STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Wednesday 20 October 2004 Mercredi 20 octobre 2004
The committee met at 1003 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Tim Hudak): Good morning, folks. We will call the standing committee on government agencies to order for our Wednesday, October 20, 2004, meeting.
Our first order of business is the report of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, October 14, 2004. I believe members have been provided with a copy of the subcommittee's minutes. Can I have a member to move the adoption of the subcommittee's report?
Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I move adoption, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Any discussion on the subcommittee report? The member for Brant is smiling. He enjoyed reading his subcommittee report.
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm excited.
The Chair: All in favour of adopting the report? Any opposed? She's carried.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Before we move on to our intended appointees today, is there any other business the members have?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a matter or two that I'd like to discuss. I've got a correspondence from yourself dated October 13, 2004, addressed to the Honourable Dwight Duncan, government House leader. It reads as follows:
"At a meeting of the standing committee on government agencies on Wednesday, September 29, 2004, a discussion was held on a number of issues related to the operations and mandate of the committee.
"These discussions included:
"(1) the issuance of press releases regarding proposed appointments prior to the issuance of the certificate of intended appointments.
"(2) the types of appointments that can be made by the government, and which of these procedures would actually involve a review by agencies, boards and commissions.
"Please refer to the discussions on page A-197 of the enclosed Hansard transcript."
I've got the other one there, but just to continue:
"Members of the committee have indicated a wish that the subject of these discussions be communicated to the House leaders and to the Public Appointments Secretariat with respect of any review of the committee's mandate.
"On behalf of the committee members, I am transmitting a copy of the committee's proceedings for your review.
"Sincerely,
"Tim Hudak, MPP
"Chair."
Have you received a response to that?
The Chair: We have not yet received a response.
Mr Tascona: Is there any reason why there wouldn't be a response to the committee? This is October 20.
The Chair: It's one week, yes.
Mr Tascona: I'd just like to put on the record that the government House leader has not responded to the committee Chair's request.
I want to follow up on that with respect to this. I also received, after I had requested -- and this may have prompted the letter by the Chair. I had asked Larry Johnston, the research officer, through Susan Sourial, for a memorandum to the standing committee on government agencies, which was done and done quite well, Larry. The subject was background on appointments. I think everyone received a copy of that. It was October 13, 2004, and it set out very clearly that the mandate of the committee on government agencies is limited to new appointments for more than a year approved by cabinet. Those are order-in-council appointments. Reappointments and appointments for less than a year are not subject to review by the committee, nor are non-OIC appointments, namely those by ministerial letter. This research memorandum shows the agencies which are appointments by ministerial letter at the prerogative of the Premier. All other agencies are filled by the OIC appointments.
In this research, which, as I said, was very well done, it sets out the different ministries and the number of agency appointments that are done by ministerial letter, and they're quite extensive. This committee, in my opinion, is not functioning the way that it can. It should be able to function in a more transparent way. I think the government had committed as a promise before the last election that they would bring transparency into government processes. It's obvious through this that we're not, because we're not reviewing near the number of appointments that are going through.
Those are the standing orders. I understand those are the standing orders that were set up under government consultation previously with the House leaders. I think Dwight Duncan was a part of that. But I think there is time for a change in this and that's why I put this forth, and I'm glad the Chair followed up on it.
What I want to wait for -- and I'm prepared to wait one more week for a response by the House leader. In that regard, I want the committee to consider very seriously -- I know there are serious minds across the way: Lorenzo Berardinetti, Dave Levac, David Orazietti and Monique Smith -- about whether we want to make this committee something that's relevant in terms of the appointments process. I don't think we're as relevant as we can be. This will be open for discussion. But the Chair has put it out to the House leader. I think it's important that we consider as a committee whether we want to expand our mandate, and we want to do that through the House leaders in a co-operative manner. There are three areas we do not cover right now, which are reappointments of OICs, appointments for less than a year that are OIC appointments through the Premier, and we do not cover at all any ministerial letters.
In terms of transparency, I think that's something this committee should consider very seriously. I'm prepared to bring a motion from this committee going to the House leaders when they do the standing orders review, and they're going to be doing that. They've indicated they're going to be reviewing the standing orders, and I think that has to be a part of it.
1010
I'm putting this out, in a way. I went through Larry Johnston for a background on the appointments, so everybody knew what the jurisdiction of this committee was. In terms of making us relevant and making this a more transparent process for all the appointments -- that's what this committee is called. It's called the standing committee on government agencies, and we're only reviewing perhaps 60% of the government agencies, when that becomes a permanent appointment.
I want to bring that out to the floor. I don't want to delay the proceedings any further. Come the next meeting, or in a week when we haven't got anything, I think we're going to have to raise this and discuss it further. I think it's important.
I know Dave Levac was with me when we did the 50th Commonwealth annual conference, and we were discussing matters in terms of how they work at that level. I think it's important in terms of what the process is. That's what it's about: the process. What we're talking about here is the process of making it relevant.
Mr Levac: I thank Mr Tascona for his comments. I'm sure that a one-week turnaround time is not the norm around this place in terms of hearing from the House leader, but I'm sure that we're going to hear from the House leader.
I would also suggest that we move along. There are people who have come from a long way. We were supposed to start at 10 o'clock for the review of the appointments, and I would suggest we could continue the debate through the Chair, since you've written to the House leader. Then, if there are concerns after that, we can deal with them as Mr Tascona has outlined.
The Chair: Any other comments from members of the committee?
Mr Tascona: I feel comfortable with that, being that's from the government whip.
Mr Levac: It'll happen.
The Chair: Thankfully, we've got the heavy hitter today at committee to sit with us.
Anything else, folks, before we move on to the intended appointments?
Mr Tascona: Make it happen.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you, folks. No other items of business today?
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair: We'll move on to our next item of business. That will be the appointments review. We thank our guests who have come in from various distances today.
Generally these sessions take about 30 minutes each, sometimes shorter. Each of the three parties has an opportunity to ask questions, and those who are intended appointees have the opportunity to present a bit about themselves, a bit of background, and to describe their views on the particular agency that they will become part of, if passed by the committee. Any time that they take is taken out of the government's time.
MARSHA FARNAND
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Marsha Farnand, intended appointee as member, Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Chair: Our first interview is with Ms Marsha M. Farnand, the intended appointee as a member of the Social Benefits Tribunal. Ms Farnand is with us today. Make yourself comfortable. We have some refreshments to either side of you. You're welcome to make any opening comments, as you see fit. We'll begin our questions with the third party today, according to our traditional rotation. The floor is yours.
Ms Marsha Farnand: Thank you. I do have an opening statement, which I will just read. Good morning, Mr Chair and ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee. Thank you for inviting me to this forum to further discuss my experience, qualification and skills as an intended appointee of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
I have been a front-line worker in the Ontario public service since 1992, and in this time have held several positions and have performed a variety of duties while servicing a diverse client base. I have appeared before the Social Benefits Tribunal on numerous occasions as a representative of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in my current position.
As a case-presenting officer at the disability adjudication unit, my primary responsibility is to present cases to the Social Benefits Tribunal by delivering oral submissions, responding to evidence and cross-examining appellants with respect to compliance and/or eligibility for the Ontario disability support program. In this capacity I have further developed the ability to exercise analytical, interpersonal and communication skills in responding to new medical evidence provided in hearings, and dealing with sensitive emotional and confidential matters regarding an appellant's physical and/or mental impairments.
My oral and written communication skills, specifically related to legal and medical terminology, have proven to be an asset in explaining procedures and policies to appellants and their representatives, conducting investigative interviews and also in preparing correspondence, writing case summaries and interpreting complex legislation. This position demands a high level of organization, an ability to prepare and maintain accurate, complete reports and records, the ability to apply the principles of natural justice within an administrative law context, and the initiative to develop and coordinate methods of effective case management.
This job has been extremely interesting and rewarding in many respects. The goal is always to ensure that the intent of the law has been carried out. Unlike the disability determination adjudicators, who make the final decision, the case-presenting officer has the opportunity to hear testimony of the appellant, and assumptions can be clarified and questions can be answered. Similarly, the appellant is able to receive an explanation of a decision in layman's terms and receive direction and information from the ministry's representative.
Oftentimes appellants are not represented at hearings and are intimidated by the process. It has always been my practice, if possible, to brief an appellant on what my role is as the ministry's representative prior to the hearing. I have found that by introducing myself not only as the person who is presenting the ministry's case but also as a person who is at the hearing to provide information, interpret legislation in terms appellants can understand and explain the decision of the director, the appellant is more comfortable with the hearing process.
Individuals in receipt of, or applying for, social assistance count on staff to be non-judgmental, knowledgeable and, above all, respectful. Treating people with dignity and respect is a matter of course for me when dealing with anyone. The experience and knowledge gained in these positions will make a significant contribution to the tribunal member position.
As a mediator, I have practical and current experience as a neutral individual, dealing effectively with matters relating to resolving disputes in family and civil matters. This professional experience involves extensive research and planning to maintain relationships between parties through education and understanding.
Also, as a volunteer mediator with the Etobicoke conflict mediation team, I have demonstrated experience in conducting case intake and assessment, coordination and pre-mediation facilitation, case development, and resolving disputes in mediation conferencing in both a private and community mediation setting. Private practice and volunteer experience has strengthened existing skills in identifying underlying assumptions and interests, encouraging creativity and exploring options to move toward early resolution.
