, we would say, ordinary medical health. In other words, OHIP pays for all your visits to the doctor, but not everyone has that access unless they have some insurance or so. Do you feel that at some time the provincial government would have a plan like OHIP so that anyone could go to a dentist and get that type of service paid for by government?
Mr Urbanowicz: I believe that somewhere down the line that has to be looked at. I believe that in the past health care, whether it's dental hygiene, could be directly, and has been in most cases, identified with direct health care. I believe that people who do not have access to that type of proper health care definitely should be given that, in one form or another.
Mr Cleary: What are you doing at the present time?
Mr Urbanowicz: I work for a cage manufacturing company. We're in the poultry business.
Mr Cleary: That was my only question. Thank you. Good luck.
Mrs Witmer: My first question is concerning your employment with Norm Jamison. It says here that you were with him in 1993. Which dates were you with Mr Jamison?
Mr Urbanowicz: That would be the fall of 1993, which would be October -- I'm trying to remember the exact date -- mid-October till the end of December.
Mrs Witmer: So you were only with him for two or three months.
Mr Urbanowicz: Temporarily, that's correct.
Mrs Witmer: Why did you leave his employ?
Mr Urbanowicz: I was under contract at that point in time and the individual came back to work.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm just a little dismayed today. I feel that I'm a rubber stamp here approving all these patronage appointments that are coming from the NDP. Some of the people have been employed and others are not employed. We've had two people now today who seem to be looking for employment. It really doesn't matter whether I agree or not with any of these appointments. They're all going to be approved anyway by the NDP in order to give jobs to people who have been faithful in the past. It's a little frustrating.
Mr Urbanowicz, you've indicated that you're looking for a job. How much is this going to pay you per day?
Mr Urbanowicz: I have no idea. I didn't believe that it was a full-time job. I understood that it was more or less in line of volunteering. It may be two to three meetings a month. In my view it's just branching out from a level of sitting on different boards that I have been doing now since -- actually, I started volunteering and sitting on different boards when I was a teenager. I believe that this is just another step forward on to a provincial level, that I might be able to help in some way with my experience from sitting on past boards.
Mrs Witmer: Obviously, you're going to be paid a per diem, so there will be remuneration coming to you. I'm not sure what it's going to be either or how often you'll work, but certainly there will be additional income.
You've indicated that you'd like to provide, as you said, proper dental care for seniors and children. How would you like to provide that proper dental care for seniors and children?
Mr Urbanowicz: I believe the statement I made -- it was to Mr Curling, was it, who was there? -- was that for me sitting on the Brant District Health Council itself, and actually the Brant health unit, that those two areas had prompted my interest because it had been brought up that proper health care was not there for the seniors or for a number of children within the municipality and the county itself. That prompted my interest to take a look at the college of dental surgeons and maybe get on that, not necessarily that I have all the answers in terms of how we would go about doing that. But that did prompt my interest, because I'd seen this happen in a number of situations within Brant county, the county as well as the city of Brantford, where proper dental care was not being supplied.
Mrs Witmer: What do you consider proper dental care? I guess that's what I'm asking you.
Mr Urbanowicz: I would consider routine checkups, which I believe and we have identified within Brant county are not happening at this particular point in time, which lead to more trouble down the way with seniors as well as young children. They are not able to either afford to do it, or the fact that with no money in hand, they let their teeth go to a degree where they end up in hospital sick from abscesses and what not. We have documented records of that.
Mrs Witmer: Do you not have a dental clinic as part of the Brant county administration that deals with seniors and children in the schools?
Mr Urbanowicz: Yes, we do, but because of cutbacks and the number of problems within that area, the growing problems in that area, we find that not everybody is able to get access to that. That stems from, I believe, in a great sense, the lack of information that's put out there, that this is accessible. This is one thing I've noticed all along, that people are not aware of what is out there for them, especially in the dental area.
Mrs Witmer: I would suggest to you that this is more an issue that would relate more directly to the individual municipalities as opposed to an issue for the college to deal with. I know there's been good communication with municipalities. There have been offers made to the government regarding treatment for seniors, treatment for children and what have you. There's been ongoing communication, so I'm not sure what more you're going to be able to do personally in that area at all.
You've indicated that you're going to have greater access to the government because you're NDP. Does that mean that the government doesn't listen to anybody if you're not NDP?
Mr Urbanowicz: No, I don't believe that I said that I was going to have greater access because I'm a member of the NDP. I said that being a member of the NDP, or for that matter if one were a member of the Liberals or the Conservatives and they were in power or they knew people who were members, as yourself as an MPP, and I knew you and I was sitting on a board like this or any other board, it most certainly would be of benefit, because that would definitely help to get the message across or if there was a problem.
Mr McLean: I have a short question for you. Do you believe the seniors over 65 should have free dental care, provided by the province?
Mr Urbanowicz: I believe that everybody should have access to proper dental care within the province of Ontario. I do believe that in any kind of health care we have to take a look at what it is and what type of health care we're looking at before we just say it's completely free.
Mr McLean: Would you be discussing that within your group, that very issue?
Mr Urbanowicz: If that was brought up, I think it's something the college of dental surgeons should be looking at.
Mr McLean: Would you bring it up?
Mr Urbanowicz: Yes. I don't have any problem with bringing that up.
Mr Frankford: Welcome. It's interesting to hear the discussion this morning, and also you should have been here yesterday when we had somebody for the college of chiropractors and the same questions about, should there be some obligation and does the college have a role in ensuring that necessary services are available to all? I think one could say that there's perhaps been a tone of fiscal conservatism from this side and more enthusiasm from the opposition parties to go ahead with something, but maybe that's what you expect. I guess it can be argued on the one hand that the college doesn't set policies particularly around payment, but I think on the other hand it does represent the public interest in ensuring that necessary health services are available. I think I can pick up from what you're saying that you would like to do that.
In this briefing of the objectives of the college, or what you can do, it does say that one of the things is, "Any other objects relating to human health care that the council considers desirable," so presumably they may do it, and as a council member you could put things on the agenda yourself.
Mr Urbanowicz: Most definitely.
1200
Mr Frankford: Do you have any other thoughts about things you'd like to put there?
