STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Tuesday 24 September 2013 Mardi 24 septembre 2013
The committee met at 0903 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Good morning, everybody, and welcome to today’s meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Today is Tuesday, September 24, 2013. It’s sunny and cold outside but it’s a nice day.
Anyway, the first item on the agenda we’re going to start off with is the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, September 19, 2013. Do I have someone to move adoption of the report?
Mr. Jim McDonell: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointees dated September 19, 2013.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.
MR. JOHN BERGSMA
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: John Bergsma, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Clean Water Agency.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Let’s go on, then, to the appointments review. We have three of them today, so we’ll start with our first one. The intended appointee is John Bergsma, nominated as vice-chair, Ontario Clean Water Agency. Please come forward and take a seat. Good morning.
Mr. John Bergsma: Good morning.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Just to remind you, as committee members know, each party is allowed to ask 10 questions. You’re allowed to—10 questions—10 minutes of questions. Sorry. It’s interesting; we should have 10 questions per party. But we’ll start, anyway, with the fact that you can make an introduction. Then, after the introduction, we’ll rotate around and ask you questions. Any time that you use doing your presentation is deducted from the government side. So, good morning, and you can begin now.
Mr. John Bergsma: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to appear before this committee. It’s been drawn to my attention that you may have a resumé that’s dating from my initial appointment to the OCWA board going back as far as 2007. In short, let me just bring you up to date.
I’ve been a president or a CEO most of my career, almost always in circumstances that called for transformation. So I’ve been a change agent. Although my pedigree, as I sometimes call it, was in manufacturing and in those roles with significant water users, I spent over 25 years as CEO in energy and utilities corporations, a corporate sector I think that has much in common with the Ontario Clean Water Agency, OCWA.
I’ve now retired from Niagara region and focus my efforts on several corporate directorships, including having become chair of a small publicly traded company, community boards, and executive coaching. Among my university degrees is an engineering graduate degree in water resources—part of my lifelong interest in water and how to use it. Perhaps that interest came about because my family was affected by the great North Sea flood in the Netherlands, perhaps because nearly 25% of the world’s fresh water flowed through my backyard in Niagara.
I’ve run corporations of the scale and scope of OCWA. I know the importance of maintaining and building a positive reputation with municipalities and communities. I know the importance of satisfying customers. I know the importance of being a low-cost operator. I know the importance of growing a business. Lastly, I know the importance of governance.
With my extensive board work, I was an early graduate of the Institute of Corporate Directors’ director certification program. Thank you for your consideration.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): All right, thank you. We’ll start the questioning today with the official opposition—
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): I’m sorry, the government. The government has up to 10 minutes to ask questions, if any, and then we’ll rotate around the table.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: So we’re starting? Okay. I thought you were starting with the official opposition.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): My apologies too.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Okay. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for appearing before the committee this morning, and thank you for your presentation—very interesting. I mean that your family came from the Netherlands and the fact that you witnessed the floods there—that you know about that—and the fact that, as you said, your home is near 25% of the world’s fresh water, so that would make it quite fitting.
I just have one question. What have you learned—you mentioned you were a board member since 2007. How does that prepare you for your new position?
Mr. John Bergsma: I think in a number of ways. Firstly, to your point about what I’ve learned, I think that the number of talented professionals that OCWA has among its rank is probably the largest collection of highly competent water and waste water professionals in the country. They are committed to keeping OCWA as the best provider of water and waste water services in Ontario.
When OCWA changed its format to having a number of people outside the public service on its board, I think one of the things that came into play was the importance of growing the business, taking advantage of the skill sets that existed, the capacities that were there and responding to the then Premier’s challenge about the importance of water to this province. I think OCWA is trying to take up that challenge.
There are some issues that have to be overcome. I think that, firstly, as one of the board members, I’m familiar with those issues. And as part of the board and its role and strategy, I think I have contributed towards creating the vision that will take us forward to really make OCWA a trusted world leader in water.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: You mentioned that there are some issues to overcome. Could you elaborate on what those would be?
Mr. John Bergsma: In some ways, being members of the Ontario public service creates opportunity, but it also sometimes creates some constraints that can be challenging. I think that OCWA is in fact in a competitive business environment but is a government agency, and sometimes the urgency, the ability to make quick decisions, and being part of the public service aren’t always correlated to the extent that the board would like, frankly.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: I hope that you will be able to make a particular contribution in that matter. I want to ask my colleagues if they have any further questions.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Yes. I wondered about any specific considerations for First Nations communities that you’re aware of, based on your experience on the board thus far.
Mr. John Bergsma: Among OCWA’s mandate is to be the water supplier or the waste treatment supplier for communities that are challenged in that regard. There’s a correlation between size and ability to afford and operate facilities. OCWA has, I think, somewhere between 12 and 15 First Nation clients. We have a capability within the organization that specifically addresses the small community challenges that First Nations—they’re not the only ones to face those challenges, but the First Nations we serve certainly have those challenges. And we generally have had First Nation representation on our board.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Bartolucci.
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Thanks, Chair. Just one comment—it’s not in the form of a question. Obviously, with your credentials, you could be doing a lot of things. I want to thank you, if the committee deems you successful in this, for serving your province in this way. Plus, it’s a very, very important agency. I come from a city that has 331 freshwater lakes within its city boundaries, and I don’t think there are too many cities in Canada or anywhere else that can say they have that many freshwater lakes within their boundaries. It is important that we protect our water.
You come with a great deal of credentials, and if the committee so chooses to approve your nomination today, I just want to thank you for serving.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you very much. We’ll now move on to the official opposition party. Any questions? Mr. McDonell.