Academics and training, particularly in alternative dispute resolution, and exposure to the Ontario public service, have enabled me to gain excellent knowledge and understanding of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, Ontario Works Act, regulations, related legislation, organization, policies, the development of community linkages, and the opportunity to prepare progress notes, memoranda of understanding, produce written decisions and provide training in the areas of communication and conflict resolution. These skills are directly transferable and would be an asset as a member of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Client interaction and the day-to-day responsibilities attributed to these positions provide the opportunity to exercise initiative, sound judgment and practise excellent customer service by dealing tactfully and professionally with sensitive and emotional situations.
In summary, I am confident that with my background and experience I can function efficiently, effectively and professionally as a member of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Thank you for listening, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Great. Thanks, Ms Farnand, for the presentation -- obviously very well thought out and well presented. We're starting with the third party, Ms Horwath.
Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Good morning and welcome. I just want to ask a few questions about your experience in Hamilton because that's obviously where I'm from as well. You talked in your presentation about your mediation skills and those kinds of things. In the time you have spent as a case-presenting officer in Hamilton, how would you say the Hamilton community of advocates for people living in poverty would see your style, your way of treating clients and those kinds of things?
Ms Farnand: My style of presentation as a ministry employee, as a case-presenting officer, is non-adversarial. I tend to approach clients and their representative in an information type of way. I provide information. I brief them as to what my presentation will be like in the course of the hearing and try to make them feel at ease with the decision the ministry has made.
1020
Ms Horwath: Appellants or people who are coming before the tribunal -- how would you characterize the typical person who would be coming before you in your previous role?
Ms Farnand: I would say that, generally, individuals who come before the tribunal are people in need, people who need assistance and believe they have a case to put forward.
Ms Horwath: Generally, people who are perhaps vulnerable, perhaps not in the most secure position in terms of their ability to make a case on their own behalf?
Ms Farnand: In some cases, people are able to present their case effectively. However, there are many cases where individuals need the assistance of an agent or a legal representative or sometimes even just support from a family member or a member of their own cultural community who can assist them through the process. The appeal process is not a simple one for the typical person who is in need of social assistance. Sometimes they require assistance. If it's not provided at the local ministry office, certainly --
Ms Horwath: I get that picture. I've actually been involved in this area myself in the past. I'm just wondering, if you were to be questioning someone in the process of a hearing, what would your style be? I know you talked about the pre-hearing kind of explanation and sharing of information, but how would you describe your style of questioning of an appellant during the process?
Ms Farnand: My approach in my style of questioning tends to be one of sincere interest. I really gear my questioning by being open and simply having an interest in a person's individual case.
Ms Horwath: Would you be surprised, then, if people who are advocates in Hamilton described your style as being aggressive toward appellants? Would that be surprising to you?
Ms Farnand: Yes, it would.
Ms Horwath: That's interesting because certainly that's what I'm hearing in terms of some feedback from the local community.
I want to explore a little bit your position around this particular appointment. What I'm wondering is, do you see there being any concern or, in your opinion, any issue around the fact that an appellant who would be making a second application after a Social Benefits Tribunal denial could in fact have you as, first, their CPO, and then if you're appointed to this tribunal, as their tribunal member? Would that be a problem in your mind?
Ms Farnand: That would be a conflict of interest, and certainly I would follow whatever protocols the tribunal has in place for that type of circumstance.
Ms Horwath: Would you then agree with the suggestion that perhaps, should you get this appointment, your placement should not be in the city of Hamilton since that's where your experience has been over the past while?
Ms Farnand: No, I don't agree with that. I attend hearings throughout the province, not only in Hamilton. I attend hearings as north as North Bay and as south as Windsor.
Ms Horwath: So potentially these kinds of conflicts could be rampant throughout the province, if what you're saying is it's not specific to Hamilton.
Ms Farnand: I wouldn't say it would be rampant per se. The tribunal, in terms of disability hearings, has more than just disability hearings. It has Ontario Works hearings, as well as financial hearings that result out of decisions from the local ODSP office. In my role as a case-presenting officer, I only went to hearings as a result of disability determination. Out of 600 hearings that may come before the tribunal, I may attend eight per week, and maybe eight may not go through to final disposition.
I'm not sure if I would say it's rampant, but there certainly would be the occurrence where I have attended a hearing where it would be inappropriate for me to attend as a member.
Ms Horwath: Then you're not of the opinion, or you are of the opinion, let's say, that you would be quite unbiased and that there would be no perception of bias whatsoever if you were to be appointed to this tribunal?
Ms Farnand: I don't believe -- this is my own opinion, and you're asking for my opinion -- I would be biased because of my position as a case-presenting officer at the DAU. Even in hearings I attend now, at times I'm swayed by testimony of the appellant and maybe sometimes my role is misunderstood. I am a case-presenting officer. I am there to present the case of the ministry, and although I'm not a client advocate, I am there to provide information and assist clients through the process. I would remain objective and certainly function to the best of my abilities in the role as a member.
Ms Horwath: Thank you, Mr Chairman. No more questions.
The Chair: A move to the government. Mr Levac.
Mr Levac: Just an observation and a thank you for putting your name forward. We need extremely talented people to come forward to assist our province, and I'm sure we'll find that with Marsha. I appreciate it very much.
The Chair: Nicely said. Any comments? The official opposition. Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Who's your MPP?
Ms Farnand: Ted McMeekin.
Mr Tascona: Have you talked to him about this appointment?
Ms Farnand: No, I have not.
Mr Tascona: How did you hear about the appointment?
Ms Farnand: I have been working with the ministry for quite some time and have had opportunity to deal with members at the Social Benefits Tribunal. They in fact have told me how to apply, what to do, what it is to be a board member and things like that.
Mr Tascona: Have you spoken to anyone in the appointments secretariat about this? Did you have an interview?
Ms Farnand: The process I followed, if that's what you're asking, was that I went to the Web site. I didn't send my resumé through the Web site. I faxed it.
Mr Tascona: No, I wasn't asking about the process. I was asking about whom you spoke to.
Ms Farnand: After I submitted my application, the contact that was made to me from the Public Appointments Secretariat was maybe four weeks ago. I applied in February and I heard from them maybe four weeks ago.
Mr Tascona: But did you have an interview with them?
Ms Farnand: No, I had an interview with a representative from the ministry, and that was in April. Then I recently met with individuals from the public appointments office, to prepare me to attend at this committee, on Monday.
Mr Tascona: So you had an interview on Monday?
Ms Farnand: I wouldn't call it an interview. It was more of a briefing.
Mr Tascona: What did they tell you?
Ms Farnand: Questions to expect and just the forum I would be presented with.
Mr Tascona: Are you a member of any political party?
Ms Farnand: Yes, I'm a member of the Ontario Liberal Party.
Mr Tascona: Have you contributed financially to this party?
Ms Farnand: Yes, I have.
Mr Tascona: Let me ask you a couple of questions about your role. I think you're fairly qualified. I was quite impressed by your resumé. You're very active in the community and also you have a little bit of entrepreneurial endeavour there. You're a full-time mediator?
Ms Farnand: Yes, I am.
Mr Tascona: Working for the government too.
"A leading anti-poverty organization in the province, Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) has suggested that simply building in a cost-of-living amount will not be adequate."
This has to do with the government's announcement of its intention to increase basic needs and maximum shelter allowances for recipients of both Ontario Works and Ontario disability support by 3%.
1030
They state, "The McGuinty Liberals are promising to raise the rate by 2% to 3% at some unspecified point in the future. For a single parent with one child, a 3% increase would be an additional $28.71 a month -- barely enough for a pair of shoes. This raise is utterly inadequate and inhumane."
The data would appear to show that the tenants who do get the subsidy are in private rentals; they're not in subsidized housing. What's your opinion on that? Do you think more should be done with respect to people who are in this position? You've been in the field a long time. You must have an opinion.
Ms Farnand: Yes, I do have an opinion. Clearly, one can't function the way I have, dealing with individuals receiving social assistance who are needful, and not have an opinion.
Mr Tascona: We're waiting to hear it. It's an important issue.
Ms Farnand: I'll give it to you. I think the intention of the government is there to make changes to social assistance. I know the minister has put forward some changes now. I do agree that the rates are inadequate. As a citizen, as a taxpayer, I realize we all have a social responsibility. I also realize that we have a fiscal responsibility. I hope that the changes are positive.
Mr Tascona: You'd agree that more needs to be done for these people. Wouldn't you agree with that? They need more help.
Ms Farnand: Yes. In principle, absolutely. I'm not sure if it's specifically social assistance rates. Of course an increase in the rates would enhance their living, but there need to be other programs that are looked at as well.
Mr Tascona: For example?
Ms Farnand: Community resources such as food banks or shelters, an increased space in community living, those types of things.
Mr Tascona: Thanks very much.
The Chair: Ms Scott?
Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Thank you for appearing here today. Your presentation was excellent. Following up on what Mr Tascona has said at a meeting with some of the shelter groups in the area, one idea that was presented was that the cost of shelters should flow with each client. It shouldn't just be a sum; it should flow depending on your area. Do you have any opinion on that? Have you come across that?
Ms Farnand: I do know that rental rates in Toronto, for instance, are different from those in Chatham. It's hard for me to say, from my perspective, what would be appropriate. I really don't know. It has only been my experience that the government has put forth a set amount in terms of accommodation costs.
Ms Scott: I guess I was asking if you see that might be a flexible point down the road, that the funding should go with the client, depending on where they are and what their needs are. Is that a possibility?
