STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Wednesday 2 June 2004 Mercredi 2 juin 2004
INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
DENIS PERRAULT
The committee met at 1005 in room 151.
The Chair (Mrs Elizabeth Witmer): I'd like to call this meeting to order and begin by extending a warm Ontario welcome to the delegation from Zambia. We're very pleased that you're here today and hope that you enjoy the opportunity you have to learn more about the work we do. We wish you well in your endeavours. Welcome.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair: Our first order of business is the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, May 20, 2004. Is there someone who's prepared to move adoption?
Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Yes. I move concurrence. Mr Berardinetti was distracting me and he apologizes for that.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Our next order of business is the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, May 27, 2004.
Mr Parsons: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Parsons. Any discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
We have a couple of other issues here that we need to attend to regarding the extension of deadlines.
Pursuant to standing order 106(e)11, unanimous consent is required by the committee to extend the 30-day deadline for consideration for the following intended appointees: Robert Shirley, intended appointee to the town of Mono Police Services Board, and Monica Donahue and Catherine Anne Novick, intended appointees to the North York Community Care Access Centre board of directors. They are scheduled to attend committee meetings on June 9 and June 16. Do we have unanimous consent to --
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): What is the issue? I'm not fully aware of why we need to extend -- they're not available to attend earlier; is that what it is?
The Chair: I believe that is why. They're not able to come, so we need unanimous consent to extend the deadline from June 6 to July 6.
Mr Bisson: Why would they not be able to attend? Are there reasons? This is a standing committee. I don't understand, if you're getting an appointment, why you can't attend your own hearing.
Clerk of the Committee (Anne Stokes): It's partly to do with scheduling them within the numbers of people we have.
Mr Bisson: There are too many people?
Clerk of the Committee: There are too many people, and if somebody is not available one week, we do try to accommodate them in that respect.
Mr Bisson: So it's an issue of capacity, not an issue of the people not wanting to show up on those particular days.
Clerk of the Committee: No; it's not that issue.
Mr Bisson: So it's an issue of capacity?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: We're actually developing quite a backlog, which is going to require summer sitting.
Do we have unanimous consent to extend this deadline from June 6 to July 6, 2004? All those in favour? Opposed?
Mr Bisson: July 6; we'll need permission from the House to sit. That hasn't been brought to the House leaders. I'm at the House leaders' meetings. So what do you do there?
Clerk of the Committee: Those people are already scheduled in for meetings on June 9 and June 16, so we're just extending the deadline to accommodate that.
Mr Bisson: OK, you're not talking about the committee sitting July 6.
Clerk of the Committee: No, we just have made it a 30-day deadline for administrative purposes.
The Chair: We have unanimous support.
I'd now like to deal with Gerald Stephenson, intended appointee to the Pesticides Advisory Committee, who is unable to attend a committee meeting until after July 3, 2004. In this instance, he is not able to be here. Do we have unanimous consent to extend this deadline from June 13 to July 13, 2004?
Mr Bisson: Again the question I have is: Why? What's the reason? Is there a legitimate reason or what's going on?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Stephenson is attending a conference in South Africa.
Mr Bisson: Well, he can send somebody else, I'm sure.
The Chair: I would ask if we have unanimous consent.
Mr Bisson: Who raised that particular appointment for review? Is that one of the Tories? It's up to them.
1010
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): The clerk can find out.
The Chair: Gerald Stephenson, Pesticides Advisory Committee.
Mr Bisson: That might have been one of my people.
Clerk of the Committee: It was a selection by the NDP.
Mr Bisson: Oh, then we're OK with it. It wasn't me. It was another member who raised it.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Bisson: Yes.
The Chair: All right. We've dealt with that.
We're now going to move into our first --
Mr Tascona: I'm just going to raise two points. I want to thank the clerk for writing the letter to Debra Roberts, Director of the Public Appointments Secretariat. The letter was dated May 21, arising out of our meeting of May 19. I'm just wondering whether you have a response to your letter.
Clerk of the Committee: No, we've not received a response yet. I spoke with the office this morning and I'm expecting a response shortly.
Mr Tascona: Thank you. Just one other thing, Madam Chair: Based on what we've gone through, is it possible for the clerk to put together, from this point on, a summary of who has been called to be reviewed so we know from which party and the numbers, so it can be assessed? In case this extends into July, we can have a review of it and take another look to make sure we have everyone covered. I know there are some extensions as to who could be available and when. We could have a look at it if we have it available for the next meeting so we'll have a good idea. I think we're meeting next week.
The Chair: Yes. We'll make sure, then, that we have the comprehensive list of all the individuals who have been identified to appear before this committee. Then we'll know how many we're going to be able to schedule in June and how many we're going to have to carry forward into the summer recess.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
DENIS PERRAULT
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Denis Perrault, intended appointee as member, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal/Board of Negotiation.
The Chair: Moving now to the first interview with Denis Perrault, the intended appointee as a member of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal/Board of Negotiation. I would invite you to come forward. As you may be aware, you have an opportunity, if you want, to make an initial statement. After that, there will be questions from the members of the committee. Did you have a statement?
Mr Denis Perrault: Yes, a short one. Good morning. It's a pleasure, and I think an honour, to be here in front of you, asking to be appointed to a board. I think it's the first time in my life that I've attended a job interview. I've been farming all my life in the Navan area. I have sat on the South Nation conservation authority for many years. I'm still chair of the South Nation Conservation Clean Water Committee. I sit on the dean's board council, an international council at the University of Guelph. I chair the advisory council at Alfred College. I'm also involved in education. I sit on the board of directors of the Eastern Ontario Training Board. I believe I have some experience in the agricultural field. I'm a dairy farmer. I'm here to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Perrault. Last time we started the questioning with the Progressive Conservative caucus. We'll start today with the New Democratic Party. Each party has 10 minutes for questions. We'll go in rotation. I would ask the NDP to begin.
Mr Bisson: I'm going to support this particular appointment. Do you presently own a farm?
Mr Perrault: Yes.
Mr Bisson: I wasn't too clear about that when I went through it. I should have been listening, but I was talking to my colleague; I'm sorry. I notice here that you are the president of the grape growers' association and you've been that for the last couple of years.
Mr Perrault: Yes, since 1998.
Mr Bisson: It's a great organization.
Mr Perrault: In eastern Ontario, though.
Mr Bisson: Basically you've sat on all kinds of boards and commissions. You've done great work. I'm sure you will serve us well. That's all I'm going to ask you.
Mr Perrault: Thank you.
Mr Bisson: How's that?
Mr Perrault: That's great. Thank you.
The Chair: Does the government have any questions?
Mr Parsons: No way. We've read the qualifications and realized he's more qualified than we are.
Mr Bisson: Oh God, on second thought, we're agreeing. Can I take it back?
The Chair: I would now ask the Progressive Conservative caucus, which has 10 minutes.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for coming here this morning, Mr Perrault.
Mr Perrault: My pleasure.
