INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
PAUL CANNIFF
CONTENTS
Wednesday 24 September 1997
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Mr Paul Canniff
Mr Winston Clarke
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)
Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim
Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): We're ready to begin and the first item of business is the report of the subcommittee dated September 18. Could we have someone move that subcommittee report.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'll move it.
The Chair: Mr Johnson has moved the subcommittee report which, by the way, means there are no selections for next week, so you can do other unmentionable things next week. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried. Thank you for that.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
PAUL CANNIFF
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Paul Canniff, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario.
The Chair: The second order of business is the review of appointments and the first person is Mr Paul Canniff to the Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario. Mr Canniff, good morning. We welcome you to the committee and you have an opportunity now to make a few opening remarks, if you wish, before we begin the questioning.
Mr Paul Canniff: Good morning, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to come from Ottawa to spend some time here at the standing committee to discuss the appointment that's been offered to me and to give you an idea of the background I have and to take any questions that are involved.
First off, I should relate the impression I have of this whole business, and that is why this matters in the question of appointments. I think an essential part of effective responsible government lies in accountability, and more to the point in this issue, we're discussing the notion of public oversight.
With respect to self-governing health professions, it strikes me that there are two facts at play that have to be considered in the notion of appointments.
The first one is quite obvious, and that is the need for an objective analysis by disinterested public parties, because after all, we want to ensure that the public at large who are in effect the consumers of these services from the professions have confidence in the profession. Once people have confidence in a profession that's a branch of government, it promotes I think a solid understanding of it and a general comfort level.
But also I think we have to see that public oversight by the public at large has to be balanced by another factor when it comes to a specific appointment, and that's to balance it with a demonstrable knowledge and understanding of the process as the machinery of government, because while we need objective analysis by people who are removed from the process on a day-to-day basis, clearly when you take members of the public and place them alongside professionals who are engaged in the monitoring of their own profession, it does help to understand how the process itself works.
Those two factors together make sure that the public is confident that they're being served properly by a profession, that their government at large is taking steps to ensure people are managed properly, and so in the end we have a system everybody agrees will work.
My understanding of the situation we have here at the Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario is that this is a fairly new development in terms of self-governing health professions. The council of course was created under the Respiratory Therapy Act of 1991 and the profession itself, like others in this area, is regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act of 1991. In practical terms, this means we have a mechanism that oversees over 1,700 registered respiratory therapists in Ontario.
More specifically, what do these people do? I think we know from notes, but it's helpful to consult on this, that we know that the practice of respiratory therapy involves the provision of oxygen therapy, the monitoring of cardiorespiratory equipment, the assessment and treatment of patients with cardiorespiratory problems and associated disorders, with an aim to maintaining and restoring ventilation. Respiratory therapists of course work hand in hand in many situations with members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
When we see the need for a council to govern this college, we see there are several aims that have to be satisfied. The college has to set standards for the profession. If indeed it is to be called a profession, it has to have recognizable standards. There's also the promotion of knowledge within the profession, and in this particular case with respiratory therapists, given their subsidiary role within the health treatment process, there has to be concern paid to the relationship they have with physicians and surgeons in a number of defined procedures. There are regulations that define certain acts performed by respiratory therapists that can be done only at the behest of physicians and surgeons.
Given that background, we come to the question of why we need public appointees. We know that under the process there's a combination of regulatory elements within the council. There are eight professional members who are elected by their peers involving various factors, including geographic representation, and there are six public members who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and -- this may be the specific point -- those people are not to be members of the profession.
We ask what is involved in a public member. I've addressed two key issues I see in public oversight, but I'd like to address several that I think are obvious. There is a need with representatives on a government body to have geographic representation. I'm proud to say I've been a resident for most of my life in the Ottawa-Carleton region, where I've been maintaining a business for several years and where I studied at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels.
Then we look at other factors: knowledge of the community, a commitment to working on behalf of the public and a sense of how the system works. One hates to be immodest in these situations, but I believe, gentlemen, that I do satisfy the requirements.
With respect to working in the community and understanding community organizations, I'm proud to say that I'm a director of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton and just recently took service on its finance and human resources committee. It's been an interesting situation to work towards the public good, to ensure that communities have confidence in situations where children may come into critical situations, where they may come into danger, and I'm proud to be involved in something that is a very important guardian institution within the Ottawa-Carleton area.
With respect to other areas of involvement in the community, I'm proud to say that for two years I've been donating professional services pro bono to the Community Foundation of Ottawa-Carleton, which has the very laudable goal of pooling funds to ensure that various worthy causes in the Ottawa-Carleton region can be funded and that people are willing to put their assets to work on behalf of the community. In this particular instance, I've been assisting them with computer services.
In terms of an understanding of community issues, I'm proud to say that in February 1996, working with the then Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, David Kilgour, I was proud to be one of the co-organizors of the Canadian Communitarian Forum, which was a national policy forum dedicated to promoting debate on the issues involving communitarianism, which is an approach to public policy that promotes community empowerment, notions of personal and general responsibility. Our feeling with Mr Kilgour at the time was that these were issues that had to be addressed and pressed for to generate real debate, and I am proud to say it was a very successful conference with over 100 participants.