Mr. Jim McDonell: Sure. Thank you for coming in today. I guess, as a municipal councillor, you had some experience with Aquabec about 15 years ago. How long have you been on the board?
Mr. John Bergsma: I’ve been on the board since 2007. I think I was the second person appointed who was not a member of the OPS.
Mr. Jim McDonell: I know you bring a lot of experience from the various roles throughout your career. What issues do you see at OCWA today, and where do you see changes you might bring in to the—
Mr. John Bergsma: I think there are challenges. Some of the external corporate competitors seem to have cut back their activity in Ontario. Part of the reason for that, I think, is that some municipalities have made a determination to bring back in-house, if you will, their water and waste water services. So our principal competition, probably, are municipalities themselves as opposed to other third party providers, although they are still in the mix.
One of the challenges there is that it’s not easy to get an apples-for-apples comparison always on what the true cost of operating a system is. So that sometimes makes it difficult to make the case for OCWA if a municipality is of a mind to bring the work back in-house. The other side of that coin, then, or that equation, is to make sure that OCWA has the capability, has the reputation, has the community relationships to grow its business, to the extent that there are opportunities in the province. Two recent cases are the Lambton and Elgin water systems that have now contracted with OCWA, so that’s new business for OCWA.
But we also see opportunities with the new role in promoting innovation in the water sector—technical innovation—to take some of that Ontario-grown capability and export it beyond the province. So there may be opportunities to grow the OCWA franchise, if you will, beyond the borders. Obviously, when you do that, there are challenges in setting up outside our home base.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you. You’ve had quite a bit of experience in restructuring and overhead reduction, at least by your resumé here. Are there some efficiencies that can be found in OCWA to help reduce some of this stuff? I’ll tell you where I’m coming from. I was a municipal councillor before I came here. I shuddered at some of the legislation that has come down because it does cost a lot of money to do some of these things. I do believe that most municipalities did a pretty good job of protecting their water systems and all this type of thing. I understand there has to be rules and regulations, but I think some of it may have gotten a little bit emotional. I just wonder, sir, if there’s some way that you could see it reducing overhead and that type of thing to help out with this.
Mr. John Bergsma: Firstly, let me say that I think that it is a constant and continuing focus by the board and therefore by senior management at OCWA. I think their general sense is that their productivity can match any player in the sector. I don’t know absolutely whether that’s true or not, in part because the sort of best-practice comparisons are hard to get on an apples-for-apples basis. What I do know goes back to my manufacturing pedigree, as I talked about. In most manufacturing organizations, we would have, then, industrial engineering staff. What industrial engineers do is spend their time on process improvement, on finding ways to make the product, to run the operations, to use systems that are more productive all the time. So the notion of continuous improvement was always part of core competencies in manufacturing.
Having spent some time in the municipal sector myself trying to operate some of those back-office services, I don’t think there’s always the commitment to that industrial engineering—that is, process improvement—that I’m used to. To that extent, I think it is important to be constantly vigilant and, in fact, to create capacity and to have measures that will enable us to drive productivity improvement. Partly to that, OCWA is currently in progress with making significant investments in modernizing all of its operating systems. From a board perspective, we want to make sure that, in doing that modernization, we also take full advantage of the productivity improvement opportunities that come with those new systems and that new technology.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I think that’s all.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): You have a few minutes left.
Mr. Jim McDonell: Just one question. I know, coming from a rural municipality, some of the issues we have. We took over our water and waste water treatment facilities from OCWA some 15 years ago. One of the challenges that we have being small is coverage on off-day periods. Do you see that as an area where OCWA might get—I mean, there are a lot of these small facilities around and there are challenges working with them. As someone who’s a consultant, but almost as—to fill the gaps for vacation and different things. Is that a place where you might grow the industry, or is there an opportunity there?
Mr. John Bergsma: I think that probably the answer to your specific question is yes. In a more general sense, I think OCWA is working at promoting and selling a number of value-added services to smaller municipalities, but even to medium and to bigger municipalities, taking the expertise that they have and the knowledge they have of pretty much every system in use in Ontario. They’re in a really good position to provide advice, to provide designs, to provide backstop capability. I think that OCWA will be and is offering some of those services, but doing even more of that as we go forward.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Time is up according to my stopwatch. Thank you.
So now I’ll move to the NDP. You have up to 10 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Mr. Bergsma. Thank you for coming in today. I wrote down a quote. I believe it was, “OCWA was the best provider in Ontario.” I’m just wondering—I know my colleague and friend from across the aisle asked about First Nations communities, and I believe you had 12 or 14 First Nations communities that you’re providing services for.
Mr. John Bergsma: Yes. Don’t hold me to that exact number; it does change a bit from time to time because some come in and some go out. But I think that’s roughly right.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: What’s your experience in those communities with boil-water advisories?
Mr. John Bergsma: I can’t tell you with absolute certainty, but we do track boil-water advisories. I can’t remember the last time OCWA has run a system that has had one, which is not to say they don’t happen from time to time. One of the challenges for OCWA is that it has been the operator of the systems—whether it’s water treatment or waste water treatment—but they have not been the owners of the assets, so the plant is owned by the municipality or the First Nations community. So if there are specific circumstances, like the water source has some issues and the plant doesn’t have absolutely the highest standard of equipment, OCWA has to operate what it has. So sometimes you do get issues driven by the capital that’s been invested, as opposed to operations challenges.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: In that case, then, OCWA doesn’t provide the infrastructure. It gets a contract and runs the service with the facilities there, but it doesn’t provide infrastructure to upgrade that service.