Ms Farnand: Maybe. That may be a possibility.
Ms Scott: OK. I just didn't know if you had an opinion one way or the other.
Ms Farnand: No, I don't.
Ms Scott: OK. From your resumé: You've certainly got extensive professional experience as a mediator. I'm just getting a sense of what you're doing right now. You're a case-presenting officer with the ministry and you're also a principal with Successful Mediation Services. Are you currently doing both, and what are your plans if you're successful with this appointment?
Ms Farnand: My plans are to put my business, Successful Mediation Services, on hiatus and to obtain a leave of absence from my present position.
Ms Scott: For how long can you apply for a leave of absence? Do you know the details of that?
Ms Farnand: Not specifically. I know that I am able to apply for a leave of absence for up to a year. After that, I'm not sure. I may have to request another.
Ms Scott: This appointment is for how long? Did they tell you?
Ms Farnand: One year.
Ms Scott: So it's a one-year appointment. How much does the position pay?
Ms Farnand: Sixty-eight thousand dollars.
Ms Scott: OK. I noticed you've taken American Sign Language. I just wondered if that was personal interest. Do you come across a lot of clients who are deaf?
Ms Farnand: At the time I took the course I was inheriting a caseload of disabled clients and I had a fair number of individuals who were deaf. It was not an endeavour that was supported by the ministry, but out of my own interest I attended this class to try and at least say, "Hi, how are you?"
Ms Scott: Yes. I don't know the Hamilton area. That's mainly where you've been, right? I know that Milton school is around there. Do you see a lot of deaf in this situation of social poverty in this job?
Ms Farnand: I have not come across an appellant who has attended the tribunal who has been deaf, and I've been doing the job for five years now. I couldn't speak to the representation or the demographics of that type of disability within the Hamilton region.
Ms Scott: That's all.
The Chair: Ms Farnand, thank you very much for your presentation. As you may know, we vote on the appointments at the end of the session, probably about 11:30 to 12; it will be around that today. Make yourself comfortable; wander around. Thank you very much for your presentation.
RICHARD CORCELLI
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Richard Corcelli, intended appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
The Chair: Next, I would like to call up Mr Richard Corcelli. Mr Corcelli is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. Mr Corcelli joins us from beautiful Gravenhurst, Ontario. The first question Mr Corcelli must answer is why he'd want to spend his time in Toronto at this time of year.
Mr Richard Corcelli: Thank you very much. I'm glad to hear you say that because we did meet about four years ago when you opened, at the Gravenhurst Opera House, the meeting of the snowmobile association. It was a packed house. You spoke, and it was a very happy night.
The Chair: It's nice of you to say that. Thank you very much. You have my vote, sir.
Mr Levac: Is that all it takes?
The Chair: I'm easily flattered, particularly after I've performed at the opera house or something like that.
Mr Corcelli, any time you want to make your presentation, and we'll begin any questions with the government side. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Corcelli: Thank you, Mr Chair, and members of the committee. I do have a written response I'd like to make, if I may.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee in its review of my appointment to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. I'm very appreciative of the chance to be considered for this appointment as it's a position in which I have great interest and one that will also allow me to continue in the field of public service.
I believe you have my CV before you. However, if perhaps I could highlight some of my work and community service experience, I believe it may show you that I'm qualified to be a member of the tribunal.
I spent 14 years with 3M Canada in sales and management before moving to Muskoka with my wife and three daughters in 1974 to start an automotive parts business. After 13 successful years with that business, I sold it and then spent two years as a training consultant with DuPont Canada and also with Georgian College.
During 30 years of living in Gravenhurst, I have served on the Gravenhurst Hydro Commission, the Gravenhurst Chamber of Commerce, the Gravenhurst BIA, the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital Board, the Gravenhurst non-profit housing board, the Muskoka District Housing Authority board, the Muskoka-Parry Sound board of health, the Muskoka Tourism board and the Muskoka Airport Advisory Committee.
I served two terms as an elected municipal councillor, both for the town of Gravenhurst and the district of Muskoka. As chair of both the Gravenhurst Development Services Committee and Muskoka's engineering and public works committee, I chaired many council committee meetings, which often had public delegations, as well as statutory public meetings under the Ontario Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Act. I believe that this experience has served me well in dealing with the public in a formal meeting environment.
I have owned a residential-commercial rental property in Gravenhurst for 25 years, which has provided me an insight into landlord-and-tenant problems with regard to the Ontario Tenant Protection Act. In fact, as a landlord I have had occasion to use the mechanisms of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
Conversely -- although some time ago, I must add -- my wife and I were once tenants of a large property management corporation with whom we faced the refusal of a damage deposit refund at the termination of the tenancy. The resolution of that issue is one which rankles me still because in those days one had no alternatives to present before a landlord other than those one could constitute oneself or through the courts. So I suggest that this background would perhaps serve me well in being familiar with landlord-and-tenant issues.
I should also mention that until recently I was a member of the Muskoka affordable housing committee executive, an advocacy group whose mandate was to raise awareness of homelessness in Muskoka and also of the lack of affordable housing.
1040
My adjudicative experience has been, for the last year and a half, as chair of Human Resources Canada Employment Insurance board of referees for North Bay, Ontario, where I conducted hearings to hear appeals from EI claimants against the commission and, following that, wrote resultant decisions. I believe this adjudicative role would prepare me for the rental tribunal deliberative process of weighing evidence and making judgments.
Just departing from my notes briefly, I would like to mention that there has been a tremendous amount of training go into preparing me for that role, both prior to the time I started and ongoing since I have been involved for the year and a half. I just couldn't be more appreciative of the time that's been spent with me in the areas of studying jurisprudence, weighing evidence, the burden of proof that arises from evidence and the deliberative process, once again, in analyzing that evidence and preparing and writing a decision. That training has prepared me, I suggest, for this role as well.
I also wish to inform the committee that I am currently a member of the Ontario Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada and have been for some years. I have contributed financially to both of these parties; however, I have not been actively involved in political campaigns since 1995. I would like to mention as well that I have supported other political parties, both financially and at the polls, when I felt the candidate was most qualified. I refer specifically to our former Muskoka MPP and former Premier of Ontario, the late Mr Frank Miller.
I'm hopeful that the committee will support my appointment as a member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, as I wish to continue in public service in the hope that my efforts will continue to make a difference for the people of Ontario. I'd be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have for me.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a nice presentation -- 1995 was certainly one of my favourite years of the 1990s. We appreciate your comments.
We start with the government members; you have seven minutes.
Mr Levac: I appreciate deeply your candour and putting things out front so we can discuss them. First of all, my thanks on behalf, I assume, of all of us for your contribution to the province and to your area. It's obvious by your curriculum vitae that you are very dedicated to your area and to the service of the public.
You indicated a background in the last little while that would serve you well. Is there anything that you would bring to the table besides your perspective as an owner? On the landlord side, it's very clear. On the tenant side, are you suggesting that your background in rental housing and homelessness is where your balance is coming from in terms of looking at this as a tribunal issue?
Mr Corcelli: I hope it wouldn't leave me overbalanced. Obviously, when one sits in an adjudicative role, one has to take a very equitable approach to both sides of an issue.
I can tell you that my experience as a chair of the Employment Insurance board of referees has shown me that many times appellants are really intimidated by the process. We hope to show them that they need not be. My assumption is that perhaps all chairs and members of tribunals attempt to do the same thing. I have often felt a lot of compassion for people who deliver themselves into that process while having the feeling that perhaps they've been thrown to the lions. Certainly, that isn't the case in my experience.
I do have some sympathy for homelessness and for the unseen homeless, I think I could say. One would think that in an assessment-rich place like Muskoka there are no homeless. There are many, in fact, and there are many degrees of homelessness. People sleep in cars in the summertime, and while they don't freeze to death, that's not a very pleasant way to spend their time.
We've been exposed in our area to the different levels. I'll attempt to answer your question by saying that I do have some sensitivity and I'd like to see that folks like that have a better stance.
Mr Levac: Thank you so much. That's it from my perspective, Mr Chair. I don't know if anyone else has anything. Again, thanks to our applicant for his contribution to our province.
Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I'm delighted to see someone who works in and visits North Bay often.
The Chair: There you go. Bonus points for you on that one.
Ms Smith: Exactly.
The Chair: Thank you very much, folks. On to the government members.
Mr Tascona: Yes.
The Chair: Sorry. Boy, time flies.
Mr Levac: It's a habit.
The Chair: It is. Official opposition, Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: I share those thoughts with Monique quite extensively.
The Chair: I was thinking back to 1995.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for coming here today. I appreciate that. I just want to ask you a few questions. You have no legal background, I take it?
Mr Corcelli: I have no legal background. However, I have studied some Nipissing University courses in Canadian law.
Mr Tascona: The appointment as chair of the EI board of referees -- what period of time would that cover?
Mr Corcelli: I think it's a three-year appointment with the possibility for a renewal of a second term of three years.
Mr Tascona: You do the hearings in Gravenhurst?
Mr Corcelli: No, I do them in North Bay.
Mr Tascona: You're a landlord, I understand.
Mr Corcelli: Yes, I am.
Mr Tascona: Where would you preside? Where are you going to be doing the hearings if you are on this rental housing tribunal?
Mr Corcelli: I think I understand where your question is coming from, and it's the issue of a conflict with perhaps known people. I have been advised somewhat informally -- we haven't gone into this in any depth with the rental housing tribunal -- that I likely would never be assigned to any cases in my immediate or even broad community for the purposes of attempting to stay away from any situations where I might be familiar --
Mr Tascona: Your landlord holdings are in the Gravenhurst area?