With respect to my understanding of the processes and machinery of government, I can say that I'm certainly used to the notion of administration. I've gone through the at times arduous task of maintaining my own business. For several years I've maintained a consultancy in Internet development and programming with a roster of corporate and government clients, in addition to the pro bono work I've done.
Before that, I've had a number of areas of experience in terms of public service and in the government relations industry, and I think I can say that I understand the challenges of public policy, but since I'm clearly not a member of the respiratory therapist community or in the health care community, I can bring a disinterested objective view to the situation.
In essence, I think if we're looking at someone who offers representation on a geographic basis, understands the issues that are involved, isn't caught up in them but is still concerned about making sure that people are represented and we bring objective analysis, I'd humbly submit I can cover off in those areas.
In conclusion, I'd say I'm certainly willing to take any questions you have based upon this very specific appointment and I look forward to responding to them.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Mr Preston?
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): It took a while for him to start telling us about himself, which is strange here. Usually people start talking about themselves right off the bat. But no, I don't have any questions now.
The Chair: The official opposition? Mr Cullen.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'd like to thank Mr Canniff for coming down and I say hello to him again. Mr Canniff and I were both members of the children's aid society board of directors until my recent election.
Mr Canniff, you're far too modest in your listing of your accomplishments. You failed to mention your position as president of the Ottawa Centre provincial PC association which I think also shows an indication of public service. I think being involved in politics is not a sin; all of us here are.
I note from your CV as well that you have considerable experience in developing World Wide Web sites. Again I think your CV needs some updating because I believe during the recent by-election in Ottawa West you put together a very impressive Web site for Chris Thompson, the PC candidate in Ottawa West. Am I not correct that you also did that as well?
Mr Canniff: Though some may wonder whether that is germane and appropriate to this forum, I certainly will acknowledge I did do that, sir.
Mr Cullen: Certainly. We are looking for laypeople to provide their expertise to the college and obviously one would not want to miss out on these relevant details.
Just coming back to your own appointment here, I think I speak for us all that we're very impressed by the amount of homework you've done in preparation for this interview, but perhaps I could start with, why are you interested in this appointment?
Mr Canniff: I should say that based, I believe, upon the record of work I've done in the community and my prior experience, I was approached to sit on this council. After weighing it, I felt I certainly do have the time to dedicate myself to the public office.
I've been very happy, as I said, to serve with the children's aid society board of directors. As to the other work I've done, I don't believe that being a member of a community is strictly a nine-to-five job of going and doing work and paying taxes. When you're a small businessman it's certainly not nine to five. But I felt I had the capability to serve. I believe I have the range of qualifications and background that are necessary for this.
As I've stressed, there are two key elements, I believe: an understanding of how the process works, but above all, acting as a disinterested party in this.
Mr Cullen: Just give me a sample of the kind of workload you expect to encounter, should your appointment be successful today.
Mr Canniff: I will confess that I am waiting to get further understanding of this. I will be sitting as a part-time member, as a public member on this, and one can see there are various duties that will come with that. As with any community-dedicated board, there will be a need to sit on committees that oversee the regulation of the profession, finance and human resources. There will also be appeals under the regulations governing the profession.
I look forward to the experience of sitting on board the council and recognize there's going to be a learning curve, but I certainly don't come into this completely blind because I understand a number of the duties associated with governing councils.
Mr Cullen: I know you're a busy person. I know you've been able to attend most of the children's aid society board meetings. Will you be able to attend all the college meetings as well?
Mr Canniff: I foresee no problem with that. Being in my own business, one of the few benefits you have is the ability to set your own time based upon the clients' want. This is an important public duty and I'm ready to commit myself to it.
Mr Cullen: The reason I raise it of course is that I believe the college meets here in Toronto and the children's aid society board of course is in our home town. Just looking at the attendance record there, I think you've attended about 60% of the meetings. So I'm just wondering if you foresee any difficulty in fulfilling these obligations.
Mr Canniff: I don't foresee a difficulty, Mr Cullen. I will note that, for example, there are sessions when you've not been able to attend and I would accept that your reasons are entirely legitimate. I know we haven't necessarily crossed paths. But one has to understand there are human factors that are involved. One may be overcommitted or ill, but one thing I do know is that in my commitment to serving on the CAS board and on this council I certainly have no problem making that commitment. I wouldn't engage in this exercise unless I was willing to make a substantive commitment.
Mr Cullen: Those are very reassuring words to hear. Mr Chairman, I'll conclude at that point.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Canniff. I just wonder if I could ask you for some thoughts, in that you're here today, related to the children's aid society.
We all know there are tremendous pressures that are being faced by children's aid societies and some would argue that part of their problem has been the cutback in funds that has taken place in the last couple of years. I would be curious as to your thoughts on that. Obviously you're close to the situation and recognize some of the pressures the children's aid societies are under, so I would be keen to hear your thoughts on how those pressures are being dealt with and whether the cutback in funding support has been a good or a bad thing.