Mr. John Bergsma: That is correct.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Do you do anything in the municipality of Pelee Island?
Mr. John Bergsma: I don’t know. It does not ring a bell with me, so perhaps not. We serve over 180 communities.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Yes. I know they’ve been under a boil-water advisory forever—I don’t know, 15, 20 years or more. But recently there was some money given to try to upgrade—
Mr. John Bergsma: Given that, I don’t think so.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: All right; thank you. I’m just reading the financial information. You’ve lost a number of contracts. Some municipal clients have decided either to manage their own systems or seek out lower-priced service delivery options. We saw recently in the province when lower-priced service delivery options led to some problems in chemotherapy. Are there dangers when municipalities seek out lower-priced options, when they go to the low bidder on a provider such as this?
Mr. John Bergsma: That’s a difficult question, Mr. Hatfield. I think it is up to the municipality, when it does that, to make sure that it has set out in its RFP the full requirements for making sure that the provider is capable of complying with all of the measurements that are required to be monitored. I can really only speak for OCWA. You talked about First Nations. If there were ever to be an issue, OCWA has the capability—and indeed has it set up so to do—to fly in additional resources on an emergency basis. So that is a capacity that OCWA has that generally other players and certainly municipalities on their own would not have. They might then call on OCWA, but then it’s an indirect initiative as opposed to a direct initiative.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: That’s good to know. Walkerton—the lessons learned at Walkerton. Is there still more to do, more to learn, more ways to improve the overall system in this province?
Mr. John Bergsma: My first answer is that I think that all of the lessons in operating systems that have come out of Walkerton are being implemented, either by OCWA or by other municipal or private sector operators. Is there further room for improvement? In the context of my earlier comments about industrial engineering, I would say yes, to the extent that systems have exceedances when there are flood conditions, for example, or heavy rains on their waste water side. The trade-off there is between the investment in additional plant and additional technology versus the frequency of those kinds of events. So yes, there are always opportunities. Do we have the balance reasonably right these days? I guess that’s really more of a political judgment than it is a technical judgment. Technically, we could continue to move forward; structurally and organizationally, OCWA will.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Miss—I always think of Monique Smith, so I do apologize—Monique Taylor. Thank you.
Miss Monique Taylor: Thanks, Chair. Good morning. Thank you for being here with us today. So you’ve been on the board since 2006—I believe that’s correct—and you’ve spent quite a bit of time on the board, I’m sure learning quite a lot. What motivated you to want to be the vice-chair now, and what is it that you think you can bring to the table in that position to make it better financially? What do you think you can do to move the yardstick?
Mr. John Bergsma: Well, I think that continuing to refine and promulgate a vision for OCWA as a modality for this province to take its unique capabilities or unique position in water forward is an interesting challenge that requires, in the first instance, board leadership in articulating what could be. I would find that interesting and challenging.
To the extent that your question—why do I aspire to this? Well, maybe, strictly speaking, I didn’t, but I was asked to do it, and I believe that I am qualified to do it. I would find the challenge interesting because of all the things I’ve already said. I’ve been on the OCWA board for some time, and sometimes it’s time to get new blood, but maybe another way to do that is to get a slightly different role. I think that people thought I might do the latter.
Miss Monique Taylor: May I ask who asked you to take the position?
Mr. John Bergsma: Well, I’m not sure. The question about my willingness to serve in that role was put to me by the chair of OCWA.
Miss Monique Taylor: All right. I just hope that in your position you can—we’ve heard about water advisories and boiling, and I know that the Six Nations reserve right next to my riding has been under a boil-water advisory for years and years. And it would be nice to see different parts of the province not have to worry about the water that they’re drinking, and know that, at the same time, we’re keeping our lakes safe. So good luck in your role, and do us well.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you, Mr. Bergsma. That completes the questions. We’ll deal with the concurrences at the end of the third—we have three intended appointees for today, so you’re welcome to stay, and then we will decide whether or not to concur in your appointment. So we’re going to move on to the next person, but you’re welcome to stay.
MS. CLAUDETTE PAQUIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Claudette Paquin, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): The next individual is Claudette Paquin. I hope I pronounced that properly.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Good morning.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Good morning, and welcome to the committee. You have up to 10 minutes to make your presentation. Any time that you use for your presentation will be deducted from the government side. You can use the whole 10 minutes, or use only part of it, and then we’ll rotate and each party gets 10 minutes for questions.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I haven’t written a presentation per se. I was coming here to answer questions, so I’m not sure what kind of presentation people do in that context.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): You don’t have to present.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Okay.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We can move directly to questions, and if we do, this time we’ll start with—the NDP will ask questions first. So if the NDP have any questions—
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. I’m just being advised by the Clerk that the official opposition goes first this time. So go ahead and ask any questions.
Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming out today. I guess most people here have worked with the Trillium association, and there’s always some controversy with them. Do you see, with some of the reports out, where you might feel that there needs to be some improvements or some measurable outcomes with Trillium?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Well, I read the material and I saw the part of the auditor’s report with the recommendations, and that’s definitely an area that’s a governance issue, that’s a board’s issue, to work with the president and executive director to make sure that there are processes in place for accountability from organizations that we fund at the Trillium Foundation. To my knowledge, that was the main point of the auditor’s report.
The vision? I totally concur with that vision. I don’t think I would have even stepped forward if I didn’t think that to strengthen the volunteer sector in communities is the wrong path—I think it’s the right path. I’ve been a volunteer all my adult life, and I think the approach to strengthening their work is very healthy for communities, and it will make communities more active, more involved. I’m all for that.