Mr Tascona: Are you a member of the Liberal Party?
Mr Perrault: Yes, I am.
Mr Tascona: The Ontario Liberal Party?
Mr Perrault: Ontario Liberal Party.
Mr Tascona: Have you been a financial supporter of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Mr Perrault: Yes, I have.
Mr Tascona: Have you ever made a financial donation to the Premier's riding?
Mr Perrault: Not the Premier's riding, but I did chair Jean-Marc Lalonde's riding association for about two years. I've been off for about two years now.
Mr Tascona: Are you sure you didn't make a contribution in 1999 to the Premier's riding?
Mr Perrault: Maybe I did.
Mr Tascona: OK.
Mr Perrault: Well, maybe. Sorry, I forgot.
Mr Tascona: How did you hear about this --
Mr Perrault: Sorry, I did attend a supper. That's probably where the contribution shows up. There was a supper in Ottawa in the Premier's riding. Yes. Sorry.
Mr Tascona: How did you hear about this appointment?
Mr Perrault: I went on the Web site and applied. There were two committees that interested me: Agricorp, which I've known about for many years, and this tribunal. I didn't realize that the tribunals were all amalgamated since 1999.
Mr Tascona: What Web site would that be?
Mr Perrault: The appointments Web site. I don't know. My wife's the one who clicked. I'm sorry, I don't -- I'm illiterate on the computer, but I went through the Web site and applied, sent my CV back in, I believe, November.
Mr Tascona: Have you spoken to anyone from the government about this?
Mr Perrault: Yes, I have.
Mr Tascona: Who's that?
Mr Perrault: Mr Phil McNeely and Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde.
Mr Tascona: Who's Phil McNeely?
Mr Perrault: Who is Phil McNeely?
Mr Tascona: Yes.
Laughter.
Mr Tascona: It's all right. For the record.
Mr Perrault: He's a good friend. He's representing Ottawa-Orléans.
Mr Tascona: MPP for Ottawa-Orléans?
Mr Perrault: Yes, sorry. MPP for Ottawa-Orléans.
Mr Tascona: Jean-Marc Lalonde is MPP for where?
Mr Perrault: Yes. For Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Mr Tascona: So you've spoken to two MPPs about this?
Mr Perrault: That's right.
Mr Tascona: I know that several members of the current government were supporters of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act. You may be designated as one of the tribunal members able to hear appeals under this act. You're an active farmer from the farming community. Do you have any thoughts about the Agricultural Employees Protection Act?
Mr Perrault: I believe they do need protection. One of the key successes in my business is employees. I see that they don't have a right to form an association. I'm not sure. I just read a bit of the --
Mr Tascona: The act protects the rights of agricultural employees to form, join, participate in, and make representations to their employers through an employees' association. That's what the act is. Do you support that?
Mr Perrault: I do.
Mr Tascona: Thank you.
The Chair: Any further questions?
Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Thank you for coming today. That was great. So you are presently the president of the grape growers' association?
Mr Perrault: Yes, I am.
Ms Scott: Will you be stepping down from that if you receive this appointment?
Mr Perrault: I was thinking of stepping down. Do I have to? I'm not sure.
Ms Scott: I didn't know if you were planning on stepping down or if you saw any possible conflicts if you stayed on as president.
Mr Perrault: I don't see any conflicts, but I've been there five years. I'm planning to step down.
Ms Scott: OK. This tribunal hears appeals of licensing decisions under a number of statutes. Do you have any adjudicative experience? I didn't pick too much up from your resumé.
Mr Perrault: No, I haven't. Only appeals on the clean water committee: Farmers whom we give grants to or refuse grants, come in and do appeal. That's the only experience I have.
Ms Scott: OK. That's fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Perrault. That concludes the --
Mr Perrault: Oh, thank you very much.
The Chair: You may step down.
1020
BARBARA SULLIVAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Barbara Sullivan, intended appointee as chair, Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
The Chair: Our second interview is with Barbara Sullivan, the intended appointee as chair of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. As you know, Ms Sullivan, you also have an opportunity to make an initial statement. Following that, we'll have 10 minutes for questions from each party. Any time you take in your statement will be deducted from the time allotted to the government party. Welcome, Ms Sullivan.
Ms Barbara Sullivan: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do indeed have a statement. I want to start out by saying that I appreciate being with you today to discuss my prospective appointment as chair of HPRAC. My statement is longer than that of the previous intervener and I hope you'll bear with me.
The Regulated Health Professions Act, the legislation establishing HPRAC, passed the House in 1991, while I was a member of the Legislature, and came into effect at the end of 1993. I participated in the debates and some of the committee work regarding the regulated health professions acts at that time.
The work to bring the legislation to fruition took place during the terms of three governments over close to 10 years and with support from all three political parties. It was a monumental task. The vision and the actuality of the RHPA was considered groundbreaking.
The RHPA has several objectives: to protect the public from harm; to promote high-quality care; to make regulated health professions accountable to the public; to give patients access to health care professions of their choice; to achieve regulatory equality by making all regulated health professions adhere to the same purposes and public interest principles; and to treat individual patients and health professionals in an equitable manner.
The RHPA, the health profession statutes and the regulations under both are necessarily complex. They provide for the qualifications of health professionals; the standards and quality of practice and continuous improvement required by professionals; the values to be implemented in providing service to patients; and the policies for the governance of individual professions.
The governance requirements are themselves exacting. Colleges are required not only to set standards but to ensure, through their educational and disciplinary vehicles, that those standards are adhered to. They must also ensure that "best practice" is the word of the day in each health discipline.
I'd like to outline, in general, my view of the work of HPRAC, which is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the minister with respect to the RHPA and the associated regulated health professions statutes.
First, it's incumbent on HPRAC to present recommendations to the minister that will ensure the accountability, high quality, and flexibility that will ensure that the RHPA continues as living legislation. Those recommendations must offer opportunities for the greatest coordination and collaboration of professional services, for efficiency in service provision, and the most efficacious care delivery. They must also ensure that the interest of the public is assured -- that the system is accountable.
I know that there is a significant amount of work to be done by HPRAC in the next period of time, following on some extremely positive work that has taken place to date. There are also a number of completed projects that have been referred to the minister and have been under consideration for some time. It may well be useful to review and reconfirm some of the recommendations to ensure that they are still timely and relevant. HPRAC is currently reviewing its own policy approaches to recommendations regarding regulation of health professions and changing scopes of practice. I believe that that work should be speedily concluded so that it can readily be put into use.
Given rapid change in professional practice patterns, health technologies, use of health information systems, and educational initiatives, there ought to be a thorough review and recommendations put forward by HPRAC for changes to or expansion of scopes of practice for those health professions which are currently regulated. Increased emphasis on improvements in quality assurance and patient relations programs will certainly require consideration.