Mr Urbanowicz: I believe there has been, over the past decade, more identified in the area of sexual harassment or abuse actually within the dental profession. I believe that's something that needs to be scrutinized very closely and looked at. Just for a bit more background, I am now the chairman of the race relations and human rights committee for the city of Brantford. Through discussions with different groups and sitting on the health council, this has cropped up. It has not been a major bell ringing, but it has been brought up on more than one occasion and I believe that's something that the college of dental surgeons should be taking a look at.
Mr Frankford: One other area which I think will come up and which relates to the prevention that you mentioned is the relationship with dental hygienists, who have a separate college. I think there may be some turf battles or whatever in the relationship there. Are you aware of that and do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr Urbanowicz: Yes, I have heard, Dr Frankford, that there are grumblings, we'll say, in regard to that and I believe it's going to take a fair bit of clear-headed thinking by the college of surgeons and the people who sit on the board to be able to head anything off. I believe that if the split is there it can be a very amicable one when it does come entirely, and I believe that instead of butting heads they should be working together for the betterment of the profession as a whole.
Mr Frankford: That's really a good justification for having lay members, that it's not perceived as just turf battles between professionals.
Mr Urbanowicz: Most definitely.
Ms Carter: I'd like to start with a comment that arose out of what's already been said. It seems to me that the older I get, the more I feel, looking back, that perhaps I've needed dentists more than I've even needed doctors. You know, even when you have a pet, it's the teeth that have to be looked at very often as they get older.
I certainly have this feeling that dental coverage should be available to everybody. I remember when I first came to Canada, which was when I was already an adult, I thought: "It's a funny thing, but you can tell who's had a prosperous background as they've grown up." The ones with the really good teeth were the ones with the middle-class homes and some of the working-class kids had really rotten, awful teeth or had had them out and had dentures.
If you're concerned that dental care become more available to more people, I would certainly concur with that. Certainly my husband was covered, while he was working, by a dental plan. Now he's retired and he had one year's grace and it's now gone. You look to privileges as you get older, hopefully, and this is certainly one minus that happens when you hit that age of retirement.
As I said, that issue has already been discussed. I'm just wondering what some of the other issues are that maybe haven't been mentioned already that you feel you might expect the college to face while you're a member of it.
Mr Urbanowicz: Some of the subcommittees have been set up to look at if there have been complaints brought forward by the public to the college of dental surgeons. I believe that you have to be very proactive in committees like that in terms of making sure that the public doesn't view a committee like that as, say, a rubber stamp where you bring the complaint forward and automatically it's going to be fluffed off because the board is made up entirely of members of that profession. I believe that is a very important committee and I believe they do have one standing right now.
The other various boards, quite honestly I apologize, I've had no briefing on whatsoever. I had my rad hoses blow on me on the way down here so I was a few dollars shorter in the pocketbook while I was getting here.
I believe the challenge in sitting on this particular board is the fact that it has always been viewed, and I've said this earlier, that dental care within the province of Ontario, and I would assume throughout Canada itself, has always been put in the background. You seem to always go to a dentist very reluctantly. I believe that through the college of dental surgeons they have to do a lot more work in terms of letting people know what they're really there for.
I'm open, as I said earlier, to sit on whatever committees they might need me to sit on, because I believe it's that important a committee that I would be quite open to help out in any way, shape or form that I can.
Ms Carter: Okay, so you're going to be playing that watchdog role and making sure that the profession doesn't act in its own interests rather than those of --
Mr Urbanowicz: Most definitely. It's got to be in the public interest. They're the ones who are paying the bills.
Ms Carter: Definitely, yes.
Mr Malkowski: Just for the record, I'd like to respond to the member of the opposition who had asked the question regarding patronage. We have to take a look at PC and Liberal appointees also whom we have appointed because of qualifications. So I think it needs to be clear that we are looking at people's skills and qualifications, not what their party affiliation is. I congratulate you on having been able to bring a résumé to us that shows the qualifications you have.
What I'd like to get again, just for the record, is your opportunity to state the skills that you see that you bring to this type of a committee, because I think that needs to be on the record.
Mr Urbanowicz: Thank you very much, Mr Malkowski, for the opportunity. In serving on the number of boards in the public sector that I have over the years, as well as serving as an alderman in the city of Brantford, those skills, I believe, are paramount because they will enable me to take an objective look at whatever problems happen to come before the commission or the college of dental surgeons. I believe that sitting on the health council itself, the health unit, has given me valuable insight into how medical care within the province itself is interrelated. One can say that if you have good dental health, that seems to work hand in hand with your physical health as well, and that has been proven time and time again. I believe the objectivity I can bring, because I've had to sit as an elected official of the city of Brantford and had to make determination and find middle grounds in a lot of areas and sometimes take a hard stand in regard to issues and what has to be done or what I feel has to be done. So I believe those types of experiences, as outlined in my résumé, will be a great help to the college of dental surgeons.
Mr Malkowski: It's very valuable information that you've shared with us and I'm disappointed that the other members are not here to have a chance to listen to you as you explain the skills that you do have. It's a shame that the PCs and Liberals have all left the committee room and not had a chance to hear this valuable information.
The Chair: Just a point of order: It is not customary for members in the House or members in committee to comment on the absences of other members. In fairness, I would say the same thing if it were any party that was absent at the time that comment was being made.
Mr Waters: Indeed, Madam Chair, we happened to run over time. I was able to reschedule my luncheon meeting. Not all members are able to do that.
The Chair: Thank you. Continue.
Mr Malkowski: All right. What is important here as an appointee to this committee is, I'd also ask, what do you see as your primary focus?
Mr Urbanowicz: That's a very good question. I guess the primary focus to me would be to make sure that everything is aboveboard, and make sure that whatever happens within the college of dental surgeons, nothing is just fluffed off or put to the side, that everything is kept in the forefront and that anybody who makes inquiries to that board is given proper information back or a proper response in a timely fashion.
The Chair: Thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning, Mr Urbanowicz.
The committee is adjourned until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1211 to 1404.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: The first order of business this afternoon is to approve the report of the subcommittee, which met this morning. I understand you all have copies of the subcommittee report, so if someone would like to move approval, I would appreciate it.
Mr Curling: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Curling. Any discussion by the committee?
Ms Harrington: We don't happen to have Mr Waters with us.
The Chair: Oh, you don't. That's right.
Ms Harrington: Are there are any problems with it?
The Chair: If there are, when he comes back he can bring those to the attention, but he agreed with the subcommittee meeting. I mean, he was part of the subcommittee meeting this morning, Margaret.
Ms Harrington: Yes, I know.