I haven’t sat on that board, so I haven’t seen anything that indicates to me that this mission needs to be revisited, but definitely, the auditor’s report focused on the processes within the accountabilities and reporting.
Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess, being somebody that’s applied sometimes—projects that look like quite the type of project that Trillium should take on sometimes don’t get approved; others, you kind of wonder about. Really, from a volunteer point of view, Trillium is your only option to give money that really has a chance to resonate in the community and help them along. But do you see anything as far as making the choice maybe more prescriptive or more predictable to the people involved—knowing whether they should apply or if their projects are that type that would apply, or just improving the overall process as far as the granting goes?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think it should be crystal clear to ordinary people like us working in a community what the programs are and what the criteria are. I think that as long as that is clear, we know if it’s worth—because it’s a lot of work to prepare these requests for funding. If the program is clear, the criteria are clear and the way to prepare them is crystal clear on the website—at least on the website—then it might facilitate the end of this process, which is the choosing of the project.
I think the division of the funds in the various communities—when I went to the website and I read everything on the Trillium Foundation—I don’t disagree with that. I just think it has work at the end, which is how to make it clearer, and then how to make it more accountable. So I think that’s where the work needs to be done.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you. My community and all communities in Ontario depend on the Trillium Foundation to help them out with projects. I mean, it’s been a great program and certainly one that we welcome. In the municipality I live in, a lot of times the staff of the municipality do all the work on preparation of the application, which has really been helpful to Lions clubs or service clubs of any nature.
There has been an issue raised from time to time with governments seeing a surplus in one part of their system and saying, “Well, let’s take that money and put it over here, and maybe we can help pay for something else.” It drains those things. And they don’t want to see that happen, because invariably, funds will dry up where you think you’re going to get them and because they’ve put these funds into general revenue or something like that. I wonder what your opinion on that is and whether you would certainly advocate for that not being done if you were chosen for this position.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Do you mean if there’s a surplus in an area, in a region, and what do they do with that?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: No. One program is doing it very well, where you have a bunch of money sitting over here. Well, then the government will say, “Jeez, we don’t have enough money to pay for health care,” and they take that and whack it over there, and then all of a sudden, we’re drained. Communities don’t want to see that happen, but it has happened in the past. All of a sudden, a program’s funds dry up because of things like that. I wonder if you would be a strong advocate, if you were on this board, of that not happening, or at least give some pretty strong—
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Well, I’m a strong advocate that if you put something forward for people to start thinking of how to strengthen their community and you make a commitment for that, you have to deliver on that commitment. So taking millions away from a program, and especially, I would say, mid-project, is fairly devastating to some communities. I come from a rather small community, Penetanguishene. I don’t think that the budget of the Trillium Foundation—you said it’s been done before. I don’t know the circumstances, but—
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Not specifically from this fund, but there have been programs set up where the money just went into general revenue, and then all of a sudden it gets lost. I think we have to keep these separate: If this is a Trillium fund, this is this fund, and then that’s the monies that they have to do it. I’d hate to see something like this get buried, is what I’m getting at.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I’d rather know what money we have and then that’s what we’re working with. I don’t like to have the rug pulled out from under my feet; let’s put it this way.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. You are bilingual, something I wish I was and maybe I’ll get there someday. How do you think that will help you with this position? Or do you think it’s something that gives you an advantage in this position?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Well, I think I’m a good representative of regions, and many of the Franco-Ontarian communities are in smaller areas, if I may say, aside from Sudbury and Ottawa, of course. But I’ve been working—I sat on the board of the Bruce Trail Conservancy—on both sides, French, English. In Penetanguishene, we work with the Rotary Club—I’m a member of the Richelieu Club, and we do stuff with the Rotary Club to give money to the hospital. So I’ve been used to, all my professional life, seeing a community as a whole. And especially in Franco-Ontarian communities, sometimes 60% of the families are mixed-marriage anyway. So you find your allies, you find your friends, regardless of their origin, and often the language that they speak, and they become a strength for your project.
We’re going to celebrate Champlain in Penetanguishene because he was there for a whole year in 1615, and everybody’s working on this—French, English—in Penetang. If you’ve ever been there, there are two angels at the entrance of the town: One is for the francophones and the other is for the anglophones. So that’s who we are. And I think that’s a strength in this province, to work both sides.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: You’re welcome.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you very much. We move to the NDP.
Miss Monique Taylor: Good morning.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Good morning.
Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you for being here with us today. What made you decide that you wanted to be part of this organization?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Like I said, I’ve been a volunteer, I think all my adult life, in small organizations and larger, like the Bruce Trail, with 800 volunteers or something like that. The Trillium Foundation with its goal and mission of strengthening volunteering in the community to me is the big attraction. That’s what attracts me to that.
Miss Monique Taylor: I’m happy to hear that you read the auditor’s report and heard the concerns that were there. Part of that was advertising and letting people know that this organization actually exists. I know that many times, constituents or organizations would come to me and I would refer them to Trillium, which they didn’t know existed. What would you do to help that process along?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think we have to consider the reality of communities. There are communities that are more media-connected. I think the website is a great one, and local little newspapers, but be very clear in the ad: This is who we are. The Trillium Foundation is not Santa Claus, but we have these programs for these kinds of projects.
I think people need an idea of what kind of project, because to see “arts and culture,” “sports and recreation”—it’s a big category. So if you give examples of who received funding in that area, it really clicks in them to say, “Hey, we have a three-year project that could maybe apply for that. It would be useful to do that.” I think I would be more specific than general in publicity and advertising. That’s my take on it.