The recent report on adverse events by Dr Ross Baker focused attention on continuous quality improvement and patient safety initiatives. There should be an assurance that the disciplinary processes of the colleges are flexible enough to accommodate a blame-free approach that can identify those human and system errors that put patients at risk and ensure that corrections are made that will eliminate the chance for error. Evidence from this and other jurisdictions show that that approach works. Having said that, it's not a simple matter to transfer an idea into a procedural code and disciplinary program. However, it's an area that I believe merits attention.
In a similar vein, HPRAC should be examining patient relations requirements to put forward recommendations that will provide a common understanding of obligations of professionals to patients. Such obligations could include clear communication and information exchange about care being provided; the guarantee that informed consent will be sought; providing training so that the patient knows how to take part in his or her own care and in planning follow-up care; and that, in all circumstances, the patient is treated with dignity and respect. There may be other elements of patient relations programs that should be enunciated more clearly, and this is another area where, in my view, attention is merited.
In my experience, people generally do not understand the roles of the colleges, their activities and their processes. There may be merit in examining my own observation and for HPRAC to make recommendations in this regard.
At the time of the original legislation, there were several health disciplines which were determined not to be ready to move into self-governance at that time. Some of those organizations have enhanced their quality, discipline and education programs and have built strong practice guidelines and ethics codes, and are now ready to be considered for certification under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Indeed, there are recommendations under consideration by the minister now. It will continue to be the work of HPRAC to thoroughly examine the merits of such applications and to make recommendations accordingly.
I should tell you that I'm not setting out an agenda here. That will be done by the HPRAC council in full after full discussion. What I'm attempting to do is to illustrate the wide compass of issues that could be considered by HPRAC in making its recommendations to the minister.
I think we're generally well served by our health professionals, but there is a capacity and a willingness by both practitioners and those to whom they provide care to ensure that we are served better and that there is continuous improvement in health care service provision.
I think the core of this job is to reflect the public interest and to make recommendations that will enable professionals to attain the highest standards in meeting public interest requirements and to ensure fairness, both for professionals and for those to whom they provide care. I'll do my best to encourage that to happen. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Sullivan. Any further questions from the government?
Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Thank you, Ms Sullivan. Nice to see you again. I know that you've been before another committee that I was on in a health-related area, so I was just wondering if you could briefly describe for us some of your experience on the health side in your other life, to kind of give us a sense of your credentials with respect to this appointment.
Ms Sullivan: To begin with, I suppose from a formal point of view, one of my major roles was as health critic in the Legislature. You will know, for those who do hold the critics' responsibilities, that that's a job that in many ways mirrors the work of a minister, in that you have to become familiar with issues that are brought forward on a daily basis, if not an hourly basis, by stakeholders who have an interest in particular areas, and examine those against public policy alternatives to put forward a position which can best serve the public interest.
Additionally, I have served on the board of a facility for duly and multiply diagnosed developmentally disabled adults, which has a significant health care component. I'm also a trustee of Hamilton Health Sciences, which is one of Canada's major teaching hospitals.
The Chair: Further questions? We only have one minute left.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Good morning, Ms Sullivan. Welcome. I just wanted to make a point. I've sat on the government agencies committee on the other side of the House. One of the greatest frustrations we've had in the past is that people who come forward are frequently not willing or don't feel they want to tell us what their goals and thoughts are in terms of the position they're about to take. I just want to say that I think it is very helpful to have you make a presentation such as you did in terms of some of the issues that you think are before HPRAC and some of the things that may come forward. I think all members appreciate that. As I say, frequently people tell us that they haven't given much thought to it. Obviously you've given a great deal of thought to it and clearly you are well qualified, so I wanted to thank you for your presentation.
1030
The Chair: I now turn to the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Mr Tascona: Welcome to the committee.
Ms Sullivan: Thank you.
Mr Tascona: You were a Liberal MPP for Halton Centre from 1987 to 1995. Is that correct?
Ms Sullivan: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: Are you still a member of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Ms Sullivan: Yes, I am, and I've contributed to the Ontario Liberal Party as well, to predict your next question.
Mr Tascona: Thank you. How did you hear about this appointment?
Ms Sullivan: You may or may not know that in addition to having served in the Legislature for two terms, I offered myself for a third term and was not successful. In the most recent election I also stood as a candidate in what I should say was the most difficult riding in the province and gave a good scare to the Tory opponent, the Tory incumbent. Nonetheless --
Mr Tascona: So you heard about this position from Ted Chudleigh?
Ms Sullivan: I certainly did not. But subsequent to that election, it was very clear that I wanted to continue to offer myself for public service. I know the process, so I submitted my resumé to the Public Appointments Secretariat and latterly received a call from the minister's office of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and was asked if I would consider this position. I had to think about the responsibilities of the council over the next period of time and determine what other activities I would have to cease and what other activities I could continue in order to do this job.
Mr Tascona: I understand that.
Ms Sullivan: Ultimately, I allowed my name to stand.
Mr Tascona: When did you make your application?
Ms Sullivan: Probably November.
Mr Tascona: Did you speak to anyone in the government about your application?
Ms Sullivan: I have spoken to the executive assistant to the Minister of Health and to a special assistant to the Minister of Health and to folks in the Public Appointments Secretariat.
Mr Tascona: What professions do you believe should be considered for inclusion as regulated health professions?
Ms Sullivan: Certainly all of the ones that are regulated now. I think that are also two other professions whose applications have gone forward from HPRAC to the minister, and there may well be others that would come forward.
Mr Tascona: Which two are those?
Ms Sullivan: Naturopaths and Chinese medicine.
Mr Tascona: Do you support those?
Ms Sullivan: I think that my prejudice is that it's in the public interest for more health professions to be regulated than not regulated. Another organization, for instance, which may well come forward in the near future would be kinesiology. It's not a matter of whether I agree; it's a matter of whether the qualifications are met for self-governance and the public interest can best be served that way.
Mr Tascona: With respect to naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture, are you in favour of those?
Ms Sullivan: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Kinesiology is another one you think should be considered?
Ms Sullivan: I didn't say -- I think it will be considered. I think that that particular profession is virtually ready to move into the application stream.
Mr Tascona: Why do you say that?
Ms Sullivan: I guess it's general knowledge from my own work and experience.
Mr Tascona: No, why do you think they should be considered?
Ms Sullivan: I think they will make application for consideration.
Mr Tascona: But what are the merits of their inclusion?
Ms Sullivan: When an application comes forward, the body making the application has to satisfy --
Mr Tascona: I understand the process. Let me put the question to you another way. Kinesiology: Why should it be included as a regulated profession?
Ms Sullivan: I'm not saying it should be included, I'm suggesting that it ought to be reviewed and there ought to be an assurance that it meets all the tests of the regulations and of the statute, so that a recommendation could be made to the minister. Those things include such aspects as education, patient relations work, quality assurance programs, a clear outline of scopes of practice and disciplinary functions, codes of ethics and practice patterns that have been gauged by the organization itself and put forward for scrutiny by HPRAC and subsequently by the minister.
Mr Tascona: I have no further questions.