Mr Canniff: With all due respect, Mr Gravelle, given my interest in being an active member of the board, I would certainly be happy to share those views with you, but I think all will acknowledge that given the fact we're dealing with an appointment which relates to a very specific council under a very specific piece of legislation, and that the point of today's exercise is to consider my qualifications for the post, with all due respect, I don't think we'd be serving the public interest by engaging in substantive debate on an issue that lies outside the purview of this committee. I'd be happy on our own time to share my views with you on that.
Quite honestly I don't see how it fits into this today. Perhaps something else is at play in this, but to be honest I think we would be doing everyone a service by focusing on the issue in question.
Mr Gravelle: That's a strange response, Mr Canniff.
Interjections.
Mr Gravelle: I don't think it was a great response. I don't think it's the least bit inappropriate for me to ask for your thoughts. You're obviously here to show your qualifications in a variety of ways. You acknowledge you have no qualifications in particular for this position regardless, although you feel you will be able to do a good job, and I won't even argue that with you.
1020
I don't think it's inappropriate at all. You're here before a standing committee of the government, and to ask for your thoughts in terms of one of your qualifications, being that you are on the board of a children's aid society, I think is not inappropriate, and I don't think the members here would feel it's inappropriate to get your feelings in that area. Clearly you acknowledge you do have an opinion on it, so I would be interested in hearing it.
Mr Canniff: I think there are two points that have to be reiterated, with all due respect. I think if we look at the record, at no time did I say I've had no visible qualifications for this. I believe I did make it clear that one of the requirements of this position that is noted is to be a disinterested member of the public since a public member cannot be a member of the profession. I have honestly stated I am not a member of the respiratory therapist profession. There are only so many things I can do in my life. We always endeavour to do what we can, but that is something I haven't touched and I won't share that as a failing with anyone. If anything, I think it's a plus being a public member that I bring that view.
Clearly I think we can say, with all due respect, that I have never said I have no qualifications. I think that statement by you does require some amendment.
Mr Gravelle: I apologize for that, Mr Canniff.
Mr Canniff: No, no.
Mr Gravelle: You're right, you didn't say that.
Mr Canniff: These things happen. With respect to the matter of my involvement on the children's aid society, the germane issues here are the notion of being equipped to handle administrative issues, to deal with people in resolving situations and to be an effective representative. I think that has to be clearly delineated from the notion of discussions of policy. As you can appreciate, there are some areas of policy that can't be discussed outside the board because they are entirely internal issues. There are commitments I've had to make as a member of the board, that there are things I cannot raise.
I will say again there are a number of legitimate questions this committee can pose and I'd be happy to answer them, but I will again state that I do not see that reflections upon the policy of the society and how it may relate to the provincial government are germane to this exercise. I'm willing to look at other things, but with all due respect, sir, I just don't see the point and, to be honest, I don't think many other people do today.
Mr Gravelle: In other words, you will not here, in a public forum, give your opinion on your work with the children's aid society.
Mr Cullen: A golden opportunity.
Mr Gravelle: I find this rather astonishing. Obviously you're here as an individual who's applying for a position. You're involved in the children's aid society as one of your qualifications and I obviously applaud that. I think it's wonderful to be involved in that. It is not unusual for us to be asking questions in this regard in terms of people's overall qualifications. I can assure you of that, that it's not unusual to ask these questions.
If you just don't want to respond to it, that's fine, but I'm not asking you to do anything other than to give me your opinion in terms of the situation children's aid societies are now dealing with. There are some great pressures and some things happening that are very important, and obviously all across the province. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask you, as a member of the board. I'm only pressing it because I find your response surprising and strange and, quite frankly, inappropriate as well. I don't think it's wrong to ask you what your thoughts are.
Mr Canniff: I think the challenge we face today here is finding a question that relates to the germane issues that would satisfy your concerns. Perhaps what you are wondering is if the qualifications I brought to bear as a member of the children's aid society board of directors are relevant to this.
I believe I have answered that because I believe I've demonstrated a knowledge of the processes of a community-based board that relates to a governing council. Clearly, if I wasn't qualified, I wouldn't have been invited to sit on there as a public member. I think we have to make a distinction between the notion of qualifications at an administrative level, being an effective member and then to be honest what are questions of board public policy. I will grant what you have said, that these questions are not unusual; the question then is, are they relevant?
I am prepared to say I've been proud to serve as a director. I'm aware of issues facing the board and I make a point of working with a variety of people who are involved on that board. There are, for example, regional councillors who represent a level of government who are involved. There is a cross-section of people from business, community associations, different other communities within the region of Ottawa-Carleton, who bring their views to bear upon that. I've been asked to do what I can, given someone who has an understanding of public policies, someone who is a small businessman and someone who has demonstrated a commitment to the notion of making communities work better. Through the conference I organized with Deputy Speaker Kilgour, I think that's been demonstrated.
With respect to the issues that are governing the board of directors of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, I think it's fair to say that at the administrative level the executive director, Mr Gill, speaks on policy from that side, and when the board voices policy in general, it's done under the auspices of the board. Whatever appreciation I have of my own skills, I really don't think it's within my power to make statements that reflect the views of the board as a whole. When it comes to my own specific views, as I said, I'd be happy to discuss them with you at some point if you're talking about questions of public policy.