Mr Corcelli: Yes, they are in Gravenhurst proper. It's one residential property, one apartment. It's not what you'd call broad holdings by any means.
Mr Tascona: It's a matter of interpretation.
Mr Corcelli: Yes.
Mr Tascona: That's a fair comment.
In the situation of presiding, though, your understanding is that you would not be presiding in the area where you reside.
Mr Corcelli: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: That's good to know. Have you appeared before the rental housing tribunal?
Mr Corcelli: No, I have not. I did at one time explore the mechanisms of it with regard to a tenant. I'm happy to say that we were able to resolve the issue through a mediative process; not a professional one, as the former witness has referred to, but a mediative process which allowed us to resolve the issue and move a tenant into an apartment which was more to their financial situation.
Mr Tascona: Do you recall when that was, the year?
Mr Corcelli: If anybody could help me, it was on the night of Maurice Richard's funeral. So I'm going to say that it was about three years ago, maybe four.
Interjections.
Mr Corcelli: Is it three?
Mr Tascona: Yes, 2001. That's the last involvement you've had with the rental housing tribunal?
Mr Corcelli: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: That was in your own area?
Mr Corcelli: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: I noticed on your resumé that you've got a little bit of involvement here with golf: starter/play coordinator, ClubLink Corp/Lake Joseph Golf Club, and then starter, Taboo Golf course and resort, Gravenhurst.
Mr Corcelli: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: Is that what you've been doing in your time? I was looking at your resumé and that's what you've been doing, I guess, in your summer periods, as well as being the chair of the board of referees.
Mr Corcelli: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Is there anything else you're doing in the community that would be of an employment nature?
Mr Corcelli: No, that's the only thing. Mr Tascona, I have to tell you honestly, I worked about two shifts a week at those golf courses. Anybody who golfs would know -- certainly those who golf in Muskoka -- that it's extremely expensive and so ostensibly what one earns through those two little shifts is the capability to play some wonderful golf courses at no charge. In fact, I played twice this year and once last year. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not there was any great benefit to it, but it isn't something I pursue as a means of employment. It's more an opportunity to be outside around golf, which I love, and meeting people.
Mr Tascona: I just want to make sure I understand what you're doing in the community besides that. So that's a fair comment.
Maybe Laurie's got some questions.
Ms Scott: Thank you very much for appearing here today. You're still the chair of the EI board of referees?
Mr Corcelli: Yes, I am.
Ms Scott: Is that going to be going on? I'm sorry if I missed that earlier. How long is that for?
Mr Corcelli: I assume it's going to be ongoing. Believe me, I have really wrestled with that issue to some extent. My hearings have been, on the average, about once every four or five weeks, closer likely to five weeks or four. As you can see, I only meet perhaps at the most maybe 11 times a year. I have made an assessment that that won't create a conflict in terms of time management, particularly because the position I've applied for is one of part-time member, where I understand from the rental housing tribunal that the amount of time one spends is the amount of time one accepts. It isn't necessarily working to a very specific caseload of four days a week or four and a half. I've made the decision, on the advice of the people at the tribunal, that I will be able to maintain both positions.
1050
Ms Scott: Can I ask, how much does the board of referees pay? Is that a per diem also?
Mr Corcelli: Yes, it's $400 per diem, and one does not get mileage and one does not get payment for preparation.
Ms Scott: You don't get mileage for going to North Bay, is it?
Mr Corcelli: No.
Ms Scott: Interesting. OK. This is a part-time position. Did they inform you how much it paid or how much time is going to be involved? I guess both those questions, please.
Mr Corcelli: I understand that it's $200 per diem while sitting and $100 per diem while preparing, but because I am not able to make the extension of the number of days that potentially a part-time member might work, I'm not able to suggest to you what the total earnings might be. But one could suggest, if there are 250 workdays in a year, I guess it could max out at $50,000. I don't know that; nor do I think I wish to work 250 days a year.
Ms Scott: Did they give you some idea of how much time would be involved?
Mr Corcelli: I'm sorry, they did not.
Ms Scott: But you still feel you should be able to balance it?
Mr Corcelli: Yes.
Ms Scott: I'm not experienced on how many hours the board also includes. How did you find out about the position, then?
Mr Corcelli: A friend of mine, who had been a previous municipal councillor in an adjoining constituency, had been a member of the rental housing tribunal, and his term came to expiry this past spring. He told me about the tribunal and suggested it's something that might interest me as a former municipal councillor. I also had a friend who had applied and been accepted and who made the election not to accept the appointment to the tribunal. So through those two, I became familiar with the tribunal and applied to the Public Appointments Secretariat.
Ms Scott: You mentioned homelessness before. Have you come up with any creative ideas in your community to deal with the homeless issue and affordable housing? That's a big issue in a lot of Ontario communities.
Mr Corcelli: Ms Scott, as a legislator, I don't think you likely want to hear this from me, but it's an issue of money and creativeness. We know that many people in Muskoka are faced with the issue every month of food or rent, and it's not a very difficult decision to make when one has the choice of feeding their family or paying their rent.
There is no affordable housing in our community. Actually that's not correct; there's not enough affordable housing in our community, and our advocacy group worked on concepts to improve that. I have to tell you, without the support of both this House and your colleagues in Ottawa, it's very difficult to provide additional housing from the property tax base. So it is a tripartite requirement, for the answer, and when we all decide to pull together, I believe we'll be closer to the answer.
Ms Scott: Just on a similar topic, do you have any idea how many affordable housing units you need in the area?
Mr Corcelli: I'm sorry, I have known that, but I don't have it at hand just now.
Ms Scott: Thank you very much for appearing here today. That's all, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Ms Horwath, the floor is yours.
Ms Horwath: Good morning. Just out of curiosity, how many rental units would there be in your area? What's the proportion of renters versus homeowners?
Mr Corcelli: I'm sorry, I don't have that information.
Ms Horwath: Not even 20%, 10%?
Mr Corcelli: I can tell you that if you read some of the consultative papers that have been released as a result of the current government's investigation into the tribunal, it mentions a high vacancy rate in Ontario of, I think, about 6% or 8% and one that's expected to increase. The vacancy rate is expected to increase in the next couple of years. I can tell you, that's not the case in my community.
Ms Horwath: That was my next question. What would the vacancy rate be in your community?
Mr Corcelli: I'm sorry, I can't give you the data, but I believe the data would support the fact that we have a very high demand rate. Our units are full. One of the things this results in, even though rent control has been changed to the extent that a landlord is not subject to rent control when a tenancy ends, it suggests that there can be negotiation between landlord and tenant for the new rent. By and large, I would suggest that doesn't happen in our area. That only happens when there is competition for available housing. I hope that answered your question.
Ms Horwath: It does.
Mr Corcelli: I don't have information specifically on statistics.
Ms Horwath: That's fine. I'm wondering then, following on your comments, what would your take on the current legislative framework be? Do you think the Tenant Protection Act is a good framework right now? Do you think it balances the needs of tenants and landlords appropriately? Since you've been a tenant and now you're a landlord, what would your assessment be of the current legislation versus previous legislation like the Landlord and Tenant Act?
Mr Corcelli: Ms Horwath, I don't want to be reticent in answering the question. As you know, what I am applying for here is an adjudicative role, not one that would interpret or make policy -- it would interpret, but it isn't one that would make policy. So I don't know if it's appropriate for me to comment on the consultative process.
Perhaps what I could say is, I believe there is more room for mediation. Mediation is an element that is available within the Tenant Protection Act, but I don't believe it is used sufficiently, nor has it provided sufficiently for tenants. As you know, if tenants get mediation, it's on the same day as a hearing. I don't know that one is in the right attitude or mood on that day to get into the mediative process when one is preparing to get into the adversarial process with a landlord. I would just hope that there might be an opportunity for improvement of the mediative role for people who, by and large, as I said earlier in response to a previous question, are intimidated by the tribunal process. Goodness, even the title of a quasi-judicial tribunal is terrifying in itself for some people. I wish we could call it the People's Court or the people's tribunal, something people were familiar with from television.
Ms Horwath: Judge Judy.
Mr Corcelli: Exactly.
Ms Horwath: I have one final question, and it's along the same lines. At the time when the legislation changed, you were a councillor in the town of Gravenhurst. Part of the legislative change was challenged by several cities in Ontario, particularly around the Rental Housing Protection Act and the loss of the Rental Housing Protection Act in Ontario. Some communities felt it was extremely problematic, that the ability of owners of property to simply convert to condo or tear down usually affordable rental properties was problematic and was going to cause an exacerbation of an already tight housing market. Did this come up at your town of Gravenhurst discussions when you were with the non-profit housing board or in the development services committee? Did you discuss it at all, and were you aware that other communities were taking on this very issue?
Mr Corcelli: I would have to say that we did not. I sat on both those boards. The Muskoka District Housing Authority, as you likely know, is essentially management of Ontario Housing Corp units, which no longer exist. They've been taken over by the district of Muskoka.
I would have to say that we were not part of that process, and I don't think it was because we avoided it; it's because I don't think we had been made aware of it. I think a better job could be done in the consultative process. Even what's being done currently, what was done this spring, I think, was done in large communities in Ontario.