Miss Monique Taylor: The process is very in-depth, sometimes very confusing for most folks, where they have a hard time filling out those applications that don’t seem very clear. Have you heard that issue, and is there anything that you have in mind that would help that process?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think it is time-consuming. I think it also depends on the size of the grant. If you ask for, I don’t know, $200,000, you need to be very specific about what you’re going to do with that. Also, people have to understand that accountability is very important, so in that work—now, I haven’t seen the form per se. I don’t know if it is easy to navigate, but if that’s what I call “geography,” that can be dealt with. But if it’s for a $10,000 grant and it takes three months to prepare, then people are not encouraged to do that, because they have no staff.
So I would look at that more in detail—not case by case, but in terms of process more than anything.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Good morning.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you for being here and thank you very much for your service through Cogeco and through TFO, for your commitment to public television, your community service on various volunteer boards—Ottawa, Sudbury, Penetanguishene and elsewhere—and for being an advocate for francophone rights. Thank you so much.
When it comes to Trillium, does the francophone population get its fair share of Trillium funding, or should that allocation formula be improved somehow?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I looked at the projects that had been approved by region and everything. I don’t know in terms of percentage. I think the first question to ask is, are there enough projects submitted? Are they in line with what the program is? I don’t have the answer to these questions today.
I don’t support a project just because it’s francophone. It has to be solid. It has to be accountable. I think as people grow into a board, you want to keep the line between what I call the kitchen, which is the work of the staff, and what your role is as a board. But we look at stats, and if the issue is that they’re just not submitting enough worthy projects, then that’s something that people can start working on. But I certainly wouldn’t judge right off the bat, looking at the stats, without knowing the story behind.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Right. I think the entire province would benefit by having more applications come in. Using your network of friends and your broadcasting background, I suppose, as has been alluded to, you can reach out, use some of those connections, some of that networking, to encourage more applications into certain areas. I hope you intend to do that.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I will look at it for sure.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you very much.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. We’ll move on, then, to the Liberal Party with any questions.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Yes. Ms. Hunter will be asking the questions.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Bonjour, Madame Paquin.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Bonjour, Madame.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s really wonderful to see you, and I must say that I had the pleasure of working with you as a member of the board of TVOntario. For six years, I was on that board. I was first appointed under Premier Eves and then reappointed under Premier McGuinty. What an incredible organization that serves the needs of educating people in Ontario.
I saw first-hand your leadership and your professionalism and your creativity at both TVOntario and TFO when you took over as CEO there.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Thank you.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I wondered, in terms of what you bring specifically to the board, based on your prior experience—you talked about process improvement, and I wondered what you would bring as a board member to help to support the organization in doing so.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I see it as twofold. First, as a volunteer, I think I bring experience in the field and how we can make things easier or better. But also, as a public service professional and even with Cogeco, which is a private company, it’s still not my money that I’m spending. So you have to be careful how you spend it, on the right thing, and also it has to be seen as being—not only should you be careful; you should be seen as being careful. That’s the same with private money as with public money, so long as it’s not your money, and accountability is something that has been drilled into my head in the public service. That’s what I’m bringing at Cogeco, actually, and that’s what also I would support on the board.
I think the governance of an institution is visions, large strategies and then accountability, and you have to make sure that both ends are solid. I think that’s what I bring to the field.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: That’s wonderful.
You’ve already explained that, along with your professional career, community service has been important to you. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I think that’s very relevant to the work that the Trillium Foundation does.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think it starts when you have children, to tell you the truth, and you volunteer for, honest, baking cookies, working bingos—anybody has to work bingos once in their life, I think—and raising money all the time, for the school, for the parents’ committee. And then your children grow up, but you feel that there has to be more than just the school; there have to be cultural activities for them, to give them a sense that it can be fun to speak French. It cannot be just—sorry about this—the school, the family and the church, because when you are a teenager, that’s not where your mind is. So then you start working, when they are teenagers, at the larger areas of intervention. And then—I mean, I walked the Bruce Trail from the bottom to the top, so then I thought, “Well, what a great trail. I need to volunteer. I need to give back.”
I think there’s a sense, when you get a lot, that you need to give back. That sounds a bit corny, but I think it’s the truth for a lot of people, and it was for me, certainly.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you.
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I don’t think it’s corny at all. I think that’s the raison d’être that people like you exist, thankfully, in this province.
Just to reinforce what I think Jim and Randy from the Conservatives said, and certainly Monique from the NDP said with regard to the application process, sometimes it can be cumbersome, so if you can give us your assurance, with all due respect—because the Ontario Trillium Foundation is a fabulous, fabulous organization—you might want to look at that and try to make it easier.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I will.
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Percy from the NDP highlighted your community involvement and your commitment. That’s stellar.
The only question I have is that you’re in Barrie and you sit on Laurentian University’s board of directors, and I’m sure you’re in favour of the campus in Barrie. Correct?
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Well, I’m a big fan, yeah.
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Beautiful. It has nothing to do with this particular appointment, but it very, very much has to do with lobbying the government to get money for the Barrie campus, so you have an ally here, certainly.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Barrie is now 143,000 people, and it’s the only city, in my knowledge, in Ontario of that size that doesn’t have a regular campus.
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Exactly. And Dominic Giroux from Laurentian and you, who sit on the board of directors of Laurentian, have worked very, very hard at ensuring that those students are served well. Hopefully, as we move forward, they’ll be served even better with a campus.
It has nothing to do with this particular appointment, but it’s now on the record, and thank you very much.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you, Mr. Bartolucci. Any other questions? Is that okay?