There's nothing wrong with engaging in a process of debate. If I am wrong in this, Mr Chairman, do let me know, but I believe today the mandate was to discuss my qualifications.
Mr Gravelle: We're just looking for help, Mr Canniff. Here you are in a position --
The Chair: I'd like to move on, Mr Gravelle, sorry. We move on to the New Democrats.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, Chair, I want to indicate that we're going to support the appointment of Mr Canniff.
I want to point out that one of the problems we've had on this committee for a good chunk of time is that when it comes time for the respective caucuses to select or identify people to appear before the committee, all we're given is a name and the nature of the appointment. We're not given, for instance, a résumé or the application by the prospective appointment. I've got to tell you, that might be very helpful in terms of avoiding unnecessary interviews. I've raised this before and I raise it again today in the context of Mr Canniff because his résumé is impressive. Mr Canniff, I feel compelled to protect you and defend you from the vitriol of Mr Cullen.
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: Well, I do.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Let the record show.
Mr Kormos: I'm often drawn into this conciliatory role here at Queen's Park that I --
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: He's right about this. You're not going to have any trouble attending the meetings of the college. The ABC bible indicates they need approximately two days a month. There's a $150-a-day per diem. What the heck, with only two days a month and a modest per diem, who'd want to miss it, and there are currently no members from the Ottawa area.
But I've got to tell you, and I didn't know from your résumé, that you were involved in Ottawa Centre as a riding president for the Conservative Party, I trust you are, and that you were involved in the Ottawa West campaign. No quarrel with that, but I think you're getting stiffed. You're obviously very qualified. We've had far less qualified people than you who have received far more substantial appointments from this government, and I would raise that with my local Conservative members, how you got shortchanged because you --
Mr Silipo: It's a good point.
Interjections.
Mr Kormos: Mr Canniff is clearly extremely qualified. I have no hesitation saying that. We're going to support his appointment. I think if any of the caucuses had seen the résumé, they might have been disinclined to even request his attendance, but if I were Mr Canniff, I'd be really ticked off because people with far less experience and far less contribution to the party have received far more substantial appointments. Good luck and best wishes with the college. I hope you enjoy it.
Mr Canniff: Honestly, I thank you for that, Mr Kormos, although one thing I have to note is I think it's perhaps unfair to have a fixation upon service to a party. You've noted the Web site work that I did in Ottawa West. I might note that people may have differing views about it, and some perhaps here, but it has been perhaps recognized as an objective view. For example, Mr Bob Chiarelli, the predecessor member in Ottawa West, approached me last week to be the Web master for his campaign for the regional chairman's race in Ottawa-Carleton. If he feels the professional qualifications I show there are helpful and I'm providing a public service by promoting the political process, I'm happy to engage in that. But I think we notice that these appointments are not done in trade for anything; it's a recognition of serving the public in whatever capacity we can.
Mr Kormos: And Mr Chiarelli has shown a remarkable ability -- he's not quite chameleon-like, but he turns red, he turns blue. Mr Chiarelli has done very well in the course of his campaign as regional chair. He's defended the government against downloading. He's insisted there won't be any new taxes for Ottawa-Carleton taxpayers. I'm impressed by Mr Chiarelli in that regard.
Mr Preston: Is he campaigning here today? Let's get on with the appointment.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Canniff. Mr Silipo may want --
Mr Silipo: No, I think it's all been said, Chair.
1030
The Chair: Okay. There are three minutes left for the government members, if they wish.
Mr Bert Johnson: I did want to clear up a point, if I could, and that was that the members of the committee get the résumé.
Mr Silipo: Not at the beginning, though.
Interjections.
Mr Bert Johnson: Oh. Do you want them a month ahead, a week ahead, a year ahead?
Interjections.
Mr Bert Johnson: I understood from Mr Kormos that he didn't have one in front of him.
Mr Preston: The point is, when you make your picks you don't have -- can we take the time, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Preston: When you make your picks, you don't have any information other than a name?
Interjections.
Mr Preston: Well, I don't believe that's --
Mr Silipo: There's a short summary, but not very much.
The Chair: And it's only a week before today, roughly, so all the members are asking for is that what we have before us today be before them as a subcommittee the previous week when they make their selections.
Mr David Pond: When the standing order governing this process was first introduced in the fall of 1990, this issue came up. At the time the government representatives on the committee made two points: One is that the paperwork involved in switching to that system would be potentially huge because résumés can be quite lengthy, and the other issue raised at the time was the issue of privacy. Judy Burns here can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the résumés you get are distributed to members, and members only. There might be an issue of privacy if this huge flow of paperwork started flowing outwards regardless of whether the committee actually chose the individuals for review. That's just what happened in 1991.
Mr Preston: Well, it surely outweighs any paperwork we have to do. I believe they should have the same information as us. If a person is going for a public appointment, there is no privacy issue.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Johnson has already indicated he's going to take that up, but there are a couple of points of order over here.