The dynamic with regard to rental housing in large communities is very different than it is in communities of 15,000 people, as is ours. We only have two elevators in Gravenhurst. That will tell you that we don't have massive apartment buildings. And even one of those, I think, is in a public building rather than in a residential property.
I have the impression that smaller communities are not involved sufficiently in the consultative process to which you refer, and perhaps there's room for improvement there. Does that answer your question, Ms Horwath?
1100
Ms Horwath: Yes. It wasn't actually part of any consultative process of the former government. Quite frankly, it was a matter of changing the policy completely, and some communities proactively sought to challenge the government's decision by bringing in municipal bylaws to cover off rental housing protection. Certainly the city of Hamilton -- and I know the city of Toronto and others did -- in fact took it through court processes when the government challenged our ability to do that. In fact, landlords' associations were also challenging municipalities in their decision to take municipal bylaws to cover off rental housing protection.
Mr Corcelli: We did do that. We did enact a property standards bylaw.
Ms Horwath: No, this isn't property standards. This is particularly the prevention of demolition and conversion to condo of rental housing, but that's fine.
Mr Corcelli: My recollection is that we did not participate in that process.
Ms Horwath: No problem.
The Chair: Mr Corcelli, thank you very much for your presentation and responses to members' questions. I think as you know, we'll probably get to the vote on -- I guess it's called the concurrence, if I use the proper term -- around 11:30 or so. So make yourself comfortable.
Mr Corcelli: Thank you, Mr Chair and members of committee.
The Chair: Good seeing you again.
KEVIN DOYLE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Kevin Doyle, intended appointee as member, Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Mr Kevin Doyle, interestingly of the C.D. Howe Institute. Welcome, Mr Doyle, to our committee. He is an intended appointee as a member of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, aka HPRAC. The floor is yours. The questions will begin with the official opposition.
Mr Kevin Doyle: Mr Chairman, honourable members, I'll keep my remarks brief and I'll try to answer any questions you may have for me.
I was honoured to be invited to become a member of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, or HPRAC. Should you see fit to approve my nomination, I can assure you I'll make every effort that I'm capable of to uphold that trust.
You may well ask, what does a relatively long-in-the-tooth journalist and editor with some experience covering wars, politicians and business leaders bring to a council charged with, among other things, advising the Minister of Health on whether professions should be regulated and whether regulated professions should be unregulated, whether the Regulated Health Professions Act should be amended, whether quality assurance programs undertaken by the colleges meet the required standards or, indeed, deal with any related matter referred by the minister?
For one thing, I have a career-long interest and modest involvement in public policy, in its formulation if not its implementation. I also have an abiding respect for public service, although until recently I've not been in a position to be part of it. I know I would bring independence with no obligation to any political party, interest group or ideological organization to a council whose effectiveness and usefulness depends ultimately on protecting that status. I think I would bring in an innate sense of fairness, an openness to the issues and a commitment to weigh all sides of a referral before making a decision.
As well, I've thought for a long time that few areas are as befogged by poor communication as the broad field of health care, the professions that administer it and the people who use it. As someone who's been fighting for more than 30 years for clarity and openness in written communication -- you'll notice I don't make the same claim for my own verbal communication -- I believe I can make a valuable contribution to making complex issues transparent and understandable to everyone who needs to know, and that literally is everyone in the province. That is what I would consider to be my greatest accomplishment.
I think I'll leave it at that in case I begin sounding like Mark Twain, who often started his speeches by saying, "I'll begin by telling you what a remarkable person I am, then I'll describe all the wonderful things I've done for the community and I'll conclude by saying some things that are true." Thank you very much.
The Chair: I might have to steal that one. Thank you, Mr Doyle, for your presentation; its brevity as well. We start with the official opposition; any questions?
Ms Scott: Thank you, Mr Doyle, for appearing here before us today. You do have quite an extensive background in foreign correspondence and as a parliamentary and economics reporter. I wonder if you could expand a little more on why you're interested in the health care sector or why another appointment to another board may be corresponding more to your previous experience.
Mr Doyle: First of all, I was invited to join by the chair. I thought about the invitation for several days. I did some research and came to the conclusion that I could make a contribution to the improvement of one aspect of the health care system. I can't think of any field that's more deserving of our attention than health care generally, and I think HPRAC is a very essential part of that.
Ms Scott: So you haven't had a lot of professional background. Has there been personal involvement, family members in the health care system? Is there something that led you to this?
Mr Doyle: Oh, sure. Yes, family members extensively.
Ms Scott: You said you were asked by the chair. Who is that?
Mr Doyle: Barbara Sullivan.
Ms Scott: So the chair of the board?
Mr Doyle: Of HPRAC, yes.
Ms Scott: Did she know you before? Do you have a connection with the chair?
Mr Doyle: We've known each other for many years.
Ms Scott: There are a lot of issues that are outstanding with regulatory bodies, and tackling the doctor shortage certainly is one of them. Do you have any comments or do you know anything about physicians' assistants? I know they're used in the States. It's been a topic that's been broached off and on over the last several years. Do you have any background or know anything about physicians' assistants and how they might fit into our health system?
Mr Doyle: Only what I've generally read. I know it's an issue that HPRAC will certainly be actively involved in examining, but I don't frankly know the sides of the issue well enough to say where I stand on it.
Ms Scott: Nurse practitioners certainly have been a topic and have been allowed to have more authority in their profession. Do you agree that it's appropriate for nurse practitioners to have that authority? Do you feel they should have more, or how they fit in, especially in underserviced areas in Ontario?
Mr Doyle: Let me say I think generally, yes, it's a good thing. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to keep coming back to saying that it's not an issue that I am yet familiar with in any detail. I will be. If my nomination is approved, I will become very knowledgeable about it, but at this point I'm just not comfortable in giving a detailed opinion.
Ms Scott: I'm sorry, I'm not sure where you live. Do you live in an underserviced area for doctors in Ontario?
Mr Doyle: No, I live in Leaside, in Toronto.
Ms Scott: We in rural Ontario are in quite --
Mr Doyle: I come from rural Ontario.
Ms Scott: I'm sorry, you come from?
Mr Doyle: Rural Ontario.
Ms Scott: Where is it you --
Mr Doyle: Fitzroy Harbour.
Ms Scott: OK.
Mr Doyle: Ottawa's near there.
Ms Scott: OK. We're having quite a struggle to meet the needs. I know in the city of Kawartha Lakes alone, we're short 15 family doctors, which is quite significant and impacts the delivery of health care on the front line.
I was just interested in anything you've heard. It has been in the papers all the time; health care's been the number one topic. Are there any thoughts you had in being creative about how to service the needs of the doctor shortage areas or any of the professions that you may regulate, to expand on them to help us out, I guess, in rural Ontario?
Mr Doyle: I wish I had a good answer. I think one --
Ms Scott: I'm just trying to get some background on what you've been following.
Mr Doyle: One approach that's now getting some consideration is recognizing the credentials of doctors and other health professionals who obtained their credentials abroad and either providing training before they emigrate or bringing it up to Canadian standards as soon as they do. I think that's a promising trend, a promising area to pursue.
Ms Scott: Absolutely; I agree. We benefit in the small community I'm from in obtaining a new foreign-trained doctor for our community, so yes, definitely the expansion of that and anything we could do to expedite that process.
Yesterday, the dental hygienists were here, and they've been promoting to try to get deleted out of legislation the fact that they need a dentist's order to go and see patients. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Doyle: I am.
Ms Scott: Do you have any opinions on that?
Mr Doyle: Again, I don't yet. I'm familiar with the issue. I'm familiar with the stories that have been written, but I just don't know the two sides well enough.
Ms Scott: You're certainly coming to this board with an unbiased approach to a lot of topics.
Mr Doyle: Yes.
Ms Scott: OK. Mr Tascona?
1110
Mr Tascona: I have a couple of questions. I'm just trying to find out, are you a member of any political party?
Mr Doyle: No.
Mr Tascona: Have you ever been a member of a political party?
Mr Doyle: No.
Mr Tascona: You said you were contacted by or you contacted the chairperson?
Mr Doyle: The chair contacted me.
Mr Tascona: Have you had any contact with your local MPP about this?
Mr Doyle: No.
Mr Tascona: Who's your MPP, do you know?
Mr Doyle: Kathleen Wynne.
Mr Tascona: You've had no discussion with her on this appointment?
Mr Doyle: I haven't.
Mr Tascona: Who have you discussed this appointment with in the secretariat?
Mr Doyle: I had a brief discussion with someone in the secretariat this morning, just before I came over here.
Mr Tascona: What was involved in that?
Mr Doyle: It was a briefing about what to expect, about the process. It was a general briefing.
Mr Tascona: Just a briefing to tell you what process you would be facing and more information about what your appointment was?
Mr Doyle: No, we didn't discuss the appointment itself at all. I've discussed that with Barbara Sullivan.
Mr Tascona: So your discussion this morning was just about what the process was?
Mr Doyle: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Your background -- you haven't really had any involvement in the health care field.
Mr Doyle: No.
Mr Tascona: So what do you think you're going to be able to bring to this exercise?
Mr Doyle: I think I can bring independence. I think I can bring openness. I think I can bring the ability to really hear all sides of a case, the way you hear all sides of a story.
Mr Tascona: Is there anything in particular you think should be done, that you want to do now that you've got an opportunity?
Mr Doyle: Well, as I mentioned, I think the general field of health care is one of the worst reported and least understood of any issue or field in the province, and I'd like to play a small role in improving the level of communication as it applies to health care, to the professions and to the people who use it, which is basically everyone in the province.