The Chair: If there are any questions, he's free to raise them when he returns.
All in favour of the subcommittee report? Thank you. That is approved.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS HARRY H. CHAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Harry H. Chan, intended appointee as member, Ontario International Corp.
The Chair: We move to the first intended appointment this afternoon, Mr Harry Chan. Welcome to the committee. If you wish, you may make a brief opening comment to the committee, or we will just start in rotation with questions from the committee members.
Mr Harry H. Chan: Maybe we should start with the questions first, then maybe I'll have a conclusion.
The Chair: Excellent. This, Mr Chan, is a selection of the government party. Who would like to start for the government party?
Mr Frankford: Can you tell us in some more detail why you are interested in this appointment and what you'd hope to achieve?
Mr Chan: I'm with a company called the Foundation Co of Canada. We are a construction company. In fact, the Foundation Co has been the icon of the construction companies in Canada. We built the CN Tower, Terminal 3 recently, so we, over the years, have had a lot of involvement in the international construction business.
I must add too that I did sit on the other side of the fence at one point of my career, being a Canadian trade commissioner posted in Nigeria. During that time, in responding to requests in the host country, I tried to get Canadian construction companies to pursue opportunities in the developing countries, and I found it very difficult. The only exception was, at that time, the Foundation Co.
Over the years the Canadian construction industry has dabbled in international business, but not with great success. I feel there is a lot of interface between government, whether it's federal or provincial government, with the private sector in the construction companies before a significant improvement could be made in capital projects overseas. I am more than willing to share the experience from both angles with the industry to see that coming about.
Mr Frankford: Could you perhaps elaborate a bit on your Nigerian experience and what lessons it provided?
Mr Curling: You'd need about two weeks.
Mr Chan: And of course we are talking about a market that represents the most difficult scenario, so when you start from that extreme, all the other markets seem to be okay.
Regarding the construction industry, I would also like to draw the difference between the construction industry and the consulting engineering industry. Together, we are the Canadian thrust for capital projects internationally. The consulting side normally is a lot more mobile, a lot more aggressive, because the intention is to sell the expertise, the man-hours, and that expertise is carried within a person who has two legs, who can go there and come back when things get tough. But in a construction company, we serve our expertise in the realization of a project, which means we have to mobilize equipment when a situation changes. You pretty well have to cover a whole lot of risk, which is already difficult dealing with at home, let alone internationally.
What I'm saying is, in a country like Nigeria, which represents a very difficult situation, a normal construction company attitude in Canada would say: "Don't talk to me. I don't want to hear about it. We will never go." Yet opportunity usually comes about where the environment is difficult, where nobody really wants to go. How do you pull it together for a Canadian company which obviously has the expertise to go into those situations and capitalize on the opportunity? This is where I think the right type of government support and input will make the difference.
1410
Ms Carter: Welcome to the committee. You certainly seem to have a pretty solid background in international business. I guess the bottom line as far as we're concerned is to give Ontario a bigger place in business, especially in Asia. What are some of your ideas about how we could increase Ontario's presence in the capital projects field of the international marketplace?
Mr Chan: The fortunate part of our Ontario is that we are indeed the most industrially developed province in Canada. As far as Canada goes, we couldn't find a better province to assemble a total package or, let's say, something a little bit less than a total package relative to other provinces. Having said that, we are dealing with international markets and international competition. People we are up against are not other provinces in Canada but major industrial forces like France, Germany, Italy. When you look at their industrial base versus ours, I must admit they are a lot better than we are.
For a company like us, usually taking the role of sponsoring the project, taking the lead, bringing together a group of companies and syndicating all the resources, competing with other groups that do the same, we must be able to tell ourselves, first and foremost, whether we have a chance to win or not. To do that, our mind has to be a little bit more liberal than where only Ontario or Canada goes, because if we don't win, it doesn't matter whom we work with, nobody would gain and it doesn't make sense.
While we as a company try to be Ontario oriented, we keep assessing whether the Ontario and Canadian subcomponent would bring to the whole scheme of things the proper advantageous competitive edge or not. As I say, it's fortunate that we are in Ontario. Ontario is the best of Canada, so we have a better chance of doing that. I could not say the same thing if I were in, let's say, Manitoba.
Ms Carter: It's obvious from what you've said that companies need to get together and create consortia and maximize their competitive power.
Mr Chan: Exactly.
Ms Carter: What can Ontario companies do about this? Can you be a little bit more specific as to how they can bring this about?
Mr Chan: As a contractor, we usually go in there with an offer of doing it plus an offer to syndicate the financing. Normally, if the financing comes from a bilateral source, meaning from Canada, there's a certain guideline we have to follow, the Canadian content guideline, and that is because we are receiving assistance or support from the government of Canada. By the same token, I think it's only fair for the Ontario government to put a certain guideline at the outset to say, "There's a certain Ontario content that you must try to achieve."
In this way it's fair game, because from a private sector objective, if we cannot meet that particular guideline, then we have the onus to say to the supporter, "Look, we cannot live with your interest and therefore we have to go someplace else," but if we do accept that support we know then, at that time, that one of the reasons the support is there is for Ontario expressed in a certain Ontario content as a yardstick. At that time we would have to then work with Ontario suppliers and manufacturers that have the most Ontario content.
Mr Waters: Thank you for coming in. You have a wonderful background, not only in marketing Canada to the world but also, I see as I go back, in engineering and that, so therefore you would have a very good understanding of whether it's a good product to market.
Mr Chan: I hope so; otherwise I may not be able to hold the job.
Mr Waters: Yes, and I think that's probably why you've been most successful.
I used to work for a company called Alcan, and I noticed when I worked there that we were definitely branching out into the Asian market, what is called the Pacific Rim. How big would you say that market is, and how much space is there, do you feel, for Ontario within that market?
Mr Chan: In a proper perspective, Ontario could spend 110% of its effort for that market and still not be able to service that. Of course, for that particular market, there are certain characteristics that one would have to have before one could be successful. Of course, there are a few items that are the same whether you are in the Pacific Rim or in Europe or in the States, such as that you have to be there. Especially for a construction company, your operating base cannot be outside of that domestic market. Even for manufacturing, nowadays you pretty well have to establish your manufacturing facility in that region before you could be competitive.
There are other factors that are unique in that market. I must say I'm fortunate in that way with the Pacific Rim, because being able to deal with the language, in a way the colonial background of some of the Asia-Pacific Rim market, puts me well at ease in dealing with the locals, and they understand me fairly well.