Mr Kormos: I understand what Mr Pond is saying. It would be a simple matter to canvass applicants to see whether they're willing to have their résumé released to the committee members in advance. If they don't, people can draw whatever conclusions they want. I'm confident most applicants, if not all of them, would be quite prepared to have their résumé released to committee members if they're being considered for an appointment. So with some sort of acknowledgement or waiver, I don't think it would be difficult. It would deal with the privacy. The paperwork: I understand, but that's the nature of the beast.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Preston, I think, made my point too. If there are public appointments, there shouldn't be an issue of privacy, in the sense that we're not distributing them to anyone other than our caucus members at the most, anyway. In that they are public appointment, I wouldn't think that would be a major issue. We're not prone to pass them around to anybody else, regardless.
The Chair: Can we move on? Mr Canniff, thank you for coming before the committee and providing us with some of your views. We appreciate that.
Mr Canniff: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Just on that issue: When an individual in the private sector applies for a position and submits a CV, what happens is that is privy to all the parties within that company that are going to be interviewing or have some decision-making authority in the hiring of that individual. Therefore, I don't see it's any different here with respect to the committee. That's where I wanted to draw the fine parallel.
The Chair: Thank you for that, and Mr Johnson will make those points, I assume, when he talks to the appointments secretariat.
WINSTON CLARKE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Winston Clarke, intended appointee as member and vice-chair, Social Assistance Review Board.
The Chair: The next intended appointment is Mr Winston Clarke, who has already joined us at the table. Mr Clarke, welcome to the committee. You have an opportunity, if you wish, to make a few opening remarks.
Mr Winston Clarke: I first and foremost would like to thank my Almighty Creator eternally for this wonderful opportunity to be here today, and secondly to say that as an immigrant citizen of this great country, I came from an economically disadvantaged, unequal community in the so-called bowels and bottom of Trenchtown in Kingston, Jamaica. From a very early age my mother instilled in me the simple acronym: Learn all you can before you grow old, 'cause learning is better than silver and gold. Silver and gold will vanish away, but a good education will never decay.
Leaving Jamaica, I went to the United States of America, where I was involved with the Washington DC neighbourhood which they call the Chocolate City, which happens to be the capital of the United States of America. It's surprising to see that the capital of the greatest country in this world has so many disadvantaged, hopeless, helpless people.
From there I travelled to Oshawa in the riding of Ed Broadbent, and I'll never forget that man because there he tried in many, many ways to help me find a job. No job was to be found in Oshawa. I had to commute to Toronto. There I found a job at Shoppers Drug Mart in 1975. I have been in that neighbourhood from 1975 to this very day. That neighbourhood houses the so-called Jane-Finch corridor. I have had the opportunity to work with people in that particular neighbourhood, like George Mammoliti, that dealt with Bill 142, Lennox Farrell, Stephanie Payne and others, just to name a few.
The most important thing that touches me about this country is opportunity and disadvantages. My family is no newcomer to disadvantages. In the school system, in Downsview school, my wife and I had to make decisions that affected us. We made decisions contrary to the principal of the school because of my eldest child. Now, today, because of the decisions that were made, my son will be graduating from the University of Toronto. Thank you for your listening ears.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Clarke. We begin with the official opposition, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Clarke, and welcome to the committee.
Mr Clarke: Thank you, Michael. Is it all right for me to call you by your first name, honourable --
Mr Gravelle: Michael is great. Mr Clarke, you mentioned Bill 142, I believe, very briefly, which is going to have some dramatic changes in terms of social assistance. The Social Assistance Review Board that you're going on will not be in place, necessarily, very long, as there'll be a new agency called the Social Benefits Tribunal. Do you have any thoughts on the changes in Bill 142 and particularly the changes of how the Social Assistance Review Board now will be, I presume, disbanded and changed into the Social Benefits Tribunal?
Mr Clarke: Mr Gravelle, at this moment I have no thoughts because: no research, no right to speak. I have only just seen things in a briefed manner. I have not done any research or any investigation, so I don't have any thoughts in particular on that matter.
Mr Gravelle: Do you feel there should be an agency in place that allows people an opportunity to appeal decisions that are made at the staff level, people who are applying for social assistance? I know there has been a large number of people who have felt they needed to appeal. The Social Assistance Review Board was put in place for that purpose. I guess the question is, do you feel such an appeal board, or some form of that, is necessary to be fair to those people who are applying for assistance?
Mr Clarke: Mr Gravelle, I was taught from an early age never to go by feeling. Feeling clouds intellect and rational judgement, because feeling is mixed with emotion, so I don't have a feeling on the matter. At the moment there is a mechanism in place which is the Social Assistance Review Board, which deals with things of that nature, sir.
Mr Gravelle: Of course it will be changing. It will not be the same board, I think, in a reasonably short period of time.
Mr Clarke: Mr Gravelle, until that time, I'll just have to take one step at a time, sir.
Mr Gravelle: Do you have any thoughts on workfare, the Ontario Works program?
Mr Clarke: No, sir.
Mr Gravelle: Tell me how this appointment came about. Did you seek it out or was it presented to you as an opportunity?
Mr Clarke: I was recommended, sir.
Mr Gravelle: And you agreed this was a board you would want to sit on.
Mr Clarke: No, not at the initial outset, sir. I told them I needed some more information and I got some information, and then I made a decision upon consultation with my family.