All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Paquin—
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): —for your presentation. We were going to deal with concurrences at the end of our interviews. We have one more to do. You’re welcome to stay, or, if you want to leave, you—
Ms. Claudette Paquin: I have to fly to my job now, so I apologize for that.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. I’m sure you’ll be notified.
Ms. Claudette Paquin: Thank you very, very much.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Have a nice day.
MR. LIONEL JOYNER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Lionel Joyner, intended appointee as member, Hamilton Grant Review Team.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Our next selection is Mr. Lionel Kevin Joyner to the Hamilton Grant Review Team. Good morning.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Good morning.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Welcome to our committee. You have 10 minutes to make your presentation. Any time that you use in your presentation, we take it off the government’s side. Then each side, each party here—three different parties—has 10 minutes to ask you questions.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Mr. Chair, committee members, I appreciate and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss my candidacy for the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Hamilton Grant Review Team. I am very excited, and I’m honoured, to be considered for this position.
If you would permit me a few minutes, I would be delighted to tell you more about myself and how I see passion for the community being an asset to the important work of this foundation.
I was born and raised in Smithville, Ontario, a small town in the Niagara region. I have seen this small town grow from a small rural community in the 1960s to a vibrant little town with business, industry, art, culture and recreation as it is today. It’s through the work of community leaders and programs supported by the Ontario government such as the Trillium Foundation that a town can be developed in this manner.
In fact, not long ago, the Trillium Foundation provided a grant to the West Lincoln Historical Society so that it could install plaques at various historical buildings in the township. As a community, they felt it was important to highlight the history of the town and celebrate its roots.
I have always felt it was important to set a positive example by taking pride of my own personal property and reputation, helping my neighbourhood and community. I have always been proud to call my community and province home and have it viewed by others as an inviting place to live, work and to visit.
My career in police work was pivotal to my dedication toward communities. As a police officer, I have seen first-hand the positive impact of strong communities which are supported by healthy and caring programs for its citizens.
I am proud of my 37 years working in law enforcement. I have received diplomas and certificates of achievement from the Ontario Police College and the Ontario Provincial Police college, as well as numerous commendations and service medals in recognition of long service and good conduct, plus certificates of appreciation from municipalities in recognition of my dedication and service to their communities.
Some of the essential skills of police work are being able to exercise common sense, sound judgment, responsible and rapid decision-making, and being able to work in a team environment so that cases can be brought to a successful conclusion. These are the very same skills and strengths that I apply in all facets of my life and shall apply again, should my appointment to the Ontario Trillium Foundation grant review board be confirmed.
I’m always in agreeance with any project or municipal initiative that will benefit and not burden the people of the community.
In conclusion, I believe that this appointment would be an opportunity for me to utilize my personal and professional strengths and, further, give back to the people and communities of Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you very much. We’ll start the questioning with the NDP.
Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you for being here with us today, fellow Hamiltonian.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Thank you.
Miss Monique Taylor: What led you into wanting to be part of this group?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: What actually motivated me to get involved is because I feel my past experiences dealing with leaders of the community and social groups—I find that, how hard they work—I have a tendency to focus on the needs of elderly people, the needy, the fixed-income people. I just personally draw myself to that part of the team.
Miss Monique Taylor: Okay. Through the grant summary, it shows that Hamilton is way down on the list of the number of grants that it’s actually received. What are you going to do to push that forward to ensure that we’re getting our fair share of the pie?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I think that it needs to be promoted—the programs need to be promoted maybe a little more. Leaders have—well, first of all, they have to be—the applications have to be investigated properly so the board can make a decision as to recommendations of whoever investigates the case—by investigating them properly, visiting the sites, making sure that the program is being handled properly. I have a great respect for tax dollars, and I need to see that there is value for the money.
Miss Monique Taylor: Okay. I’m glad to hear that you’re focused on people in need because that’s exactly where this kind of money needs to go: It’s into programs that better our community. You mentioned seniors, but we definitely have a lot of youth in our community, a lot of youth who are bored. What is it that you’re going to do to try to encourage maybe different organizations to reach out? How are you going to help people along in the community to definitely put us up in numbers and make sure that we are getting more funds that are available?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I think it’s the job of the team to investigate the application and to visit the sites to make sure that they are accurate and legitimate and the money is being spent that they probably have received in the past. I don’t think it should be the team’s role other than to investigate. I don’t think it has to basically encourage people to put the application in; I think the team’s role is to investigate the application and make the recommendation.
Miss Monique Taylor: All right. I hope, though, that in that position that you will look at part of the advocacy because that’s definitely a role that I think belongs to all members of the Trillium program, in making sure that the people are getting it. You’re from Hamilton; right?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yes, yes.
Miss Monique Taylor: So we need to make sure that the programs are available there for people who don’t really know that the Trillium money exists.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: That’s right.
Miss Monique Taylor: Hopefully you’ll look outside the box that way and bring that forward to the table.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yes.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you for being here and thank you for your years in law enforcement. Friends of mine say you’ve been “a good copper” for a long time. They like to refer to themselves as that; I hope you do, too.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I must have liked it, because I stuck around for 37 years. It was seven years beyond my retirement point, so yes, I did. I enjoyed working with people. That’s what I miss about the job right now: dealing with the public.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: And you’ve been a coach and involved in your community in various different ways.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yes.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Have you ever been involved with a community group that has applied for Trillium funding?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: No, I haven’t.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: All right. Did you—
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I know organizations that have. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Hamilton—I believe that they have been awarded.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Did you just wake up one morning and say, “I’m going to apply to be on this board”? Or did a friend say, “Hey, why don’t you come and put in an application”?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: No, no. I was completely on my own. I do a lot of volunteer work in my neighbourhood. As a matter of fact, I maintain seven—correction: six; seven if you count my own—properties in the area for elderly people, mainly because they’re just not able to maintain them or, financially, to hire professionals.