A case in point is that in China they look at me and they say, "Well, you are Canadian but you are not Canadian." It's a very useful bridge to be used, to be precise, by the other side to get what they want from Canada. Businesses meet this way. As long as there's mutual benefit and everybody can immediately establish that feeling of trust, things would happen. In a way, the choice of an employee representing the company is as important as what the company represents.
1420
Mr Curling: Let me too welcome you for extending your service, in anticipation, of course, of being appointed to this board.
We know that we live in a very highly competitive world market and that everyone is trying to get their product out there, making sure that they can compete. I fully agree with you that Ontario and Canada have so much to offer, yet I'm not convinced we're offering all we could offer in those world markets.
Having said that, if you have done your stint in Nigeria, I would say you have gotten the best lessons in the world about business and dealing with people, because I was in Nigeria myself.
How do you feel, then, being that it's so highly competitive and that we have to be out there negotiating and being sensitive to the market, that the government chose to close down most of the international trade offices? Would this itself make the job more difficult for those who would like to compete outside? Tell me your feeling on that, and also, would it be one that you could recommend to the government, to take another look at a rather regressive and retarded move it made and maybe put those international offices back in place?
Mr Chan: My feeling actually, I must say, is a mixed feeling. Talking in a very private sector, businesslike way, I agree 100% with closing down some of the offices. The reason is that we cannot cover the world.
Let's talk about the federal government for a while. They closed, they pooled, all the Canadian-based commercial offices from "black Africa." I kind of agree with that, because they're looking at the statistics more than anything else. If, with all these resources, the result is only 1% or 2% of the total exports generated from Canada, then maybe that is not the right place to invest. However, once they apply this philosophy, or let's say the cost-cutting, across the board, then it contradicts the philosophy of we're going to invest in places where we will win.
That's why I said my feeling is mixed there. While I agree that a few places should be eliminated because it's a matter of putting the resources in places where we should be and not in places where we shouldn't be, that cost-cutting is too deep, to take away the support from other places.
On the provincial level, I fully agree that the provincial offices should be merged with the federal offices, not only for economic reasons but also for representation reasons. When I was in Hong Kong for business, I could see my counterpart in Hong Kong playing the Quebec office versus the Ontario office versus the BC office and of course the federal office. When they are all together, I think that type of situation would be a lot better.
Mr Curling: I can agree, and we could spend a day or two talking about the disadvantage when the federal government sort of winds down some of its operations in Africa and the West Indies and areas like that and goes for winners, as you would put it, but also the double hit when the province itself, which had to assert itself more in that market, cut back also. I've experienced the fact in getting around trying to get people signing on for us even when we were making the bid for Expo that we had a difficult time even getting support because there was no representation there, and how important that would be.
Mr Chan: May I just put my thoughts straight here? What I'm suggesting is to economize the operation by putting everybody in one place, not to have separate offices.
Mr Curling: That's fine, but having Ontario present there, because I can't see Canada representing Ontario.
Mr Chan: Exactly. There should be an Ontario rep, let's say, in Hong Kong in the office right beside the two trade commissioners from Ottawa.
Mr Curling: I'm with you all the way on that.
Another sensitive matter which is very difficult to deal with, and I didn't find that the Premier had any difficulty dealing with before, is China itself and its human rights issues, and Mexico is another one. At one stage we did not mix trade with human rights, and at another time governments would say you cannot separate them, that human rights do play a role in to whom we trade and how people are exploited or not.
We have seen a change in that direction, and I'm not going to just isolate Bob Rae for changing his tune, but I've seen that other people too have changed their direction in that regard.
Mr Bradley: Name names.
Mr Curling: I could name names, but the fact is that it does not separate the issue itself, that human rights do play an important role in trade or trade plays an important role in human rights.
Mr Bradley: Especially if it's the Premier's brother.
Mr Curling: What are your feelings in that regard, on who we trade with and how far we should go if their human rights violations are such that it is completely immoral to do business with them? How do you feel about that?
Mr Chan: I must admit that is a very difficult issue to deal with. Again, we always get into this conflict of economic survival and following the high road. I experienced that on a personal scale in China. Everybody knows about Tiananmen Square during the fall, and at that time I was working with the SNC group, in the midst of negotiating a few contracts in China. I was all set to go on June 1, and of course it was kind of messy there so we held off a little bit, and June 4 came. The impact is big, so what do I want to do? Should I let myself go and continue talking, knowing very well that it's so upsetting? I'm 100% against what China has done at that time so I don't want to go. It took a bit of time to really soothe that feeling on a personal basis.
Mr Curling: I'm going ask you to comment about this aspect. I know many politicians may not raise that. As I travel around the world, I find the importance that politicians or parliamentarians play in advancing their country and their product. Canada is not one of those or Ontario is not one of those that have done that in a very aggressive way. Do you feel that parliamentarians should be out more? I find that a reception outside gives credibility to the product itself and an acceptance that legislation is behind the action that is done. Do you have any comment about that?
Mr Chan: Yes, but what I'm eventually going to say is that being upset and not going there doesn't solve the issue at all, because what do they care and what do they know? Then after a while, when my sense comes back, I say, heck, I should go back and see the situation, see what I can help out. Then, once I take a little more active and aggressive frame of mind, then I find out all the friends that I'm talking to are actually dead against that too. However, what can they do? If we cut off the talk, it's no good to my counterpart who was talking to me all along, right off the bat, so it's probably better to keep on talking and hopefully things would turn around.
I would feel that the human rights issue is something you have to deal with from within, not cutting it off.
Mr Curling: So you're saying --
The Chair: I'm sorry. We're out of time.
Mr Chan: We should talk about this further.
The Chair: I realize these are very important questions.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, sir. I wanted to follow up on the questions with regard to the closing of the trade offices. Was there one in China, a trade office?
Mr Chan: For Ontario? I don't believe so.
1430
Mr McLean: There wasn't.
Mr Chan: With the exception of the one in Nanjing for the Ontario Guangzhou centre there.
Mr McLean: Right. The energy facilities that are being established overseas: Has there been a thrust with regard to involvement, the 550-megawatt projects that have been put in place? Can you give us a little background on the energy aspects of the corporations that are building there?
Mr Chan: Let me understand. Is that a specific project you are talking about?