Ms Scott: Thank you for appearing here today. You have a very impressive background, so that's great.
In my other life I was also a nurse. I worked in the States for a short period of time and was familiar with physicians' assistants. There's just recently been the discussion paper out tackling the doctor shortage. It makes reference to physicians' assistants. One of them is the creation of a category for the registration of the physicians' assistants. Do you believe that this will eventually be regulated and do you agree that physicians' assistants have a role?
Ms Sullivan: I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of areas where scopes can be expanded to other professions, as happened, for instance, with midwives and nurse practitioners. I think that's a logical way to move forward. You've spoken of physicians' assistants; there may also be nurse anaesthetists, who operate in other jurisdictions as well. But those things would have to come before HPRAC before a recommendation could be made.
Ms Scott: I know you want to wait and take a look at them, but are you familiar with them? Do you think they have a role, though?
Ms Sullivan: Yes.
Ms Scott: OK. Also dental hygienists: I've met with quite a few since I've been elected, and they certainly were looking for more scopes of practice in initiating dental hygienist's care, especially in nursing homes, without having a dentist's order. How do you feel about that dental hygienist's role?
Ms Sullivan: There's a recommendation before the minister now. I believe that recommendation was put forward when Ms Witmer was minister, but I may be mistaken about that.
There are two issues here really. One of them is that there appears to be a bit of a conflict in the wording of the Dentistry Act and the Dental Hygiene Act with respect to the order. The other area is with respect to whether a hygienist ought to be able to self-initiate procedures outside of a traditional dental office environment with the order. There have been telling arguments put forward by the hygienists with respect to treatment provided, say in nursing homes or in remote areas, which support their position. There have been other telling arguments put forward by dentists, who are concerned about the protection of patients from harm by some of the procedures. I believe the recommendation that was made to the minister spoke about expanding scopes of practice for hygienists in certain areas but not in other areas, and that it was the harm argument that was telling in that situation.
Ms Scott: So that's under review right now?
Ms Sullivan: Yes, it's on the minister's desk.
Ms Scott: That's fine. Thank you.
The Chair: The NDP caucus?
Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is similar to the line of questioning you've already been discussing, and that is your belief that there are opportunities for expansion in regard to the regulated professions. What I'd like to know is, how do you feel the delisting of services like chiropractics, which has come down with the recent budget, will affect this particular movement toward -- it seems to be the opposite of what we're trying to do in regard to getting more professions regulated. It sends the opposite message when you start delisting some of these professions from OHIP. Could you please comment on that?
1040
Ms Sullivan: Yes. I think that the Regulated Health Professions Act requires that standards be met, no matter how the delivery occurs. Whether it's done under auto insurance or required by matters arising through vehicle accidents, whether it's a situation for workers' compensation or workers' health insurance board, whether it's a liability insurance situation, whether it's an OHIP situation, the point of the RHPA is to ensure that no matter what the circumstances, there is a high standard of quality available to every patient. While decisions such as delisting, I think, are very difficult ones -- and the government had to, for whatever reason, make that decision -- that's not the point of this legislation. The point of this legislation is to ensure the highest quality, no matter how the service is provided.
Ms Horwath: I understand that, and I thank you for the answer. However, I still believe that you haven't quite answered the question in regard to whether you suspect that there would be any effect at all in the attempts to further expand the number of professions that are included, when the government sends the opposite message by delisting from OHIP. So on the one hand, we're saying, "We're delisting from OHIP. These professions are no longer part of our health care bundle that are covered by OHIP. However, at the same time, we'll start including others as regulated professions." It seems to be sending an opposite message. So can I just get your perspective on whether or not you think that's the case?
Ms Sullivan: I think that, generally, there's a lack of public awareness, first of all, about the role of the colleges in ensuring standards in the health professions. That's one area that I would certainly like to see improved over the next period of time.
In terms of mixed messages, I think that it's important that the public understand that no matter, as I said before, where or how the service is provided, there will be an equivalency in the standards and the quality of care and the demands made on the professional, whether you are a patient being cared for under the auspices of the workers' health insurance board or whether you're a patient being cared for under the auspices of OHIP or under private liability insurance.
Ms Horwath: So can I just ask, considering your quite impressive resumé and experience in the Legislature, are you someone who then favours the further delisting of services from OHIP?
Ms Sullivan: Sometimes OHIP delisting is a positive thing in that there can be a different allocation of resources. So for instance, I go back to tattoo removals and issues of that nature, which occurred some time ago. I think Mr Bisson was in the Legislature when that occurred.
I think sometimes there will definitely be a shift in service options required on the part of the patient. I think there can be problems, and one hopes that alternatives are taken into account when those public policy decisions are made.
Mr Bisson: I just want to ask the question really directly. There have been cases where all governments have delisted particular services under a particular health care profession. This is one of the first times that I remember where we've actually had a delisting of an entire practice. I guess the question we're asking is, do you favour the decision that the government made in this budget to delist chiropractic and other professional services from OHIP? Yes or no?
Ms Sullivan: I wasn't party to the decision, and I wasn't involved --
Mr Bisson: No, but I'm asking how you feel.
Ms Sullivan: -- in the decision-making process. There will be access to some of those services in certain circumstances.
Mr Bisson: Barbara, I have great respect for you. I served with you. But my question is, you're going to chair this particular board that oversees these health care professions, and I would like to know, as a member of this assembly, and I'm sure chiropractors and others would want to know, as the person who's going to be responsible for their professions, how you feel about delisting? Do you agree, yes or no, that the government should have or shouldn't have delisted those services in this budget? Yes or no?
Ms Sullivan: My understanding is that some of those professions indeed requested delisting. So I think that the --
Mr Bisson: Chiropractors asked to be delisted?
Ms Sullivan: I'm not saying that it was the chiropractors.
Mr Bisson: I can tell you not.
Ms Sullivan: But I understand that there was some of that involved.
Mr Bisson: Optometrists?
Ms Sullivan: Nonetheless, the point of this position and the point of the legislation is to ensure --
Mr Bisson: I understand the point of the position, Barbara, but I'm asking you a direct question. My question is, yes or no, do you support the delisting in this budget of services provided by chiropractors and other health services? Yes or no? That's the question.
Ms Sullivan: I'll respond to you by saying that your question is irrelevant in relationship to this act.
Mr Bisson: It is not irrelevant; it's completely relevant. Your particular board oversees and takes a look at issues within those health care professions. You know those health care professionals are upset. They're mad as heck. They're calling all of our constituency offices, and I think they want to know where the board is on this. You're going to be the chair. Yes or no, do you support the delisting?
Ms Sullivan: The professions will not come to the board on that question.
Mr Bisson: They would very much like to know what the heck your position is. You're going to chair this board and I'm asking you a question: Yes or no, do you support?
Ms Sullivan: It will not be an issue that's before the board.
Mr Bisson: Yes or no, do you support?
Ms Sullivan: It will not be an issue before the board.
Mr Bisson: All right. I know what to do with that.