That kind of motivated me, really. I just went to the website; I browsed through the website. I found the agency that I thought suited me, so I just sent the application in to the public appointments secretary.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Do you need any home maintenance in Hamilton that we could add to the list?
Miss Monique Taylor: There are lots of seniors in Hamilton who are definitely in need of lawn maintenance.
Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you very much. We’ll move on, then, to the government now. Our presenter used five minutes of his time, so we subtract that from the 10 minutes. The government has got five minutes to ask questions.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here this morning. I wanted to ask you: What skills as a police officer do you think will help you in this position?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I think that they’re the same skills that you would apply to any investigation: analytical skills, reading, writing, report-writing, good listening. I understand that, after the collection of documents or whatever you might be referring to, you have to understand what you’re reading, analyze it, collect your evidence and do your presentation as a recommendation.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: That’s very true—and I must add that I really liked your answer in terms of the role of reviewing grants, when you said in your answer to my colleague that your role is to “investigate” the application. I completely agree: I think that that’s very important.
I believe that every member of the team has a role to play in getting the word out about the grants, but I don’t see that as your primary role. I think that the Ontario Trillium Foundation should find another way of advertising that would avoid any shadow of favouritism, or the word getting out only to people who have access to the team. It should be out to everyone, even to those organizations that may not be familiar with members of the team.
Thank you very much for serving, should your application be approved, and thank you for being here, again.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: You’re welcome.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Now we’ll move to the official opposition. You have 10 minutes to ask questions. Ms. Thompson.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I certainly appreciate the vast experience that you bring to the table. We were just commenting; I have two OPP officers in my family, and Randy and Jim each have police officers in their families as well.
When we did our research, we realized that you have been politically active as VP of the federal Liberal Party. I was just wondering, do you have any affiliations or activities associated with provincial or municipal politics?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: No, I don’t.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Do you think your nomination for this appointment has anything to do with your political affiliations?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Nothing whatsoever.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Okay, very good. You had mentioned earlier that you had sought out this opportunity. What types of projects do you feel best suit the Trillium Foundation goals, if you will?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I’m not too clear on what your question is.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: When you say you’ll investigate all applications—in your experience you’ve probably heard of different community groups and organizations receiving Trillium grants. I’m just wondering, to your way of thinking, what type of project would best fit the goals or objectives of a Trillium grant?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Anything that would fall within the criteria or rules of granting by the foundation; anything that’s going to improve the lives of the citizens of the area; anything that’s going to promote the culture and the art of a community to make it more attractive for people to visit it or to work or get educated. That’s any project that would fall within that mandate.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Very good. And you have the time available to make it out to every presentation and community event? I know in my area, it’s unfortunate that sometimes the Trillium representative can’t make it to the presentation. So you have time to make it out in your time schedule? It would be a priority?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yes, I definitely have the time and the energy to get involved in teleconferences. I can visit sites. I can do presentations. Yes, that’s important.
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Okay, thank you. This is an important program that facilitates capacity-building in our communities, so I thank you for your interest.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. McDonell?
Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you for appearing today. Maybe just go over some of your background and some of the organizations you belong to and the volunteer work that you’ve been involved with in your community.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I’ve never been directly involved. I’ve been in volunteer situations for most of the service clubs—the Lions Clubs, the Rotary Clubs—most of the service clubs. I’ve volunteered at the Hamilton Boys and Girls Club sporadically, not on a full-time basis. Whenever they need assistance or help, I give them a hand. That’s about it.
Mr. Jim McDonell: You’ll see lots of applications as you go through. Do you get a feeling of what some of these groups are going through and some of the issues they have and where money can—it’s a hard choice, because generally you’re dealing with about double the applications as you have money for, so you try to pick the cream of the crop, where it would have the biggest impact. I guess your experience would at least show you—get an idea of what projects would help the community most.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: I know that most of them can use as much money as they can possibly get, because money is tight right now. Most of the governments have cash restraints. I think most charitable and non-profit organizations are aware of that. All they would have to do was listen to the news and they’d know that there are money restraints by all levels of government. I think that most of the organizations are spending their money wisely.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Chair.
Again, thanks for coming out today. Have you previously worked on Trillium grants yourself?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: No.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. I guess some of the frustration lies with Trillium in the application process. I suppose that a lot of communities like the one I live in probably get the municipal staff to help them with stuff like that. At least, that’s what happens in our community.
Certainly, you’re used to paperwork over your career—
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yes, very much.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: —and I wonder, if you looked at one of these grant applications, maybe you would be helpful in saying, “We don’t need that question; we don’t need this,” or something like that. Can you see work like that being done?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Oh, yes. One thing is, especially if you work in fraud, you’re able to detect, in applications and documents, certain stuff that’s not true.
I’ve worked in every department within the Ontario Provincial Police. I started off in general traffic and then I moved up into general enforcements, and then I went into drug enforcements and the criminal investigation bureau and frauds, and just about everything where a lot of documents are analyzed.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My daughter-in-law works in fraud.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Oh, does she?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Yeah, and the paperwork is just incredible, of course.
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Which department?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Pardon me?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Which department?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Guelph city police. She has been in there for about four or five years, and it’s just incredible all the paperwork she has.
I guess there is a certain frustration level at times with the application process, so that’s why I asked that question.
The Auditor General also didn’t give Trillium a very good report because of its failure to measure and monitor the outcomes of its projects. Do you have any thoughts about that—how you would try to improve that part of the Trillium Foundation?