Mr Tascona: Do you think any professions should be recognized that aren't at this point?
Mr Doyle: I don't know. I'd certainly listen openly to any profession that wants to be regulated.
Mr Tascona: Are you aware of any other professions that want to recognized?
Mr Doyle: Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine is one that I'm aware of. There may be others.
Mr Tascona: Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr Doyle: I don't, because I haven't heard their case.
Mr Tascona: That's all the questions I have.
The Chair: Ms Horwath, the floor is yours.
Ms Horwath: The official opposition did a good job of going through the issues, but there is one thing that wasn't raised that I thought it would be appropriate to ask. Similar to the last question, there are also professions that at times want to deregulate. They want to have their profession deregulated. Are you aware of any that you know of currently or do you think there are any out there that might be appropriately deregulated?
Mr Doyle: I'm not aware of any and I don't know of a case for any that should be deregulated.
Ms Horwath: Are you aware that there's a process underway, that one of the projects right now is to look at whether there are certain criteria or whether there's a certain checklist, if you will, of considerations that should be gone through in a case of deregulation? Are you aware of any of that debate that's occurring right now or the project that's currently underway?
Mr Doyle: You mean issues of harm or potential harm?
Ms Horwath: Yes, I mean putting a framework together, putting a stringent process together to evaluate whether or not deregulation should take place.
Mr Doyle: I'm generally aware of it, yes.
Ms Horwath: Do you have any opinions on that?
Mr Doyle: No. I haven't discussed it with anyone. I haven't heard or read the sides, but I will.
Ms Smith: Mr Doyle, I would just like to thank you on behalf of our government for putting your name forward and for offering your services. Despite my colleague Mr Tascona's somewhat insulting tone at times, I think it's important that we recognize that you have a --
Mr Tascona: Mr Chairman, I don't need to be -- who are you to characterize myself as that? I think it's out of order and I want an apology right now.
Ms Smith: I wasn't characterizing you, Mr Tascona, I was characterizing your tone, which I think --
Mr Tascona: If you want to go outside and call me that, you go right ahead.
The Chair: Folks --
Mr Tascona: You wouldn't do it outside, so don't do it in here.
Ms Smith: Oh, Mr Tascona, you're being a bit melodramatic.
Mr Tascona: Why don't you grow up?
The Chair: Members --
Ms Smith: If Mr Tascona is that offended, I do apologize.
The Chair: Well, let's drop it. Let's bring the tone down. We've conducted the meeting in a very nice tone to date. We should give the respect Mr Doyle deserves, so let's complete the questions.
Ms Smith: Absolutely. The intention of my submission this morning was to give Mr Doyle the respect he deserves and to thank him for serving. I think not only is it commendable but it's laudable that you're coming to this committee with fresh, though seasoned, eyes and I appreciate that you will bring that perspective to the committee. So I want to thank you for offering your services.
Mr Levac: Mr Doyle, I'm very impressed and want to thank you again. Your background has indicated that the wealth you bring to the table will be very beneficial to us in terms of your history: C.D. Howe, Maclean's, Newsweek, Bloomberg etc. I'm sure you've been able to see pass your desk an awful lot of articles that had an awful lot to do with our health care system, and as you've pointed out, your personal desire is to have a small part in improving our health care system. Inside of this appointment there will be some very controversial discussions, requests and proposals to talk about. Can you just fill us in a little bit, in terms of being an editor, being a person who has to deal with what goes inside of those publications, on the style you have to bring in order to make sure those particular kinds of issues would translate into what it is you're going to do on the board, and bring some of those fresh eyes, as my colleagues said, to the discussion? How do you match that obvious talent you have and put it into the committee work?
Mr Doyle: I guess by being very deliberately open, open to all sides of an issue and making sure you get all sides of an issue, and once you've done that, developing a consensus, helping lead a consensus to a conclusion. Whether it's favourable to the cause that's before you or unfavourable, I think can't influence you.
Mr Levac: I appreciate that, and Mark Twain probably did get it wrong, although he was right most of the time. I want to thank you for your contribution to our province and to North America, actually. We appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Doyle. I think as you've heard we're going to move to concurrence after Ms Reid's presentations, so feel free to stick around and enjoy the show. Thank you for your presentation.
PATRICIA REID
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Patricia Reid, intended appointee as member, Town of Fort Frances Police Services Board.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Ms Patricia Reid, the Fort Frances Police Services Board. I believe I have Ms Reid's biography with me, who calls Fort Frances home. This is a bit of a drive from Fort Frances this morning, so you must have got up bright and early. There was also another Pat Reid from Fort Frances, the former provincial member from Fort Frances, I believe, and recently with the Ontario Mining Association.
Ms Patricia Reid: Yes. He's my husband's cousin.
The Chair: There we go. Welcome, Patricia -- also my sister's name, by coincidence; a nice name -- to our committee. I think you've been in the audience and you know how it works. These Hansard clips may come in handy some day. We'll begin any questions with the third party after Ms Reid's presentation. The floor is yours.
Ms Reid: I want to thank you, Mr Chair, and members for this opportunity to address you. As to my personal background, I'll just be expanding on my resumé a bit, my community involvement, as well as my reasons for reapplying for a position on the Fort Frances Police Services Board.
Firstly, I must make you aware that I was an appointed municipal member of the Fort Frances Police Services Board for five years prior to last year's November municipal election, and also let you know that Fort Frances is a section 10 board, which is OPP-manned and has been since 1996. In the past I served a six-year term, between 1986 and 1992, on the Fort Frances Municipal Police Commission.
1120
I am Fort Frances-born and -bred, born in 1947. I'll let you do the math. I was educated locally until entering the University of Wisconsin, where I earned a bachelor of science degree in physical education and English in 1970. I was granted my education degree by Lakehead University in 1972.
I married my high school sweetheart, Tom Reid, Pat Reid's cousin, in 1968. We were both hired by the Kenora-Keewatin school board to teach physical education and geography in the 1970-71 school year. We also coached every sport that was in the athletic repertoire -- new teachers, big jobs. The following year we found ourselves back in Fort Frances, myself to Fort Frances High School as a teacher-coach and Tom to take over the family business, which we still operate today.
We have three children, two girls and one son. The girls are 31 and 29 respectively; my son is 28. Our eldest daughter is married and is a municipal employee in Fort Frances. She calls herself the "physical educator." Her father mistakenly called her the "recreation director." My second daughter is here in Toronto, pursuing a fashion design career, and my son is at home, waiting for his certification to become a teacher in local education.
My community involvement began during my teenage years. I helped coach in the elementary system and was very involved in the high school community, student government, band, yearbook, varsity sports, the whole lot. I had a great role model as far as community involvement was concerned: my mother. She still found time, while raising six children, to be involved in the community. She had hospital auxiliary, she had time to contribute to foster care and many service clubs. She was my role model. That's why I started to participate at such a young age.
During the 1970s, I continued to supply-teach and coach. I was involved as a parent-teacher assistant in my children's classrooms. I also accepted the position as district campaign manager for the Canadian Cancer Society, in which I'm still involved today.
The 1980s brought new challenges and involved children: two terms on the district school board; a new business -- I called it the Canadiana Shop and some people call it a tourist trap; the beginning of a 12-year term with the business improvement association, where for four years I was chair; a chamber of commerce member; and a municipal appointee to the police commission in Fort Frances.
During the 1990s, I curtailed my community involvement for a period of approximately three years because of health problems. But in the winter of 1996 my health greatly improved and I decided to continue to be a contributing member of the Fort Frances community.
The 1996 agenda included a summons to serve on the MORE board, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario. I was the northwestern Ontario representative. The purpose of that board was, and still is, to ensure equitable and fair distribution of available organs in Ontario. When I was on the board, we changed the name and it became Organ Donation Ontario. It's now under the auspices of the government and its name is the Trillium Gift of Life Network. I served on this committee for five years.
As well, I had an appointment to the economic development committee of Fort Frances, where I have served for approximately eight years, the last four of which were as chair. The EDC committee's main focus is retention and expansion, which means maintaining the businesses we have in Fort Frances and also trying to attract new businesses to our area to expand our economic base.
This has proven, however, to be a very daunting task in this period of budgetary cuts. In order to pave the way for new industry and business in Fort Frances, the town council has instituted a tax incentive plan which basically was developed by our local economic development committee.
At the urging of a friend, soon I was also involved in fundraising for the three district hospitals, one in Fort Frances, one in Atikokan and the other in Rainy River. They're known as Riverside Health Care Services. The special events committee has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is used mainly to enhance patient services and to purchase needed equipment. Sometimes the tax and government dollars don't cover all those things.
In 1997, the Rainy River district community policing committee beckoned. Its mandate is to act as a liaison between all the district communities and the local police services. In this case our whole district is OPP-served. It's to provide a safe environment in which to live, work, play and prosper.
A subcommittee of the community policing committee that I sit on is the school violence prevention team. Its members are made up of educators, administration from the schools, parents, and service groups such as the United Native Friendship Centre. We also have people from the SAP program, the safety coalition and four members from the community policing committee. Its mandate is to address the problem of violence and bullying throughout the school system, to find solutions to said problems and to educate the public and the students as to the ramifications of such offensive behaviours.
The committee's results are, in my opinion, quite astounding. Through our getting together with those members, the school board has approved zero tolerance for bullying and violence within the school community. They've also initiated an anti-bullying curriculum, which is taught in both the elementary and secondary panels.