Mr McLean: I believe it was. I did see it here in my briefing notes with regard to energy. While I'm finding that, there has also been a thrust with regard to the health industry strategy.
Mr Chan: Right.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with that?
Mr Chan: No, I'm personally not familiar with the health industry thrust, with the exception of the fact that there is an entity formed for export enhancement purposes.
Mr McLean: In the committee's report entitled Outward Bound: Strategies for Maximizing Export Opportunities in the Ontario Health Industry, "It's generally agreed that companies will be more successful internationally if they form consortia to combine their skills in packages that no...firm could provide on its own." Are you familiar with that?
Mr Chan: I'm not familiar with the health industry. However, I'm very familiar with the real importance of forming consortia to go to the international market and offer a total approach.
Mr McLean: "One of the most lucrative international contracts won by a consortium of firms with OIC backing was signed in January 1992 in Iran." Are you familiar with that one? That's to build two of the 550-megawatt.
Mr Chan: Right, yes. That is the one with OIC headed by Babcock and Wilcox.
Mr McLean: The $50,000 that is available for companies that want to do some research, is the $50,000, in your opinion, enough? That's the maximum that you can get.
Mr Chan: Right. In a normal capital project, the front-end costs in the pursuing of the project, development of the proposal and then the subsequent negotiation could be very expensive. The bigger the project, obviously the more expensive it is. For example, our company has been following the hydro power project in India. The capital cost is $1.4 billion. The civil contract alone is around $1 billion and will take us seven years to do that. All through the seven years, I would speculate that several million dollars have been spent. So this is a situation where you must have staying power. Relatively speaking, $50,000 is really a drop in this effort.
So the straight answer is: not enough. But on the other hand, we are seeking not only the financial support but the image of government support and so-called influence. So I think I cannot put a dollar value to it. All I know is that it's absolutely necessary.
Mr McLean: In 1992 and 1993, $630 million worth of total contracts were assisted. The projection for 1994-95 is $200 million, down over some $400 million. What would the reason for that be?
Mr Chan: I do not know the basis of these numbers. But the development of capital projects has a long lead time. As I just mentioned, seven years may be on the lengthy side, but three years for sure is commonplace. So depending on how these numbers come about, the estimate of when the contract would be consummated, the timing of it, has a lot to do with these numbers. So the fluctuation of the number does not represent, in my opinion, market conditions but rather the stage of the projects.
Mr McLean: Your qualifications are excellent and I wish you all the best.
Mr Chan: Thank you.
The Chair: There being no further questions, I would like to thank you, Mr Chan, for appearing before the committee this afternoon.
Mr McLean: Madam Chair, on a point of personal privilege, I would like to indicate to you how disappointed I was to hear the comments from Mr Malkowski to the last witness before lunch. I was watching it on television; I heard every word that the witness had given. I was disappointed that he would raise the issue that the Liberals and Conservatives were not here listening to what was taking place. I'm not surprised at him doing it but I feel bad that a member of this committee would single out the opposition parties for not being here.
Mr Curling: On the same point, Madam Chair, I too was aware of the situation and I thought that it was so unparliamentary for a colleague to be identified as being absent and I regard this as a matter of disrespect. He knows that we are in full attendance and we try to participate as best as possible. I think their trying to highlight this is a matter of playing rather poor, cheap politics.
Mr Bradley: But the interesting thing, Madam Chair, if I may, is you always have to remember in this game that when you give, you've got to be able to take, and that makes the other people very vigilant when they see that a member is prepared to do that. It makes us very, very vigilant.
The Chair: Those are comments on a point of privilege.
Mr Malkowski: I appreciate hearing the comments from the opposition, and they are valid comments. If you are offended by the comments that I made, then I will withdraw them as unparliamentary. But the fact that you weren't in the room to hear them -- I realize that you may have been watching it or listening to it and if you are offended by the comments I made, then I withdraw them.
The Chair: For the benefit of the opposition members, Mr Waters did make a comment also which you will either have heard or will read in Hansard.
THOMAS D. SMYTH
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Thomas D. Smyth, intended appointee as vice-chair, Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee, Mr Smyth. The format is that if you wish to address the committee briefly with an opening comment or two, you may. Otherwise we will just start in rotation with questions from the members.
Mr Thomas D. Smyth: Thank you, Madam Chair. A very brief opening comment would be that I have been involved in research and development with our company for a significant period of time and I do feel that R&D is an integral part of a progressive organization. It needs direction. It's not a panacea, but in balance should be considered along with all of the other important issues. We have sufficient bricks and mortar in Canada, in Ontario, I feel, as far as R&D is concerned, and our investment in R&D should be in projects.
The NRC, for example, is a world-class R&D facility. I think that researchers in Canada should be commended for the results that they have developed and also their inherent ability to stick to some rather mundane task until they do come up with something that is very significant.
1440
I think the other thing we must do is ferret out every bit of duplication that we possibly can in view of the cost restrictions that we all are finding ourselves in. Partnerships are important to be developed in research and development, as are they in many other aspects of government and business relationships.
I'd just like to say that I'm pleased to be here and appreciate the invitation. Thank you.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee, Mr Smyth. I'm also pleased to hear about your opening remarks. I see in the little note that we have from you that you live, I think, on a 500-acre purebred beef cattle farm. Do you still have those cattle?
Mr Smyth: Yes.
Mr Cleary: May I ask what kind they are?
Mr Smyth: Simmental and Charolais.
Mr Cleary: That's pretty good, yes.
Mr Curling: He approves.
Mr Cleary: I used to have -- Charolais, but not Simmental.
Mr Smyth: I have some brochures on semen here, if you're interested.
The Chair: We can't have PR. No commercial messages.
Mr Cleary: Okay, Mr Smyth. What would your priorities be in research and development in agriculture in the province of Ontario at the moment?
Mr Smyth: One of the areas where there are significant projects under way -- and I think they're all heading in the right direction, particularly in the area of replacing pesticides and herbicides with natural preventive measures by the plants themselves. As well, I do feel that we really should be looking at getting more consumer input into our research.
From the food-processing side, that has been one of the areas that we look at very carefully -- "What does the consumer think of the product?" -- before we spend a lot of money on research and developing it. I think that's one of the areas relating to agricultural produce that we must look at more carefully in the future: getting some consumer input into whether or not they'd be satisfied with the area of research that is being done.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, is that not happening a bit now, though?