Mr. Lionel Joyner: Yeah, I did notice once something in that report is—getting someone to investigate—it’s almost like the middle person. They knew the information, but yet when they were on the team, they would do the investigation. Basically, it’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Then they would improve the application. I see a problem with that, yes.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I guess with any government agency that is responsible for a lot of money, this has to be improved in transparency and whatever else goes along with it, because I’m sure, if communities aren’t getting the money that they think they should be getting in their applications, the first thing they’re going to do is point at somebody else and say, “These guys got all kinds of money, and we didn’t.” So I think that’s something that is very important to this agency.
You got any more?
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We’ve run out of time, actually.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: We’re done. All right.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): I’m keeping it on a stopwatch.
Thank you very much. You may now step down.
We’re going to now do the concurrences for the three individuals that we have dealt with this morning.
I’m going to ask, first of all: Would someone please move concurrence with regard to our first—
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of John Bergsma, nominated as vice-chair, Ontario Clean Water Agency.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you, Mr. Bartolucci. Any discussion? None? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
We will now consider the concurrence for Claudette Paquin, nominated as a member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Would someone please move concurrence?
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Chair, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Claudette Paquin, nominated as a member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Any discussion? None? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.
We will now consider the concurrence for Lionel Kevin Joyner, nominated as a member of the Hamilton Grant Review Team.
Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Lionel Kevin Joyner, nominated as a member of the Hamilton Grant Review Team.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Now we just have a couple of very quick items to deal with, members of the committee. We can get this done in a couple of minutes.
The deadline to review the following individuals, selected from the August 30—we need agreement to extend the time to review them. There are three of them: Greg Anderson, nominated as a member of Brant County Health Unit board; the second one is Jean Buie, nominated as a member of the Social Benefits Tribunal; and number three is Leslie Flemming, nominated as a member of the Assessment Review Board. Do we have unanimous agreement to extend the deadline to consider these intended appointments?
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Who’s the second person?
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): The second person was Jean Buie, nominated as a member of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
I’m just asking for an extension of their items. The extension would go to October 27, 2013. Do we have unanimous consent to do that? Thank you very much.
One other quick item is the WSIB report which is being prepared. We adopted the report on September 10 and directed that the report would be translated and printed. I wish to seek clarification today from committee members on how to handle the appendix. We have an appendix of items that were requested by members of this committee for the WSIB report. If the committee wishes for the appendix to be translated, this will add three weeks in time and cost over $5,000. There are two options in front of us. One is to include the appendix in English only; we do have precedent for this: The Legislative Assembly committee did this with the report on the delayed release of MPPs from the 2010 budget lock-up; we have a copy of that—or two, to not include the appendix in the report. The appendix is a committee exhibit and can be made available to the public by the Clerk of the Committee.
How would the committee like to respond? Would you like to proceed with the printing in French, which would cost $5,000, or not do a French copy and save $5,000 and keep the English-only version? The report itself cost $2,587 to translate. The report plus the appendix will make the price $7,800, so it’s roughly $5,200 more to translate the appendix. It’s either A or B, to print or not to print—
Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Chair, if I may have time to consult with my caucus on that matter? And if details could actually be given to us once again, so that I could write it down, or send it to me by email. I’d be happy to respond by email by the end of the day on something like that. I think that would be appropriate for all of us to do. I know that the French members of our caucus—
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Sure, I understand—
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Let’s defer decision on that until we’ve had the opportunity to confer with our caucus if necessary.
Miss Monique Taylor: And possibly set a two-day deadline by email or something like that. Would that be fair to everybody?
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Next meeting. It’s not pressing
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): These are deadlines that have to be done within—can we do it next week? Maybe the Clerk can clarify—
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Otherwise by the end of the day, as suggested by MPP Taylor.
Miss Monique Taylor: By email.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: That’s fine, by email.
Miss Monique Taylor: If we could be sent the costs, hopefully as soon as possible, we have caucus today, which would be a good time to be able to bring that forward.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Why don’t we just send it to the subcommittee and let them make a decision, the subcommittee of this committee?
Miss Monique Taylor: Only the email sent to subcommittee? Perfect.
Mrs. Laura Albanese: Okay, that’s fine.
Miss Monique Taylor: Could we have details sent to us today also, please, of the cost associated with that?
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes.
Miss Monique Taylor: That would be great, and then we can respond back.
Miss Monique Taylor: Cost and timelines.
Mr. Jim McDonell: The decision of the subcommittee or—what’s the final decision?
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): I think we can let the subcommittee decide, if there’s unanimous consent here. Is there unanimous consent to have the subcommittee decide?
Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I think we’ve got unanimous consent.
The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Then we’ll direct the Clerk to do that through the subcommittee only.
All right, thank you very much. That adjourns the meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1027.
Tuesday 24 September 2013
Subcommittee report A-65
Intended appointments A-65
Mr. John Bergsma A-65
Ms. Claudette Paquin A-68
Mr. Lionel Joyner A-72
Committee business A-75
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr. Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mrs. Laura Albanese (York South–Weston / York-Sud–Weston L)
Mr. Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Mr. Percy Hatfield (Windsor–Tecumseh ND)
Ms. Mitzie Hunter (Scarborough–Guildwood L)
Mr. Jim McDonell (Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry PC)
Mr. Randy Pettapiece (Perth–Wellington PC)
Miss Monique Taylor (Hamilton Mountain ND)
Ms. Lisa Thompson (Huron–Bruce PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki
Staff / Personnel
Ms. Carrie Hull, research officer,