Mr Gravelle: And you agreed to accept the appointment, presuming it goes through the process. What made you decide you wanted to accept the appointment?
Mr Clarke: Again I've got to thank the Almighty that in my work I have the option of pushing dope or pushing hope, and I've worked in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood since 1975, Mr Gravelle, and 62% of my day-to-day operation is helping people. HOPE means help other people everyday; that's what the acronym HOPE stands for to me, sir. It means helping other people everyday. So I see this as a continuation of something to which I have committed myself from the ghettos of Jamaica.
1040
Mr Gravelle: You're clearly a man who's very dedicated and you really are a bit of a legend too, Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke: I wouldn't say that, Mr Gravelle.
The Chair: Around here, anyway.
Mr Gravelle: Yes, around here you are.
One of the first things this government did when it came to power a couple of years ago was to cut social assistance benefits by 21.6%. Have you seen the effects of that on people who were on social assistance at the time? That's a pretty substantial cut. It struck me as being a very cruel thing to do as the beginning of a government's new mandate, because that's a lot of money. Can you comment on that? Did you see the effect of those cuts?
Mr Clarke: A very, very good question, and I have to smile because as a pharmacist-owner I don't only see the cut, I'm experiencing the cut, because a pharmacist is a co-planner for $2. The big fishes eat up the small fishes, and the big companies decide to absorb that $2, so the small companies also have to go along. However, that cut caused small stores like mine to become more creative and innovative, because reality is reality, and we have to face reality. The previous government dictated: "Hey, this is the situation that we have to follow. There is a pattern which you have to follow. You can't spend more than you're taking in. So it's a matter of being more creative." Definitely the cut is there. It's inevitable.
Mr Gravelle: But you did see circumstances where some people were in a position where they were unable to get their drugs as a result of the user fee being imposed? Because of course the government did promise not to add on any user fees and one of the early things they did was they put this user fee on drug benefits. Did you see people who were in a very difficult position as a result of that additional user fee?
Mr Clarke: Yes, sir, I see some people in difficulty, but I've never seen anybody who hasn't been able to get their drugs. I've never experienced that.
Mr Silipo: Mr Clarke, good morning.
Mr Clarke: Good morning, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: This is a full-time appointment you would be taking on, so the first question I have is, how are you going to mesh that with your current work and business? Because if I understand your résumé, you actually now run your own pharmacy.
Mr Clarke: Yes, sir.
Mr Silipo: So what are you going to do?
Mr Clarke: As I said earlier on in my introduction, I have discussed it with my wife. I'm winding down right now and merging my operation with another pharmacy in the neighbourhood.
Mr Silipo: So you will be able to devote your full time to this appointment?
Mr Clarke: One hundred per cent dedicated to this job, sir.
Mr Silipo: I want to pick up on some of the points Mr Gravelle was making in terms of your taking on this position. You know there has been a fair amount of change in the social assistance system, with much more to come in terms of the legislation that's now in front of the assembly. I need to hear a little bit more from you about the kind of approach that you take into this board and that you would carry on into the new tribunal.
Presumably, if you're appointed to this body, then you would be reappointed to the new body whenever that's established. I appreciate you may not want to talk about the second body as much, but even with the present Social Assistance Review Board, I need to hear more from you about the approach you would be taking in dealing with situations of people who are appealing decisions that have been made, where they have been denied social assistance benefits. Tell me a little bit more about the kind of approach you would take in deciding whether those individuals have been justly treated or unjustly treated.
Mr Clarke: Mr Silipo, I would take on the approach of fairness, sir, helping people in an objective, professional manner, and ensure that equity be the cornerstone of whatever decision I make. One road I would use: fairness, because it's a fact that these people have a problem and they're not satisfied with the decision made prior to coming to the board. That's why they come. So one has to be as objective as possible in doing anything. My number one road would be fairness, sir. That would be my approach.
Mr Silipo: I'm assuming you've looked at some of the information we have as well, Mr Clarke. One of the things that is clear from the statistics is that since the time this current government has taken office, the number of requests for hearings, that is, people appealing decisions, has increased. At one level that may not be surprising or unusual, because that's been the trend throughout, but what is interesting is that has happened even while the number of people on social assistance has gone down. I can tell you, as a former minister, I would attribute that to the kinds of major changes that have happened, because if you look back over the statistics during the period of time, you can trace, I think, the big jumps in appeals to periods in time when there have been various changes made in the system.
I guess I want to hear from you about your approach to dealing with this increasing number of people who are having to resort to the Social Assistance Review Board, and then to put that together with what I see happening under the new legislation, which is that the government is moving to deal with that caseload by limiting the rights of appeal that people will have.