Mr Smyth: It's happening a bit; that's correct. It probably could be stepped up considerably.
Mr Cleary: What sort of research initiatives do you feel would be the most beneficial to the agrifood industry to be more competitive?
Mr Smyth: Again, I believe that the initiatives that are undertaken at the present time that come up through the Ontario Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee system, right directly from the grass roots, are the ones that are being targeted now, but there are other areas that we need to move into. I feel one of those areas has to do, again, with a bit more consumer input.
Irradiation can be applied in a much more significant way in many areas to cut back on pollution and perhaps even save a considerable amount of funding for pesticides and herbicides. So there is one specific area that I feel is a product of Canadian invention -- irradiation -- and it's one that has not been utilized because it has not been sold to the consumer.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to the producers and distributors at the moment?
Mr Smyth: Probably one of the largest threats is the low-cost economies in other countries and the imported products that we have to compete with.
Mr Cleary: I'm sure that you feel that in the business you're in and many of the fruit and vegetables that are coming into Ontario right now.
Mr Smyth: That's correct.
Mr Cleary: I guess the environment's on everyone's mind. Do you feel that competitiveness might be compromised on environmental issues in their standards and regulations?
Mr Smyth: The environment is extremely important. Quite obvious to everyone, and we read about it regularly, is the fact that many of the pesticides, herbicides and other items that are used on produce that's imported are not usable here, even though we know they are not that harmful to the environment.
One of the statements made by one of the research houses is very significant in this regard, where one billionth of a milligram of a pesticide or herbicide is equivalent to one second in 32 years. This is what we get concerned about. Unfortunately, there are special-interest groups and so on that prevent us from being competitive even though we would be environmentally okay in using many of them.
Mr Cleary: I know that when we meet from time to time with different commodity groups, that's one of the main things on their minds, competing with other countries, the pesticides that might be used and what they're allowed to use in Ontario.
Mr Smyth: That's correct.
Mr Cleary: Would you care to make any comments on your views on the research priorities to do with animal care?
Mr Smyth: Yes. There has been significant funding to ensure that the animals are well looked after and maintained on the farms. When you compare animal care today to even 20 years ago, there is a significant improvement through all the research on what makes an animal more comfortable. They actually take into consideration as much as possible the animal's feelings about it and their reactions rather than what we as humans think about what that animal wants. That has made a significant difference in the health and the facilities that are available for animals today in comparison to what they were several years ago.
Mr Cleary: Another thing we should talk a little bit about is rural communities and the sustainability of rural communities in Ontario. Any views on that?
Mr Smyth: Having been raised on a farm myself in Alberta, on a homestead, I'm quite familiar with rural communities and certainly have a very strong feeling that they should not be neglected. I believe that the recent involvement of the department of agriculture and food, in being involved in rural affairs now is a very important step. Although we have not any funds available at the present time, I do feel it is an area where we can again go back to the grass roots and get the ideas and do some research into what would be viable businesses or activities that rural people could be employed in to make them more compatible with urban people.
Just along those lines, recently the province of Saskatchewan developed a program whereby the rural communities are being contacted by the urban people, and this is through the school system. It has expanded tremendously and is being worked out with the wheat pool. I believe there are industries here in Ontario that probably could work with government, the communities themselves and industry in looking very carefully at some programs that would do a lot to revive rural communities.
1450
Mr Cleary: I know that just in my lifetime, when I grew up on the farm, every 100 acres, possibly 150, they were all milk and cattle, cows, in mixed farming, in the dairy industry especially. Now you can go the whole concession and you might only have the one farmer and the other city folk have moved in around them and it's really changed a lot. If it changes much more, our rural areas will be gone.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome, Mr Smyth. How long have you served on the institute?
Mr Smyth: Just about six years.
Mrs Witmer: What originally prompted your interest in becoming a member of the research institute?
Mr Smyth: I was asked by Clare Rennie, whom I had worked with over the years.
Mrs Witmer: What do you believe has been the most important area of involvement for the institute over the past six years, or are there several areas where you feel it's been an exciting time to be involved and real progress has been made?
Mr Smyth: Some of the very significant areas have been in the breeding of new seeds for grasses and grains, and the development of artificial insemination for cattle. There are a lot of areas that were under way. I suppose one of the most significant is the development of a vaccine for shipping fever, which was done through the funding of ARIO to the University of Guelph, and that has made a significant impact on the health of animals being shipped around the country.
Mrs Witmer: What are some of the new initiatives going to be then that the institute will continue to be involved in? You mentioned the one.
Mr Smyth: Some of the major ones include the replacement of pesticides and herbicides. You perhaps have read recently about the weevils being imported to get rid of the loosestrife. Those are areas that show the greatest promise to help the environmental situation and put us on a very competitive basis, because the costs of herbicides and pesticides and so on are very expensive, as well as very concerning to consumers. I feel that if we continue to press efforts in that area, we will be putting money to good use.
Mrs Witmer: I wish you well in your endeavours. It sounds like a challenging position.
Mr McLean: How many years do you think it will be before we will have something to replace insecticides and pesticides?
Mr Smyth: Let's use loosestrife for an example. They claim it will not completely replace the need for insecticides or herbicides, but at least it will reduce the need of it. The number of years I really can't say, but we had a visit with a professor in the US, who indicates that within 10 to 15 years, many of the products we produce we will do without any herbicides or pesticides.
Mr McLean: So we're probably going back where we were 30 years ago.
Mr Smyth: Could be.
Mr McLean: The other question I have is with regard to ethanol. You'll be familiar with that. I'm wondering if we're putting enough emphasis on promoting that product, whereby the farmers would benefit greatly. What is your opinion with regard to ethanol?
Mr Smyth: Certainly, ethanol is a very interesting project. ARIO itself has not spent a lot of money. We keep up to date on what is going on. But really there's still a lot of corn imported into Ontario and so there's quite an area for volumes of corn to be produced locally without getting into ethanol. I think one of the main problems with ethanol is the up-and-down price structure. It's a very fluctuating cycle.
Mr McLean: There's a new facility being built in Guelph. Is there going to be more resource development and technology there that will help the scientists to promote more vigorously the problems that we have?
Mr Smyth: The major processors, such as ourselves, Nestlé and many others, were involved in supporting that development. The interesting part of it is that we will likely -- "we" referring to the major processors -- get less use of it than the smaller and medium-sized companies. That is where the research information will be most valuable, although there will still be opportunities for any of us to work with them on a confidential basis.