The Chair: Did you have further questions?
Mr Bisson: No. I know exactly where I'm going now.
The Chair: OK. Thank you very much, Ms Sullivan. That concludes the questioning. We very much appreciate you coming forward today.
SHARIFA KHAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Sharifa Khan, intended appointee as member, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Our third interview is with Sharifa Khan, the intended appointee as member of the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors. You may come forward now. Welcome. As you are probably aware, you do have an opportunity, if you wish, to make an initial statement. Following that, there will be questions from the committee. Each party will have 10 minutes for questions. We'll go in rotation, and if you do make a statement, that time will be deducted from the government party. So welcome. Did you wish to make a statement, Ms Khan?
Ms Sharifa Khan: Yes, I do. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. I appreciate the interest in considering me as an appointee on the board of the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre. It will be a great honour for me to be nominated, and I welcome the opportunity to serve the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto.
I came to Canada in 1975 from Hong Kong, the pearl of the Orient, known as the gateway to China and considered one of the fastest-paced cosmopolitan cities in the world. When I first landed in Toronto in 1975, I said to myself, "What is this?" It was quiet, shops closed at 6 pm, no Sunday shopping and restaurants closed early. Of course, today, Toronto has come a long way, in many ways thanks to the vibrant influx of immigrants over the past 25 years who bring the vibrant culture, business savvy and hard work that have now made Toronto a very attractive city in which to live, visit and do business. Now, as a Canadian and a Chinese who is proud of her heritage and culture, I would not want to live anywhere else in the world.
Over the years, I have strived to act as a bridge between my community and the Canadian mainstream at large, building relationships and understanding among diverse ethnic groups to create partnerships, socially and economically, as I have done as a board member of the United Way of Greater Toronto, the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto and the Mount Sinai Hospital.
Through my voluntary work, I serve as president of the Toronto Chinese Business Association, and I am one of the founders and development chair of the very popular Toronto International Dragon Boat Race Festival, which is in its 16th year, continuously bringing participants from across Canada and around the world, promoting sport tourism.
One of my proudest achievements was when I was director of the Toronto Board of Trade, creating its first alliance with Toronto ethnic business associations, which have made trade and economic ties with their respective countries, promoting bilateral businesses.
I was also asked two years ago by Frances Lankin, co-chair of the Toronto City Summit Alliance, to come on board as part of the team to promote and build the city of Toronto and to promote the message that Toronto is the economic engine of Canada and deserves a fair shake.
1050
Last year, Toronto went through the tremendous crisis of SARS. At the height of it, one could roll a bowling ball down Chinatown without hitting anyone. That was how bad business was, and, up until now, many have not fully recovered. Of course, it was not just in Chinatown, but many retail, hospitality and tourist-supply businesses in Toronto got the full brunt of it. We lost 28,000 jobs and $2 billion in business. At that time, myself and members of the Toronto Chinese Business Association embarked on an aggressive public relations and marketing initiative to educate our own community about SARS. Also, we had a campaign to drive businesses back to downtown.
Now looking forward: The Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre's ability to attract major conventions and conferences plays a very important role in the economic viability of many businesses. It drives the economy, not just in Toronto and Ontario, but across Canada. Its success or failure directly and indirectly affects hotels, restaurants, retail and the tourism industry.
The convention business is a very aggressive business worldwide, with major cities and countries going all out to get a piece of the action. Many, working in partnerships with the local and federal government in marketing initiatives, capture not just the attention, but the imagination, of convention planners, international corporations and sports associations, to lure them to their respective cities.
For over two years, Mr Paul Henderson, IOC member, and myself have been asking the federal government for funding to rebuild the 100-year-old brick wall along the western beaches, which is falling down and causing safety issues for many recreational sports clubs. Also, it is part of the Toronto waterfront revitalization plan.
By building a world-class water course for Toronto, it will attract major international sports championships for canoeing, kayaking, sailing and water skiing, not to mention dragon boating. We're now vying to host the 2006 Dragon Boat Club Crew World Championship in Toronto. Sports tourism is one of the hottest buzzwords worldwide and it drives inbound business.
I also believe, with my experience with diverse ethnic communities, I can assist and advise on how to build an image of MTCC in creating partnerships with these communities to drive businesses into the centre -- also domestically. The domestic ethnic market segment is still a vastly untapped market.
In closing, I'm honoured to be considered for this nomination. I believe that my experience and knowledge, and most importantly my passion for Toronto, Ontario, to continue to excel as one of the best places to visit, shop and do business, will be positive contributions I can offer as a board member of MTCC. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Khan. I would now ask the Progressive Conservative caucus to begin the questioning.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for coming before the committee. Are you a member of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Ms Khan: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Have you been a financial supporter of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Ms Khan: Yes, I have.
Mr Tascona: I noticed that Balmoral Communications has also been a donor to the Ontario Liberal Party. Are you connected in any way with Balmoral Communications?
Ms Khan: I'm the president.
Mr Tascona: How did you hear about this appointment?
Ms Khan: Actually, the Public Appointments Secretariat's office called me and said that I had been nominated and my name put forward for consideration as a public appointee. Subsequently, they asked me to fill out an application and send in my resumé.
Mr Tascona: Do you know who nominated you?
Ms Khan: Mr Gerry Phillips.
Mr Tascona: MPP for --
Ms Khan: Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Tascona: I don't have any further questions.
Ms Scott: I represent a rural Ontario riding, and I know the board has a mandate for all of Ontario as well as Toronto. We certainly suffered severely with SARS last year. Do you see the board responding to the challenges that we have in rural Ontario, helping rural Ontario recover from the economic impacts of the past year? I know you spoke a lot about Toronto and you're mainly focused there, but I just wanted to get your thoughts.
Ms Khan: I think urban cities and rural Ontario have to work together hand in hand -- very much so. As I mentioned in my statement, I think by being able to attract businesses and conventions and conferences to the Metro convention centre -- it's not just the convention and the place itself, but it's also the whole image of Toronto and Ontario that we have to sell. These people, when they come here, once they're attracted to us with the lovely scenery and vibrancy of cities, plan visits outside of Toronto. I think by MTCC being successful, being able to attract the international businesses and the conference attendees, it would have a direct impact on rural Ontario.
Ms Scott: You have a background in marketing communications. Do you see, once they come to Toronto, somehow linking with the smaller municipalities in Ontario to do more marketing while they're here in Toronto?
Ms Khan: I'm not on the board yet, so I still have to review exactly what the partnership is. I believe in partnerships from my 28 years in professional business and also in my volunteer work. I think one cannot say, "I'm supposed to be the only one to survive." In order to make the whole of Ontario survive, I would like to see partnerships with municipalities. How do we drive some of the tourism from the city into these municipalities and rural Ontario areas?
Ms Scott: That's good to hear. I appreciate that.
The Ministry of Tourism didn't fare too well in the last budget. How do you feel about that?
Ms Khan: In what sense?