Mr Clarke: Mr Silipo, the board facilitates, from the brief amount of knowledge I've received; it does not legislate, sir. The board has no elected officials, sir; it has appointees. Consequently the board has to carry out a mandate or guideline stipulated by the legislative body. We can only facilitate the appeals that are made to the particular board and be as fair as possible in making decisions and taking into consideration that it's human lives you are dealing with, not statistics. I have not studied the statistics, sir. I cannot talk or comment about statistics; I can comment about humanity, humanness, because I sincerely believe there is only one race, the human race. If I'm helping people, I have to help people in an objective manner.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate that, Mr Clarke, because I agree with you that is the approach. I appreciate your comment also that you don't, as a body, as the Social Assistance Review Board, legislate; that's up to the government. But what I also want to know is, within the powers that you have and will have as a member of this board, will you or will you not be influenced by the attitude the government is taking, which is to be tougher on people seeking social assistance, and in this case, closer to the work you'll be doing, to be tougher in the kinds of instances in which people can appeal? Will that in any way influence your decision and your approach to the decision-making you'll have to do?
Mr Clarke: Mr Silipo, I cannot comment on something -- I don't know the powers of the board, sir. I have not studied it. I hope that in the training process they say they will initiate, some of those questions will be answered, but right now I'm not in a position to do it, because I don't know the powers of the board.
Mr Silipo: I find that a bit unusual, that you would come -- and I appreciate, again, I wouldn't expect you to be a total expert on the board, but you must have some sense of what the board will do and what you as a member will do, otherwise why are you here? I think it is a fair question to put to you.
Mr Clarke: I have a sense, sir, of fairness, which was inculcated in me from an early age; a sense of fairness and a readiness to learn, to look, to listen and to absorb as much as I can do, and in a professional manner make decisions.
Mr Silipo: Mr Clarke, I appreciate your motto that you've repeated for us a couple of times. You will be called upon to make some difficult decisions in which you'll have to decide at the end of the day, not, "You're half-right and you're half-right," in terms of the two parties in front of you, but, "You're right and you're wrong," and that's the approach you're going to have to take because this is not a mediation service you're being appointed to; this is an adjudication process.
After you go through a period of training, you will be sitting by yourself, determining cases and determining whether people are entitled to interim assistance and whether they're entitled to ongoing assistance. So I appreciate your sense of fairness, being the way that you approach that. I guess I wish I would hear a bit more from you about what that means at the end of the day.
1050
Mr Clarke: When that time comes I will deal with it just the same way I dealt with being an intern pharmacist. After that training program, I became a pharmacist. All by myself I had to read a prescription, different sheet first and foremost, whether this prescription is a legitimate prescription although it has a so-called signature of a doctor -- so no research, no right to speak. That's the approach I'll take, the same professional approach I took in my profession. When I became a pharmacist, I was a young pharmacist. Today I am an experienced pharmacist. I am hoping that kind of experience which I've acquired thus far will lend itself to this board in an objective manner.
Mr Silipo: All right; Mr Clarke. I wish you well. There's just one other point. Members of the committee know I usually ask people who appear in front of us about their political affiliation. You've been kind enough to put that right in your résumé, which I appreciate, the fact that you're a member of the Conservative Party and active within the Conservative Party. That's fine. I just wanted that there for the record as well. Thank you.
Mr Clarke: You're welcome, Mr Silipo.
The Chair: There's three minutes left for the official opposition but we'll go to the government members first.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr Clark, for attending. There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask you, but first I would like to compliment you. You've come a long way since the days in Kingston, Jamaica, sir, and I compliment you on that when I look at the education you've received, or got on your own, and certainly the professionalism you've done within your own profession I think is tremendous.
A couple of things I would like to ask you: First of all, these days ability to pay comes into being in a lot of areas, whether it be in social services or whatever. Give me some of your thoughts and feelings on ability to pay. I guess I'm talking more whether it be on social assistance for municipalities, on family support, on a lot of areas -- it's something that has been a forgotten factor for many years. It appears to me it certainly has been suggested that it be considered in many ways.
Mr Clarke: It's interesting you should ask such a question because when I was working at Shoppers Drug Mart there was a man who said he had no money, but every three weeks he was in Las Vegas at the casinos, but yet, still, he was on social security. He said he had no money. So I don't know how he did it. However, HOPE could be an acronym for hardship, oppression, poverty and exploitation, and these four things are endemic and entrenched in our society. On the ability to pay, one has to be careful with the label. We have to look deeper under that. I strongly feel, and this is Winston Clarke, that we have to take an objective approach to things and take some things for face value, then research them. After the research, then we come to conclusions. Don't come to preconceived conclusions.
When I was working at Shoppers Drug Mart, many times customers came in the store and thought I was the janitor. Are you the pharmacist? Can you be the pharmacist? Are you really the pharmacist? That didn't get me upset. What I did was professionally re-educate that person. So the ability to pay goes without question. To much is given, much is expected; if you got the dough, spend it.
Mr Stewart: That leads me into my second question. When I look at some of the statistics we have, and certainly Mr Silipo made a comment on it, the increase in hearings has gone up substantially over the last number of years. But one of the big areas and the big times was from 1993 to 1994; they went up over 4,000 hearings. Over the last three years it has gone up approximately 3,000. I guess my concern is, and you were just talking about the gentleman who goes to Vegas periodically and yet is on social assistance, do you believe there is abuse in the system? You were talking about fairness and made the comment that you're going to have to decide on your own whether to be fair. What's your comment on abuse of the system?