We have established an OPP liaison office in the high school. We introduced Crime Stoppers to the secondary system, and one event we're very proud of is an expansion of the DARE program to include grade 10. We had an OPP officer who sat on our committee and took it upon himself to Canadianize the grade 10 program, which had been borrowed from the United States. It is a first in Canada.
We received a certificate from the Ontario crime fighters, mainly because of the expansion of the DARE program to the grade 10 level. Right as we speak, we have just been nominated for a safety award -- this is the school violence prevention team -- by the local chamber of commerce.
My reasons for reapplying for this position on the Town of Fort Frances Police Services Board are numerous. Firstly, I've enjoyed the challenges presented to the board at the local level. I also relish the problem-solving aspects of the position. I would bring to this position many years of experience on various community committees as well as the two sessions on the police services board. These experiences that I have cited can only aid in the information factor needed in the decision-making process. One cannot make informed decisions in a vacuum.
Ontario's police services boards are charged with providing communities with effective and adequate policing, which includes responsibility for law enforcement, crime prevention, maintenance of public order, assistance to victims of crime and of course emergency response. If all of these cited responsibilities are met, the end result should be an adequate and efficient policing agency and a safe environment in which to live, work and raise our children, because a safe environment is a necessity of living. Thank you very much for your time.
1130
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Reid, for your extensive presentation. Before we begin with Ms Horwath, I'll just let the government members know that Ms Reid's presentation has taken up all but two minutes of your time, so be preparing any questions that you may have. Ms Horwath, the floor is yours.
Ms Horwath: Welcome. I'm going to ask the first few questions because you didn't mention them in your speech, and that is about your party affiliation and donations to political parties.
Ms Reid: I am a card-carrying Liberal.
Ms Horwath: You donate to the Liberal Party on a regular basis?
Ms Reid: Yes.
Ms Horwath: I'm just wondering if you could tell me why it was that the municipal council didn't reappoint you. Were you at the end of a term?
Ms Reid: Yes, I was pretty close. It was five years. I thought also of opening up the municipal appointee, therefore getting new people on to the board, and hopefully there could be a provincial appointment on my behalf.
Ms Horwath: So you didn't apply through the municipal process -- you waited for this process?
Ms Reid: I was encouraged to by the police services board that I had just left, and then I applied to the ministry. I had a conversation with Mary McDonald and filled out the application form. I also had an interview, and then I was asked to have my resumé sent to the standing committee.
Ms Horwath: You gave a really good description of some of the initiatives you've been undertaking in the community, and they're quite impressive. What would you say continue to be the main, outstanding policing issues in Fort Frances?
Ms Reid: Public safety, of course, reduction of violent and property crime, and I think it's very important too that we educate the public. Educating our youth and the use of the DARE program is very important; also, community policing is very important. Our community policing officers are teaching the DARE program in the schools; children are getting to know them on a human level -- not just the person who's wearing the uniform and driving the cruiser, but as a person, and I think that's very important.
Ms Horwath: It's interesting because in my community there's always a struggle between the requirements of reactive policing, because of crime and other of-the-moment issues, and the more proactive approach that you're talking about, the more crime-reduction, proactive approach. Any suggestions on how you find ways to make sure that you cover off the reactive, of course, but find the resources for the proactive?
Ms Reid: That seems to be the problem right now, as always with any group. The budget is one of the major problems, but we find with combining resources like the school board, the SAC committee, the safety coalition, whatnot, they're very willing to give to those causes that involve children. That's where we're focusing our education at this point in time; you know, get them while they're young.
Ms Horwath: So through other connections and other networks with other community agencies.
Ms Reid: Yes.
Ms Horwath: One of the big debates currently in the province of Ontario is the use of photo radar. Do you have any opinion on whether photo radar would be a good thing for the community of Fort Frances?
Ms Reid: Again, and I hate to repeat this, we are having all sorts of budgetary problems, and apparently it has been downloaded to the municipal level, so it's a thing I can't see happening in Fort Frances in particular. I would never want the appearance of a police officer in a cruiser to leave the situation. I think it's another tool, but I don't think it should be one or the other. It has to be together. Then again, it's always the financial cost.
Ms Horwath: Just on a similar issue of current trends -- and you mentioned children a lot in your discussion -- one of the things we see a lot of the communities in Ontario doing is the red alert, where there's an alert code and children are put into the corner by the teacher's desk to be safe and sound in case there's a terrorist attack or some kind of attack on the school, or someone wielding a gun. Do you have any opinion on that approach and whether or not it's something that would be appropriate to look at on a broader scale across the province?
Ms Reid: I know the school board in Fort Frances has an emergency measures act in each and every school. As to the details of that, I'm not quite sure. Because it's such a small community, there's always this communication between the police force and the schools. Again, it's basically because of the DARE program that the police feel comfortable in the teaching and school community. The administration of the school board feels very comfortable in asking their advice.
Ms Horwath: So at this point, something like that wouldn't be necessary or appropriate.
Ms Reid: No.
Ms Horwath: The last question is just around officers themselves. Again, I'm not sure in your particular experience whether this is an issue -- I know it has come up in some of the larger centres -- and that is the issue of drug testing for police officers. There's some debate as to whether that should be a normal process or a regular event that takes place -- a policy that's put in place by the police services board in terms of monitoring officers, particularly those who are dealing with vice and drug-type areas. Any opinion on that?
Ms Reid: I know it's a fact in some areas of our lives already: professional sports, Olympic athletes. Some major industries do it as well. Myself, I feel that probably some random testing, maybe, but I'm not quite sure. I think I'd need to hear more about it before I could state my opinion.
The Chair: To the government members.
Mr Levac: Very briefly, I deeply appreciate your service to the community, obviously. I understand the switch you're making. That happens in a lot of the communities across the province. Thank you for your contribution to the democratic process.
You mentioned police resource teachers in the schools. Just a little bit of bring-and-brag: We were the first jurisdiction to have it in Ontario. It was very successful, and I congratulate you on working with the OPP and the schools to put that in.
Do you have any background or understanding of what's happening in the new trends regarding senior resource officers for senior citizens in ridings? Has your police services board ever brought that up in terms of protection and all the different things that are happening to seniors?
Ms Reid: No, we don't have anything formal in place, but I know that the community policing officers are very involved with the senior citizen centres in Fort Frances, and that's how they make their communications back and forth. But there's nothing formal as far as I know.
Mr Levac: A great first step. I think, Mr Chair, I'll leave it at that. I know we're scoped for time. I appreciate it.
The Chair: To the opposition.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for coming here today. I appreciate it.
I just want to ask you a couple of questions in terms of policing, because the NDP member covered most of it. You've got some experience on the board. The police complaints civilian oversight system is currently under review by the Attorney General. Do you have any thoughts on whether the system should be changed? What has been your experience on your board with respect to police complaints?
Ms Reid: So far, it has been handled internally, as most places in Ontario, but I think if it comes into fruition, some civilian oversight wouldn't be something that I would be against.
Mr Tascona: There may be a cost to that with respect to that type of bureaucracy. There may be a cost coming on to your own board. Are you aware of that?
Ms Reid: Well, I wasn't thinking of the cost factor; I was thinking that it might be a volunteer position.
Mr Tascona: I think the system that was in place prior to our government did have some of the -- in the current system, there's an internal process within your police board.
Ms Reid: Police policing themselves.
Mr Tascona: Then we have OCCPS, which would review that, which is the public review.
Ms Reid: Yes, those are the steps.
Mr Tascona: I think what they're looking at is whether there should be another step or whether there should be no internal process, the internal process being replaced by a public process and then OCCPS review. What are your thoughts?
Ms Reid: I wasn't aware of that.
Mr Tascona: Yes, that's what had happened before. The first step was a public process, similar to the Human Rights Commission in terms of an intake officer and then a complaint review -- a bureaucratic process. I think it was quite litigious, actually, with respect to police officers having to get representation, not only at the first stage but also at the second stage. Would your view change on that if it was changed to that type of process, a two-step public process, as opposed to the internal versus the OCCPS review, which is currently in place?
1140
Ms Reid: Either/or? I think that the inclusion of some sort of civilian or outside agency would be to the advantage of all parties.
Mr Tascona: And there is currently.
Ms Reid: Yes.
Mr Tascona: The OCCPS is a civilian overview.
Ms Reid: Yes. And I think that --
Mr Tascona: So that's the current system. Would you think that the current system is satisfactory, then?
Ms Reid: To my knowledge, it has worked so far. I haven't heard anything extremely negative about it. But I'm always open to suggestions. If it's not working in other places, then maybe it's time to review it.
Mr Tascona: But in Fort Frances it has been working, the police complaints process?
Ms Reid: Yes. But if it's something that needs to be addressed, by all means, it should be.
Mr Tascona: I hear your caution.
How much do you get paid for your board?
Ms Reid: I haven't been on it for a whole year; I've forgotten. It's very minuscule.
Mr Tascona: You mentioned some financial issues and some pressures for your area. The town of Fort Frances policing services is currently under an OPP contract.
Ms Reid: Right.
Mr Tascona: Do you favour keeping this arrangement in place?
Ms Reid: Very much so. It is a bit more expensive, but the perks, the things that we are able to access because of the OPP affiliation -- if the crime scene investigators come from Thunder Bay at a moment's notice and whatnot. Before, it was if you're a municipal force police, they'll get there, but now that we're part of that whole process, things move a lot faster.