Ms Scott: They didn't get any extra money in the tourism ministry.
Ms Khan: From what I've read, in 2001 Toronto attracted $17.2 million, down $7.7 million from 2000. There are many factors to it. Obviously, we all know September 11 affected a lot of international travel. It's definitely because of SARS and also the Canadian currency has affected us. We have lost lots of jobs. But I'm not here to say how much money has been put in, because I haven't actually seen all the documents on tourism and I'm not privy to looking at it as of yet.
Ms Scott: It certainly will be a challenge.
How do you feel about the no-smoking ban that's been introduced in Toronto? How do you think that will affect --
Ms Khan: That's an interesting question. With the general perception of the health and welfare of the population at large, this is the only way to go, because smoking is not good for anyone. I know that in the short term it will affect some of the businesses that have relied on liquor and smoking, but as with all things, people get used to it. Some of them have open patios that can be used to attract a crowd. Once upon a time people were smoking in office buildings. So what do they do now? They got used to it.
Ms Scott: Thank you for the comments. That's all.
Mr Bisson: I wasn't going to ask that question, but I guess it raises a point from your perspective. Do you think it's more important to have standard provincial legislation to deal with no-smoking regulations than to have individual communities deal with it? Community X says, "No smoking in restaurants and bars," and community Y says there is. Does that create a certain unfair competition between communities? Would we be better served to have one provincial legislation to deal with that?
Ms Khan: I think it should be provincial legislation, because I feel that since the province is the one that is in charge of health care, promoting the welfare and health of the citizens of Ontario, there's nothing wrong with having it go hand in hand.
Mr Bisson: That's good. It's just something that bugs me, because we're all going through it in our ridings where various communities have different bylaws. I find it creates certain rifts between communities. I just think it would better serve us to have provincial legislation. I expect it's coming some time -- Monique, some time soon?
Ms Smith: Soon.
1100
Mr Bisson: I haven't seen it on the order paper yet.
The other thing is that there was a question that was asked by my Conservative colleague in regard to the Ministry of Tourism. As a follow-up to that, there used to be a time when the Ministry of Tourism had a fair degree of ability to have program dollars, a fairly good budget for that, to promote tourism in Ontario. But they also had capital dollars, if there was a project in some community that needed some capital infrastructure to assist in the development of tourism. Do you think that's something we should return to, that the Ministry of Tourism should have a greater role in being able to determine what funds are available for the support of the tourism industry? Or do you favour the direction this current government is going, with one central capital pool that they're setting up where basically tourism competes with everything else?
Ms Khan: I strongly believe that tourism does not rely on one level of government. I think it should be a co-partnership of the federal --
Mr Bisson: That's not so much my question. I agree with you on that. That's not my question. There is a difference, I guess, of approach. It used to be that the Ministry of Tourism, along with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, had dollars to develop infrastructure for the sake of tourism, to assist the tourism industry. We're now moving -- because the Conservatives started this under SuperBuild and this government is sort of completing it -- to where there's only going to be one place you can go for capital dollars. So when you go for a tourism project, you will be in competition with everyone else out there who is looking for capital dollars in a municipality for something. So my question is, do you favour the Ministry of Tourism having more autonomy to determine those projects that are important for the tourism industry, or do you think centralizing those decisions at cabinet is a better way?
Ms Khan: I'll be very honest with you, because at this stage I have not even been privy to any document whatsoever, whether it's a capital expenditure --
Mr Bisson: It's not a question of a document. Philosophically, I'm just wondering.
Ms Khan: I don't think I can answer that question as yet, without having more detailed information and a track record of how it was run and where money comes from and weigh the pros and cons whether the existing situation is the best situation to dispense money or whether --
Mr Bisson: Are you uncomfortable answering that question as --
Ms Khan: No, I'm not uncomfortable answering that question.
Mr Bisson: Let me finish the question. This is a little bit unfair, but I need to ask it.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: No, I need to ask this, and I have no problem with the government in power appointing Liberals. That's not my issue. I recognize that every government has to have people in place to carry out its agenda. When it comes to decisions by the government, if they're contrary to your particular view, do you think that your association with the Liberal Party would take precedence over your decisions as a board?
Ms Khan: Absolutely not. I come here with the faith that I will be serving on a public board.
Mr Bisson: OK, that's fair.
Ms Khan: I would be working with the board members to present some of the views that would be best to promote tourism in Ontario.
Mr Bisson: So in a conflict situation --
Ms Smith: Let her answer the question.
Ms Khan: There will be occasions --
Mr Bisson: It's my time, not yours.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, if you would let Ms Khan complete her response.
Mr Bisson: You don't need coaching by Monique, by the way.
Ms Khan: If there's any recommendation, I'm sure -- I've worked on many voluntary boards and public boards -- that would not be my sole recommendation. It will be a joint task force and recommendation. If it's going to be a recommendation that the present government doesn't like, it will be the decision of the board of the Metro convention centre.
Mr Bisson: OK, that's all I'm asking. That's fair. I was expecting you to answer in that way. So basically you understand that your job is to serve the greater community --
Ms Khan: Yes, I do.
Mr Bisson: -- not just whatever the government wants to do. Very good.
Ms Khan: There are many appointees, and many appointees come here with different parties, but I think the most important thing the committee has to evaluate or consider is the kind of experience I have that I can bring to the table, more than anything.
Mr Bisson: I have no question with your experience. In fact, we're supporting your nomination. We think you'll do a darn good job. But I just want to make sure, because somewhere in your comments there was something you said that sort of twigged in my mind: do you understand the difference between being a political appointee and serving the greater good? You've answered that question, so that's fine.
The second question is in regard to your association with the business that you're in, the communications business -- I forget the exact name. Do you recognize that in your new job you will not be able to favour that company in any way when it comes to advertising contracts etc?
Ms Khan: I understand that.
Mr Bisson: What steps do you plan on taking in order to make sure you don't put yourself in conflict?
Ms Khan: If there is a bid by the Metro convention centre -- first of all, I would have to look at the conflict-of-interest guidelines of the MTCC board, and I would ask the opinion of the chair in giving me guidance on what to do and I will strictly follow the conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Mr Bisson: Just a comment you made in your opening statement, and I thought it was bang on, that this city has become a much better city as a result of people immigrating into the city. It has added to the colour and dynamics of Toronto. I remember far too well having to run into Toronto in the 1970s and 1960s as a young guy. It was not the kind of city we see today as far as the various choices that we have in the city. And I totally agree, Hong Kong is beautiful -- Kowloon and other places. I'd love to go back. It's a great place to visit.
The Chair: The government? Ms Smith.
Ms Smith: Thank you, Ms Khan. We're delighted to have you here today. I was just wondering if you could highlight a little bit for me some of your experience with the Toronto Chinese Business Association, the Toronto City Summit Alliance and your involvement with the dragon boat racing, and just how that experience ties in with promotion and marketing in the tourism area.