Mr Clarke: First and foremost, I cannot comment on statistics because I am not privy to it. I didn't research it, I didn't study that. That's the first thing.
Mr Stewart: I appreciate that, sir.
Mr Clarke: The second thing is, the question is answerable in itself in terms of the fact that there is a use, so once there is usage, there have to be misuses and abuses.
Mr Stewart: Thank you very much.
Mr Cullen: Mr Clarke, I served for six years on regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. The region is responsible for the administration of general welfare assistance, and from time to time I've had to refer somebody to the Social Assistance Review Board because it's a case that falls between the cracks. Sometimes it's a situation where there is a legitimate fall between the cracks; sometimes it's a faint-hope approach because we're dealing with a situation of desperation and you're trying to find some means for this person, or this single parent, to be able to make ends meet.
We look at the welfare rates that are now in place here. The single parent and child basic allowance is $446 a month; the shelter allowance is $511 a month. Yet we know that many who are on general welfare assistance pay more in rent than the maximum shelter allowance allows. That was one of the unfortunate things about the 21.6% welfare cut: The rents did not go down. You are going to be dealing with cases where people do fall between the cracks, where you have the letter of the law, and yet you have clear human situations where the reality out there does not match what the letter of the law is supposed to provide.
I want to know, where are you going to go on this? Am I going to be able, in good confidence, to refer people to the Social Assistance Review Board so that the board can understand their circumstances and make the best decision, or if they don't meet the letter of the law, forget it? What's it going to be?
Mr Clarke: Mr Cullen, with the help of the Almighty, Supreme Being, my decisions will be based on objectivity and fairness.
Mr Cullen: Objectivity and fairness. We're hoping there will be some sense in terms of compassion as well --
Mr Clarke: But you just said --
Mr Cullen: -- that, "There but for the grace of God go I."
Mr Clarke: Yes, but you just said it will be on objectivity and fairness, sir.
Mr Cullen: Thank you.
Mr Spina: Mr Clarke, I thank you for taking the opportunity, the time to come forward. I was most impressed by your track record, not just in your personal life but also the contribution you have made to society in general, not just to the black community, but to all people. I compliment you on that, sir. I just want to clarify, and I think it was brought forward in other cases here. Mr Cullen, Mr Stewart, and even Mr Silipo I think tried to get at it. I think you clearly stated, and I just want to perhaps paraphrase it to make sure it's clear: Would you confirm that whatever the cases are that come before the board or the tribunal, if you are in that group as well, you will look at all the factors surrounding the appeal of those individuals and make the decision you are confident is fair, both for the individual and for the system?
Mr Clarke: Mr Spina, I said earlier on wherever I go I will try to promote and promulgate, both, to help others in a professional, equitable, objective manner. That's me.
Mr Spina: I think that is admirable, sir, and I think that is the ideal approach that ought to be taken in this regard. I wish you well and hope you receive the appointment, sir.
The Chair: That uses up the time available to us for Mr Clarke. Mr Clarke, thank you for coming before the committee. We now proceed with the voting on whether the committee supports your appointment. You're welcome to stay in the room.
Mr Clarke: Thanks for having me.
The Chair: Can we move to concurrences.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I move concurrence in the appointment of Paul Canniff as a member of the Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it?
Mr Cullen: I'd like to start from the front. We are going to support Mr Canniff's appointment. Let's get that out of the way. It's clear from his CV that as a layperson going on to this college he brings a wide range of experience, and as well he has certainly done his homework and appears to be committed to being a conscientious member of the board.
We all know these appointments come here. These are patronage appointments. That's all well and good; that's part of the process here. Parenthetically, patronage appointments are usually done as a reward for good work. I presume Mr Canniff has done good work elsewhere for the Progressive Conservative Party. It seemed to fall short of the mark in Ottawa West.
I am somewhat disappointed in the discussion here that we have with respect to the children's aid society. It forms part of his CV. It reflects on his ability to not only be a member of a body, but act on behalf of that body. If there's one thing I learned from being on the children's aid society board in Ottawa-Carleton for six years, it's that we are expected to be advocates. As a matter of fact, as to Mr Canniff's appointment to the children's aid society board, it was very clear that we were to take advantage of his connections with the Harris government and that he would be a window into the workings here.
Here we had a glorious opportunity to hear from Mr Canniff on the needs and requirements of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. They've just applied for additional funding from the contingency fund because their caseload has gone up by 60%, and there are reasons for this.
Mr Canniff is certainly familiar with these things and I'm just simply disappointed that he did not take the opportunity to inform members around this table why this has happened. When you apply to the contingency fund, it means you are going over budget because you're dealing with an immediate crisis in terms of the caseload dealing with child welfare.
The bottom line is that we will be supporting his appointment and simply hope that his attendance and his participation will match what he has brought to this committee.
The Chair: Any other comments? If not, are you ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion? It is carried.
Mr Preston: I move concurrence in the appointment of Winston Clarke as a member and vice-chairman of the Social Assistance Review Board.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Ready for the question? All those in favour? That's carried unanimously.
That completes our business for the morning. As I said earlier, there are no selections for next week, so go forth and enjoy. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1103.