Mr McLean: You're aware, as Mr Cleary has mentioned with regard to the rural population, that you can drive down a whole concession road and nobody will be farming. What in your view is going to happen in another 20 years with all that land sitting there? What's it going to be used for? What are we going to be producing on that land?
Mr Smyth: In another 20 years -- I guess it's 40; whether it's 20 years or not, the population is doubling. There will be a requirement to bring some of that land back. I feel quite sure about that. I know that in our area there is some of that land around and we are utilizing that for growing hay. It's distressing to see the old family farms that have been purchased in the country and the houses go to rack and ruin. Some of that will likely have to be checked out with the actual municipalities themselves. I don't think many of them have handled the land sale situation as well as they might have to gain the best out of it.
Mr McLean: Do you feel the population of Ontario is getting cheap food?
Mr Smyth: Yes, I do.
Mr McLean: Do you feel the farmers are getting a fair price for their product?
Mr Smyth: Yes, I do.
Mr McLean: Where is the sawoff then for the farmers who are no longer staying in business, are losing their farms? If you had a feedlot operation, I dare say, unless your spouse or something was working off the farm, you would hardly make ends meet. I have a dairy farm. My son and his wife run it. They have no help any more. They do it themselves because they can't afford help. What's going to happen with these farms that the people can't continue to operate?
Mr Smyth: That's a lifestyle situation, isn't it? It certainly is in our case. I guess I'm in it for my health; I'm sure as heck not in it for the money.
Mr McLean: Some of them are.
Mr Smyth: Yes, that's right, and there is no question that many of the farms today are very efficient and producing extremely well. A lot of it has to do with the land base you have and the number of heat units you have. In Grey county, in our area, it's pasture land and grasses. Some of that depends on the area that you're in.
Mr McLean: Thank you very much. I wish you well.
1500
Ms Carter: Welcome, Mr Smith. I want to talk about strawberries, barley and eggs. I'm a devotee of our local farmers' market and I like the fresh produce that we get straight from local farms or, farthest away, Niagara. Somebody at the market was talking about how somebody had come from California to visit Peterborough and tasted our local strawberries and said they didn't know that strawberries were supposed to be like that. Going by the ones we buy in the supermarket in the winter, which look like strawberries but really aren't, makes me feel that research into agricultural products can be one of two kinds: It can be to actually make them better in what I would call a real sense, or to make them better in a commercial sense so that they travel better and don't spoil and just sit there on the supermarket shelves. To me, that seems the wrong way to go. If competition means getting more efficient in that kind of way, I'd have problems with it.
I notice that one of the things the agricultural research institute has done or is doing is looking at eggs and seeing if they can be made more nutritious for human consumption. I find that a bit of a puzzle because I thought they were pretty well a perfect food. Certainly when you buy fresh brown eggs, they're pretty good. Again somebody at the market was saying that somebody tasted some real eggs and found they were too strong, because they weren't used to eggs like that. Again the commercial product is not really what you would think an enlightened consumer would want.
The same with the barley: I see there's been research into increasing the yield, and I've heard of the yield of cereal crops being increased at the expense of the protein content so that you're getting more bulk but you're getting less of what I'd call real value.
What I'm looking at in all these things is the sort of tradeoff, and I just wondered what you had to say about that.
Mr Smyth: I think you have a very good point. There is no question about it, taste is important. Price is also very important. As far as the strawberries are concerned, there probably are well over 100 different varieties of strawberries. Some are developed to grow in a colder climate than others, some are quite soft, some are for processing and so on. And it's the same with the tomato. For example, with the tomato we would not be in Canada today if we had not done research on developing a heartier tomato, one that would withstand the climates of Canada. In California, for example, it's all watered and there's no problem. Here we have to develop a product that will withstand the heavy rainstorms and will also withstand the cold, and we have been successful in doing that.
There are products that are developed for certain areas. I guess that's the best way to put it. One of the most significant recent developments is the gene in the corn to retain the sugar in the corn so that corn can be shipped and be on the shelf in the stores for three days rather than rushing it out of the garden and putting it in your refrigerator. These are the kinds of things where there will be tradeoffs one with the other.
But certainly if it had not been for the research that has taken place since I was born -- and I guess that's probably longer ago than any of the rest of you in the room -- 30% of today's workforce in Ontario wouldn't be employed on farms today, if we had not had the developments in research that have taken place.
Ms Carter: I certainly believe in doing everything we can to keep our farms and have as much locally produced stuff as we can rather than developing stuff that is available just because it travels well and keeps well. I guess what I'm saying is that there are different kinds of research and different objectives.
Mr Smyth: Absolutely.
Ms Carter: As long as we're getting something that's better for the consumer, and hopefully grown nearer rather than farther away, we're getting the best of it.
I do have a concern about irradiation, which was raised, because I believe there are studies that show that although obviously it doesn't make food radioactive, it does change the chemical composition, and rats fed on this kind of food died because they weren't getting the nutrition they needed. Of course, as a consumer you can't always tell. I understand that a lot of food from the tropics, mangoes and so on, may have been irradiated. I just wonder how you would know.
Mr Smyth: It would have to be identified. That's the regulation in Canada. The World Health Organization approved irradiation 20-some years ago and many countries are using it. They're using it in the US now. At least you have the opportunity to buy irradiated food or non-irradiated. The consumers are not really concerned because the irradiated product looks far superior after a few days than the non-irradiated. As for any health concerns, there may have been something else that the rats were deprived of other than just that product, to die from it.
I'm certainly not concerned. I'm all for it, because one of the things we really need to look to, as far as irradiation is concerned, is the health of the elderly, particularly in homes where you hear of so many of them dying from contamination of food, particularly chicken. That could be eliminated completely and we could save ourselves a pile of money and save a lot of lives. It's the tradeoffs.
Ms Harrington: Thank you, Mr Smyth, for continuing with this organization. I think your vast experience is going to be very helpful. We do have to ensure the quality of our agricultural products here in Ontario, and I see that as the mandate of your organization.
I think you have mentioned in the last half-hour the need for innovation and value added products in our economy as the way of the future. We cannot just stay with our historical strengths but we have to look towards innovation. In that light, about a week ago we had the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs down in my area, which is the Niagara Peninsula -- I represent the city of Niagara Falls -- and he was talking about Niagara products and trying to develop a Niagara cuisine to go with the Niagara vintages, some new types of investing in our agricultural industry in Niagara.