Ms Khan: As a director and past president of the Toronto Chinese Business Association, we have worked very hard to bridge the Chinese community and the mainstream. And it's not just the Chinese community in Toronto that we're talking about. By having a relationship, we're talking about Chinese who have businesses and families still back in southeast Asia. That's where we could see a promotion of trade. And you know very well that when there's a promotion of trade, there's a promotion of tourism.
When we brought the dragon boat festival here, we started as actually a cultural initiative. Never in our imagination did we think that it was going to boom and be so popular as it grew. It has become one of the major attractions of Canada, actually. We're the largest dragon boat festival outside of Asia. We continually bring international participants from countries in Europe, Asia and the US to Toronto, and after they come to Toronto, they proceed to visit other areas of Ontario and across Canada, going to Vancouver and Calgary. So we feel that this is a vast contribution to tourism.
Ms Smith: Great. Can you just tell me a little bit about your involvement with the Toronto City Summit Alliance, which was involved in rebuilding the city of Toronto?
Ms Khan: I was asked mainly as a bridge for ethnic communities because of my skills and knowledge so that the information and support for that summit would be, first and foremost, communicated accurately to these communities. Also, because of my background they wanted me to sit on the board to ensure that I would participate and advise in a consultative way about businesses, tourism and also, as I've mentioned, the waterfront revitalization.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Khan. We appreciate your taking the time to be here this morning.
Ms Khan: Thank you very much.
BRIAN SMITH
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Brian Smith, intended appointee as member, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors.
The Chair: Our fourth and final interview today is with Mr Brian Smith, intended appointee as, again, member of the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors. I see you coming forward, Mr Smith.
As you've probably heard, you do have an opportunity to make an initial statement, and then you'll be questioned by the members of the committee. They'll each have 10 minutes. We'll go in rotation. If you do make a statement, the time you use will be deducted from the government party's allocation.
Welcome, Mr Smith. Did you wish to make any statement?
Mr Brian Smith: Yes, a brief one.
Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee and for considering my appointment to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Corp. I believe you will have received my resumé prior to this meeting, so please allow me now just to take a few minutes to tell you about who I am and how I might be able to contribute to the board of directors of the MTCC.
My background is varied, but generally all related to communications. I began my work career as a reporter. I worked for seven years in the parliamentary press gallery in Ottawa, which is, no doubt, where I acquired a taste for government and policy-making.
I left journalism in 1982 to become associate press secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau, then worked on Mr Chrétien's first leadership campaign in 1984, and briefly for Mr Turner during the national election campaign later that year.
Since then, I have worked in the private sector: for 10 years as corporate spokesperson for BMO Financial Group, and for the past nearly 10 years as the owner of one or another communications consulting firms. Currently, I run my own business, which is called IR Counsel Inc.
1110
In the course of my consulting career I've worked with a variety of private sector clients -- in the financial services world, naturally, because of my background at BMO, but also in telecommunications, biotechnology, and travel and tourism. My tourism clients have included Air Canada, Lufthansa, as well as Star Alliance -- the airline network that brings together many of the world's largest airlines. At my former firm, Opsis Communications, we handled media relations for the Santé wine festival, which just completed another successful year in Bloor-Yorkville two weeks ago.
Running your own business is time-consuming, as you will no doubt appreciate, but I've always felt that it is important to find time to contribute to the community in some way. In my case, this has taken various shapes over the years. At BMO, I was director of our employee charity, then known as Our People Fund. For the better part of 10 years now, I've been involved with the Learning Partnership, which is the organization that brings together educators, government, business leaders and parents to promote publicly funded education. I also sit on the advisory committee for the public relations program at Humber College.
I have been looking for another opportunity, and that was what led me to visit the public appointments Web site earlier this year and express my interest in serving my province and my adopted city. I've lived in Toronto now for nearly 20 years and watched our tourism industry grow by leaps and bounds, driven largely by major events and major conventions. The spinoffs from these visits, I feel, are vital to our economy.
The past year, of course, has not been good. As a barometer, we need only consider the hotel industry in Toronto. Hotels in the downtown core have suffered a double whammy: lower occupancy numbers overall, and, for those beds that they are managing to fill, lower daily room rates. Let's hope that the extra funding which has been earmarked for tourism recovery earlier this year, such as the $10 million in additional funding for the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership, will help to turn that trend around.
I expect that this will continue to be a major preoccupation of management at the MTCC: finding good conventions to bring to our city. As a director of MTCC, I would support these efforts in any way that I could. Business travel often provides visitors with their first taste of Toronto, and if they have a good first experience, they will come back with friends and family and hopefully go to the rest of the province.
I think my marketing and communications skills will contribute to the board, I think my business and financial skills will contribute to the management of the corporation, and I think my international experience and tourism and travel experience will be positives as the MTCC sets its course.
So, Madam Chair, I'd be happy now to answer questions from you and your colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Smith. We'll begin with the NDP. Did you have any questions, Mr Bisson?
Mr Bisson: Just really quickly: I had a chance last night to go through your CV. I notice you do a fair amount of international work, and I'm just wondering if there's anything in your mind that you can do in order to be able to bring those experiences into the board in order to assist with the work that you'll be doing there. Have you thought about that?
Mr Brian Smith: I have. I certainly have experience. I have travelled widely and I have run a business that has done work overseas -- in Ukraine, principally. I'm not currently active in any international business. However, I think having a sensitivity to international business and understanding how international business works is important when you're working with an organization like the MTCC. Also, I think having an appreciation for our city and the many diverse cultures --
Mr Bisson: But you still have contacts, I take it, abroad that could be of use. I just thought that was an interesting angle to this.
Just the other thing -- I can't help it; we're in the middle of a federal election: I notice that you ran, it says here, a very successful media campaign during Mr Chrétien's 1984 Liberal Party leadership bid. Has Mr Martin called you lately?
Mr Brian Smith: No, Mr Martin hasn't called me.
Mr Bisson: Well, maybe you should. Do you want me to provide him with a phone number, because I think he's having some problems. That must have been a fascinating experience. Just so you know, I don't have a problem that you're a Liberal. That's fine by me. I wish you were a New Democrat, but we'll work on that at another time. That must have been a pretty fascinating experience. Those experiences that you have working within that realm of politics: How do you see that assisting you in what you're doing here in regard to this particular appointment?
Mr Brian Smith: Again, I'm being considered for an appointment for a board, and it's a board that has business to do and conducts the business of the corporation. I don't pretend that I'm going to be out booking conventions internationally as a result of the experience that I have. I do hope, though, that it gives me a sensitivity to it. I hope that I'll be able to use all of my experience to provide advice to the management of the convention centre.
Mr Bisson: If I understood what I read here, you were on Mr Trudeau's press staff?
Mr Brian Smith: I was his associate press secretary.
Mr Bisson: How long did you do that?
Mr Brian Smith: From 1982 to 1984.
Mr Bisson: That would have been pretty fascinating as well.
I just say, leave me your phone number and I'll tell Mr Martin that he might be needing your services. With that, thank you very much.