Mr Tascona: In your opening statement you indicated -- and I may not have it correct, but you can correct me -- your husband, who is Tom Reid, is related to -- ?
Ms Reid: Patrick Reid.
Mr Tascona: To Patrick Reid.
Ms Reid: And John.
Mr Tascona: Is Patrick Reid involved with the Liberal Party?
Ms Reid: He was at one time.
Mr Tascona: What was his involvement?
Ms Reid: He was the MPP for our area.
Mr Tascona: So Patrick Reid was the MPP for Rainy River. Was he also the president of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Ms Reid: Not to my knowledge.
Mr Tascona: And you've indicated you're a card-carrying member of the Ontario Liberal Party?
Ms Reid: Right.
Mr Tascona: I take it you've contributed financially to the party.
Ms Reid: Yes.
Mr Tascona: Those are all my questions. Laurie has some.
Ms Scott: Thank you for appearing here today. I want to add my thanks, as Mr Levac has, for your community involvement and especially for your work with the youth programs in your community.
I didn't know if youth crime was high in Fort Frances or not, but has there been a difference since you've started the programs with youth in the schools?
Ms Reid: The principals tell me the incidents are down. They're the people with power and in control, and they keep track of it. So if they say they are, I guess I have to believe that they are. It is a problem.
Ms Scott: It is? Higher than the average?
Ms Reid: Oh, no.
Ms Scott: But it is just a problem.
Ms Reid: Yeah. And because it's such a small community, everybody hears about it, and it grows. There might be a fight in the schoolyard, and all of a sudden it's blown out of proportion and it becomes a major topic.
Ms Scott: So when you were on the police board, was there a lot of youth crime? Was there discussion about that? Were there concerns about the amount of youth crime in the area?
Ms Reid: Yes. The community policing officers, I must say, are doing a fabulous job. They spend a lot of time not just involved with the DARE program, but they make their presence known. The liaison office in the high school has really worked, because the kids know when they're there. There's a sign out saying that they're on duty. They have their own office, and they come in and discuss.
Just walking down the hall is a deterrent, as there were some things going on in the hall, some swarming and things like that. Because of the presence of the police officers, all that seems to have disappeared.
Ms Scott: So you do agree with the OPP? You used to have a municipal policing --
Ms Reid: Yes.
Ms Scott: How many years has that been gone now?
Ms Reid: They made the change in 1996.
Ms Scott: So we're at eight years. That's a lot.
Ms Reid: Into our second contract.
Ms Scott: Was there a lot of difficulty in the community, a lot of hurt feelings when the municipal police force was taken away?
Ms Reid: Actually, when the OPP took over, those officers that were in place on the municipal force were allowed to move to the OPP. I wasn't on the police services board then, but I think they had at that time six months or a year in which to decide whether on not they wanted to stay or if they fit into the program.
Ms Scott: So the community kind of just evolved and there wasn't much conflict? I just ask that because other communities in Ontario are looking at those issues, and I wondered about your experience in the past.
Ms Reid: For us it has worked well, in my opinion.
Ms Scott: That's all, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for your comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our members. Ms Reid, thank you very much for your presentation and for responding to our members' questions.
We now move to the concurrence part of our consideration in the same order that the intended appointees appeared before us. We will now consider the intended appointment of Marsha M. Farnand, intended appointee as member of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Mr Berardinetti: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Mr Berardinetti moves concurrence. Any discussion?
Ms Horwath: I'm a little bit concerned because during Ms Scott's questioning, the intended appointee indicated that she was, in fact, mostly responsible for the Hamilton area, which totally contradicted what she said to me, which is that it was a broad responsibility across the province. I really do have some concerns that were raised by advocates in my particular community, who have real concerns that a CPO shouldn't move directly from that position to a position on the tribunal, suggesting, in fact, that it causes serious concern in terms of the public interest in terms of whether or not the public has confidence in the ability of the tribunal to remain unbiased. So as a result, I won't be able to support that appointment.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. Anything further? Seeing none, I will now move to the vote. All in favour of the intended appointment of Ms Farnand? All those opposed? It is carried.
Interjection.
The Chair: Make sure you say it next time.
We will now consider the intended appointment of Richard J. Corcelli, intended appointee as member of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I move concurrence.
The Chair: Concurrence in this appointment has been moved by Mr Lalonde. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of this motion, please raise their hands. Any opposed? The motion is carried. Mr Corcelli, congratulations and best wishes to you.
We will now consider the intended appointment of Kevin Doyle, intended appointee as member, Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
Interjection.
The Chair: Concurrence in this appointment has been moved by Mr Berardinetti. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour? Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried. Congratulations, Mr Doyle, and all the best on HPRAC.
We will now consider the intended appointment of Patricia J. Reid, intended appointee as member, Town of Fort Frances Police Services Board.
Interjection.
The Chair: Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by Mr Berardinetti. Any comments on Ms Reid's intended appointment? Seeing none, all those in favour? Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried. Ms Reid, congratulations. Definitely worth the trip here from Fort Frances this morning.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Mr Tascona is indicating he wanted to bring up a point in other business. Let me, as Chair, say two things to begin with: Members should know there will be no meeting next week or the week thereafter. The next meeting of the committee is currently scheduled for November 17, 2004. Members will know that constituency week is the week before that, I believe, and we should have more intended appointees to review for November 17.
Before Mr Tascona's point -- I think I know what Mr Tascona wants to bring up -- I think we have enjoyed in this committee to date a very professional and civil round of discussions and debate, and I ask members to continue that tone. The floor, Mr Tascona.
Mr Tascona: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Do we have some appointees to review for November 17?
The Chair: At this point, no.
Mr Tascona: The determination of the date for the committee to meet -- it's my understanding that the subcommittee was to make those decisions, and it appears to be made by the call of the Chair. That's not my understanding of how it should work, and it has been working that way.
The Chair: Well, listen, I'm new to this Chair position --
Mr Tascona: No, I'm not talking about you; it happened before too.
The Chair: I'm willing to work with the subcommittee on the appropriate dates. My understanding right now, is there are no appointees to review, so unless there is other business we could attend to, there are no appointees to review. We anticipate some for November 17.
1150
Mr Tascona: But in the future, Mr Chairman, if the subcommittee could be consulted, if we work together we can determine the dates. I think that's how the process is supposed to work, from my understanding of the orders for this committee. If that's OK, I would like that to be the future practice.
The Chair: I have no problem as Chair. We can get together as a subcommittee in the near future to discuss that. My understanding is that there's a system in place where the certificates come from -- is it the Cabinet Office, the appointments secretariat? -- to let subcommittee members know which OICs have gone through. Subcommittee members then indicate through the Chair those they'd like to call forward. We don't have any certificates that have come forward, and as such no appointees to review until at least November 17. That having been said, if we get the subcommittee together in the near future, we can do so.
Mr Tascona: All I'm asking, and I think Lorenzo is nodding agreement and so is Ms Horwath, is that we be consulted so we can agree on the dates. We're not trying to hold up any appointments, but I thought that might be an approach we could work on.
Mr Berardinetti: Maybe the committee clerk could explain the process -- I think she has before -- in the sense that if appointments do come up before then, the Chair could meet with the subcommittee to arrange a meeting date before November 17. That's my understanding. Maybe the clerk could explain.
The Clerk of the Committee (Susan Sourial): There's always a time lag between receiving a certificate and getting the subcommittee to choose a selection. The last certificate was a week ago Friday. There were no selections, so we have nobody to interview next week. The next certificate won't come out till this Friday, and the next selections won't be till next Thursday. So the next meeting couldn't be until constituency week, and there's no meeting in constituency week. So because of the time lag in the process, we can't have a meeting before the 17th because there are no selections from the subcommittee.
Mr Tascona: That's fine, but I think the subcommittee should be consulted about dates. That's all I'm saying.
The Clerk of the Committee: The committee meets every Wednesday if there are intended appointees. If there are no intended appointees, there's no meeting.
Mr Levac: The dates are already established, Joe.
Mr Tascona: Wednesdays. OK, that's fair.
The other thing I want to comment on is with respect to getting the background of the appointees and also getting information on the particular agencies. Is it possible for those to come together, as opposed to getting them separately?
The Clerk of the Committee: That was an error.
Mr Tascona: There seems to be a time lag on that.
The Clerk of the Committee: Usually they should be sent out together. There was an error.
Mr Tascona: That's fine.
The only other comment is that I do take exception to the remarks made by the member from North Bay with respect to what was said there. I do not appreciate it, and I think it's unparliamentary. I ask her to withdraw that and apologize right now.
The Chair: Ms Smith, any comment?
Ms Smith: I certainly wasn't making any characterizations of the member from Simcoe; I was characterizing his tone. I did apologize earlier, and if he took offence, I apologize again.
Mr Tascona: Noted.
The Chair: Fair enough, folks; we'll consider the matter concluded. We look forward to our next meeting. If we get a chance for the subcommittee to get together in the meantime, we'll look forward to seeing your friendly faces again. Thanks, and have a good afternoon.
We are now adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1158.
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 October 2004
Subcommittee report A-233
Committee business A-233, 249
Intended appointments A-234
Ms Marsha Farnand A-234
Mr Richard Corcelli A-238
Mr Kevin Doyle A-242
Ms Patricia Reid A-245
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East / Hamilton-Est ND)
Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North / Thunder Bay-Superior-Nord L)
Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East / Hamilton-Est ND)
Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln PC)
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)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research officer,
Research and Information Services