What I want to ask you is if you personally and the ARIO would over the next little while pay some special attention to the unique needs of Niagara.
Mr Smyth: One thing we make sure we do is look after all areas on ARIO, and there are representatives in the OASCC committees. There are over 800 representatives, and each area does have representation. I'm sure that through those representatives is really the way to make sure that your wishes and desires and the opportunities are presented to us to take a look at.
Ms Harrington: I'm just emphasizing to you that we do have a unique area and we haven't taken advantage as much as we could of our products and the value added nature we could add to, say, our tender fruit and other things from the area. I wish your organization will be involved with us on that.
Mr Smyth: I'm sure we will be.
Mr Waters: I guess Mr McLean, Mr Cleary and I all grew up on mixed farming in rural Ontario, which I think has been hit a bit differently than southwestern Ontario. I hear about, and I see it in my own riding, that the farmers aren't farming, that there's nobody farming the land. Are we producing more or are we buying more out of province?
Mr Smyth: The production on the very fertile land and so on has gone up significantly. For example, we don't require nearly as much land to produce the same amount of tomatoes as we did 10 years ago. The yield on tomatoes has gone from 17 to 20 tonnes to more than 30 tonnes per acre, and that pretty well applies to a lot of Guelph. It applies to cattle; it applies to everything.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Waters. It's a very interesting subject and I know it's hard to close out. We appreciate your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Mr Smyth.
1510
SAHODRA DOOBAY-DIAL
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Sahodra Doobay-Dial, intended appointee as member, Council of Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.
The Chair: Welcome, Ms Doobay-Dial. We will start with the government party; it's their selection.
Mr Waters: As a lay member of the complaints and discipline board of the RIBO, your role will require that you evaluate complaints concerning the conduct of brokers and assign disciplinary action as appropriate. Could you describe briefly how your background and experience would assist you in this role?
Ms Sahodra Doobay-Dial: I've been a lawyer for over 24 years. I sat on the bench for a great period of time in Guyana. I practised in Guyana and in the United Kingdom. In Canada, in this country, I went through the LLB, I went through the bar admission. I've been practising before the courts here. I have considerable experience in adjudicating matters, writing decisions, reasons for decisions. The point is that I don't know the substantive insurance law but I know where to find the law and I can listen to both sides and give a very fair decision. I think everybody who works with me knows that I am very fair and I listen, and I think I am bright enough to follow the law.
Mr Waters: And quite obviously, from your CV, you definitely have a long history with dealing with adjudication and law, so therefore I agree that you probably would do quite well in this.
There are at times very serious breaches and then there's a lot of, shall we say, every so often, small technical breaches. Which do you think should be focused on: the nitpicky little things, or indeed should we solely or primarily look at just the major breaches?
Ms Doobay-Dial: If you don't look at the little ones, they become very big ones. If you let small breaches just pass, if you overlook small things, they let it go bigger and bigger because they say, "I can do this and nobody will take any action against me." I find that in a lot of cases in corporations, that if they find that nobody will find this out, they overlook it and then they go to something bigger, so when you go to look into it, it's a big thing. I think you have to look into both, the little ones and the big ones. You spend more time on the big things, but I don't think the little breaches should be overlooked.
Mr Waters: I know virtually nothing other than what I have received. What type of time commitment is involved in this?
Ms Doobay-Dial: I practise with my husband. My husband was ill for some time -- he had bypasses -- so we work at home. We're not doing too much work right now. He is well and he can handle most of the matters we're doing now, mostly legal aid and referral matters.
Mr Waters: I really don't have a lot more questions. As I looked through your CV -- and unfortunately, when we ask people to come forward, we get a paragraph. That's the system and it works, but sometimes we are more than pleasantly surprised when we finally get a whole dossier on a person and see that indeed there was great rationale for that appointment. I know I'll be supporting your appointment, and I wish you well.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome, and I concur with Mr Waters. You're certainly well qualified to assume the position to which you've been appointed. Do you see any ongoing problems at the present time in the entire insurance industry that you feel you can help resolve?
Ms Doobay-Dial: Actually, I didn't go into it. I was informed about this appearance here a few days ago, and I didn't read the Insurance Act or I haven't followed up on any of the insurance complaints. I have worked for insurance companies and against insurance companies. Actually, I have one matter now in England against an insurance company, but I will have to study the Insurance Act and read up about insurance before I could really answer that.
Mrs Witmer: At the present time, you're not really aware of what's gone on within the province of Ontario?
Ms Doobay-Dial: I know what I've read in the newspapers and what I've heard on the news, but I haven't done any cases in insurance or I haven't represented anybody against any insurance company in this country yet.
Mrs Witmer: So it'll all be new.
Ms Doobay-Dial: Yes, but it's the contract, you know? It's nothing more.
Mrs Witmer: Yes. Do you support mandatory continuing education for brokers? Do you believe they should be updating and receiving education on an ongoing basis?
Ms Doobay-Dial: I think it depends on the background. I've met lawyers who were saying that some of the brokers don't have too much of a background, education, that they do this just to make money and they're not too ethical. That's just a few complaints I've heard about.
Mrs Witmer: Certainly recently there has been some movement to improve the standards within the industry and to improve the image, so there's been an increasing emphasis placed on the need for some sort of continuing education, even though there are those within the industry who do oppose it. Obviously, that's one of the issues you will need to deal with.
I don't have any other questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Are there any other questions from the committee? All right. Thank you for your appearance before the committee this afternoon, Ms Doobay-Dial.
Ms Doobay-Dial: Thank you.
The Chair: What we now need is a motion, which Mr Waters has indicated he would like to make: the approval of all the people who have been on the agenda today. I will just read those names into the record: Gerald MacDonald, as a member of the Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario; Sari Stitt, as a member of the Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario; Gillian Sandeman, as a member of the Ontario Board of Parole; Paul Urbanowicz, as a member of the Council of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario; Harry Chan, as a member of the Ontario International Corp; Thomas D. Smyth, as vice-chair of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario; and Sahodra Doobay-Dial, as a member of the Council of Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.
All in favour of the motion to approve those appointments? Opposed, if any? One opposed. The motion is carried.
Thank you for your attendance at the committee today. The committee will stand adjourned and we will meet again for two days, on September 7 and 8.
The committee adjourned at 1522.