Ms Monique Smith: For Mr Bisson's benefit, I always like to ask any applicant whose last name is Smith if they're related to me, so that we can assure him we're not relatives.
Mr Bisson: I wasn't even thinking that. I didn't see "Monique" in there anywhere.
Mr Brian Smith: Not that I know of.
Ms Monique Smith: Exactly.
Thank you for being here, Mr Smith. We appreciate it. I wanted to ask you a little bit about your involvement with the Public Relations Society of America and the Canadian Public Relations Society and how that would have any impact on your involvement with the MTCC.
Mr Brian Smith: I consider it to be a professional organization, and if one is in the business of public relations you like to be involved in what's happening in your profession. While we're not formally a profession, we like to consider ourselves professionals. My involvement with CPRS and PRSA has been mostly as a member; I've not been involved directly in a management or volunteer capacity with either of them. I think it's more a way to keep up with one's credentials, one's knowledge of trends in the industry and what's happening.
Ms Monique Smith: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Any further questions?
We'll now turn to the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Thank you, Mr Smith, for coming here today. I take it you're from Windsor originally?
Mr Brian Smith: No, I'm not, in fact. I was born in Ottawa.
Mr Tascona: Is that right? Are you a member of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Mr Brian Smith: No, I'm not.
Mr Tascona: You're not? The federal Liberal Party?
Mr Brian Smith: No, I'm not.
Mr Tascona: Have you been a financial supporter of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Mr Brian Smith: I have contributed over the last year, I think, to all three parties.
Mr Tascona: You worked in Ottawa for a while, and I understand there are several former Ottawa Liberal staff members now working for Mr McGuinty. Do you know any of them?
Mr Brian Smith: Former Liberal staff members? I do know Gordon Ashworth, who has been advising, I believe, but not working in the office. I would have run into Mr MacNaughton during the proposed merger between BMO and Royal Bank in 1998. We have, over the years, at BMO had some involvement with Pollara as they've done polling for us. So I have met Don Guy. These are among the many people I've met. I could probably name many in the other parties as well.
Mr Tascona: How did you hear about this appointment?
Mr Brian Smith: I found it on the Web site. I've had an interest in getting involved. I knew about the existence of this board, as well as Ontario Place and a couple of others that were of interest to me and had been of interest to me over the years. So I found it on the Web site and I applied there.
Mr Tascona: Have you spoken to anyone from the government about the position?
Mr Brian Smith: When it was being considered, I did speak to the executive assistant to the Minister of Tourism.
Mr Tascona: Your company is involved in government relations. Is that correct?
Mr Brian Smith: We have done government relations. Currently, my major involvement is with BMO Financial Group. They are my major client, and at BMO I'm involved in government and community relations. That's right.
Mr Tascona: Is your firm doing any consulting with the provincial government on behalf of clients?
Mr Brian Smith: No, it is not.
Mr Tascona: Not at this time?
Mr Brian Smith: It has not done.
Mr Tascona: Those are all the questions I have.
Ms Scott: Thank you very much for appearing here today. I'm going to ask a similar question that I did to Ms Khan, and that is about rural Ontario and how you see any communication links between the board that you're on and what we can do to improve the tourism economic value to rural Ontario, and internationally also is very interesting.
Mr Brian Smith: It'll have to be anecdotal. I don't have any direct information to provide.
Ms Scott: Just thoughts.
Mr Brian Smith: I can certainly say that from the discussions I've had about tourism in Ontario -- and over the years I've been involved in various things: the wine industry, for instance, and how to promote the wine industry -- there used to be a bit of a struggle between putting money into promoting Toronto versus other communities in the province.
1120
I think one of the outcomes of the SARS situation last year is that the rest of the province discovered how important it is to get tourism to Toronto in order to promote tourism outside of Toronto. I think that is one of the realizations in the industry. So by promoting a vibrant convention industry in Toronto, we are going to be helping the tourism industry outside of Toronto. I think that finding ways to promote other things outside the city when people come to Toronto for a convention is important, whether it's going to the various wineries, which is a very popular thing for conventioneers coming to Toronto -- it gets them out of the city. It gets them not only to Niagara, but now increasingly toward Prince Edward county.
Ms Scott: That's good to hear. To work with rural Ontario would be great. I know they're struggling, especially since SARS last year.
How would you approach your role as a member of the board of directors? You have a big communications background. Do you think you'll be strongly influenced in communications? How do you see your role on the board?
Mr Smith: I do. I don't know all the people who are on the board, but I believe that one of the areas where I can fill a bit of a void is with that communications sensitivity, with the appreciation for how better to communicate. Again, when you're on a board of directors, your job is not to be management; your job is to oversee management and make sure that you're asking the right questions. I think I would ask questions that reflect my background, which is communications.
Ms Scott: That's good. I look forward to that.
We noted that there is a Brian Smith who is the riding association director for Prince Edward-Hastings and executive assistant to Ernie Parsons. Is there any connection?
Mr Parsons: No relation whatsoever.
Mr Smith: Neither have I ever chaired Canadian National Railway nor been a sportscaster in Ottawa.
Mr Parsons: There are quite a few Smiths, evidently.
Ms Scott: And a few Scotts too, apparently, so I'm just clarifying. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Smith, for appearing. That concludes the time allocated.
We have now concluded the interviews for this morning. We will now review the appointments and consider first the intended appointment of Denis Perrault as member, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal/Board of Negotiation.
Mr Parsons: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by Mr Parsons. Any discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Moving now to the intended appointment of Barbara Sullivan as chair, Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
Mr Bisson: On a point of order: Under the standing orders, I wish to defer this particular appointment and ask that she reappear next week. She did not answer the questions we posed to her.
The Chair: She will not be coming back. However, we can defer consideration of the appointment for one week.
Mr Bisson: OK. It'll give her a chance to reflect on that.
Mr Tascona: We would support that also, for some of the issues dealing with the delisting and her opinions on adding different professions and at the same time delisting services. We would support that.
The Chair: We will now consider the intended appointment of Sharifa Khan as member, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors.
Mr Parsons: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by Mr Parsons. Any discussion? If not, all in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
We will now consider the intended appointment of Brian Smith as member, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp board of directors.
Mr Parsons: I again move concurrence.
The Chair: Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by Mr Parsons. Any discussion? If not, all in favour? Any opposed? The motion is carried.
I would now ask if there is any further discussion on any issue before we adjourn. If not, this meeting is adjourned until June 9, 2004. Thank you very much for your participation.
The committee adjourned at 1125.
CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 June 2004
Subcommittee reports A-101
Intended appointments
A-102
Mr Denis Perrault A-102
Ms Barbara Sullivan A-103
Ms Sharifa Khan A-107
Mr Brian Smith A-111
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie L)
Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / Thunder Bay-Superior-Nord L)
Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie L)
Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings L)
Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock PC)
Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing L)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East / Hamilton-Est ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research
officer,
Research and Information Services