CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 October 1993
Intended appointments
Dr Murray Waldman, Licence Suspension Appeal Board
Jean Pigott, Ottawa Congress Centre
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mr McLean
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mrs Witmer
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1021 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order.
MURRAY WALDMAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Murray L. Waldman, intended appointee as member, Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
The Chair: The first intended appointment for review this morning is Mr Murray Waldman as a member of the Licence Suspension Appeal Board.
Mr Waldman, would you like to come forward and have a seat? If you would like to address the committee with some brief opening comments, you may.
Dr Murray Waldman: No.
The Chair: All right, we'll just start in rotation then. This was a selection by the government party. Dr Frankford, would you like to start?
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I must say, as someone who's been in practice for many years myself, I can't recall ever actually reporting anyone. Do you have any thoughts on the extent to which the reporting system works?
Dr Waldman: As you know, I'm chief of the emergency at Toronto East General Hospital. We have a policy of reporting anybody who should be reported under the act, and we even have form letters that are to be filled out and sent in to the Department of Transport. As to what percentage of these are complied with, I would think a fair percentage, but it's certainly not universal.
The act is quite broad in what you should report people for. I would think a lot of physicians either don't know the act or just don't bother. I would say the compliance is probably -- at least in my place, I would like to think we get about 75%, but I couldn't guarantee it.
Mr Frankford: This would be in your particular setting.
Dr Waldman: Yes. In a private physician's office, I would imagine the compliance is very low, to be honest with you.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts on the extent to which the public is jeopardized by underreporting?
Dr Waldman: In theory, I would imagine they are. In practice, running a busy emergency department for many years, I haven't seen, certainly, generalized carnage or people getting into trouble because they haven't been reported, either because of seizures or due to diabetes. I imagine it must happen, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.
Mr Frankford: You've not been appointed yet, so you don't have any direct experience with the board. Do you have any idea of how it works?
Dr Waldman: Yes. Some of the gentlemen here have explained it to me in a fairly detailed way, so I do understand the mechanism and how it works.
Mr Frankford: So you would review case histories.
Dr Waldman: Of people who were applying to have their licences reinstated after having them removed, yes.
Mr Frankford: Have you any experience directly in something like that?
Dr Waldman: No. I have indirectly written letters on patients' behalf who want to have their licences reinstated. But I've never been in the position to reinstate them.
Mr Frankford: It sounds like an interesting challenge.
Dr Waldman: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Presumably things like diabetes would be quite problematic at times.
Dr Waldman: Yes, diabetes and epilepsy seem to be the major ones, at least that I encounter in my experience.
Mr Frankford: I'm on another committee where the college spoke to us -- in fact it was about the reporting of health card fraud. They mentioned some of the difficulties in reporting and liability. I believe there was a fairly recent case in which some physicians were criticized at an inquest for not reporting, and then some said, "Okay, I'll err on the side of caution and overreport."
Dr Waldman: There are two issues involved and I'm intimately involved in both of them. One of them is the ethical issue involved in confidentiality, which is a large issue as to at what point does the public good supersede the patient's right of confidentiality. This is one of the things physicians are cognizant of when they're deciding whether to report people for various things.
The other issue is the legal one, are you liable if you do report somebody for something: (a) a breach in confidentiality; and (b) a lot of physicians don't want to open the can of worms of saying this person is unfit to do something because of the potential litigation. I think that certainly weighs heavily on a lot of physicians in their decision-making.
Mr Frankford: Is there someone else?
The Chair: Yes, there are four. Ms Carter is next.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome, Dr Waldman. You really do seem to be a great person for this appointment, because you've got the medicine and particularly the emergency medicine on one side and the ethics interest on the other, which really seem to cover it pretty well.
I see also that you were the founder of the child abuse prevention program at Regent Park, which is an interesting sideline to this. I just wondered if you could tell us a little bit about that and how you became involved.
Dr Waldman: I was one of the founders, I wasn't the founder. I was one of a group of people that put it together. Really, what it was -- we lived beside Regent Park and we knew a lot of people who lived there.
I guess what we saw when our children were young is that one of the contributing factors to child abuse or child neglect seemed to be that parents, especially single mothers, were trapped in an apartment with a child 24 hours a day, nobody else to look after them etc.
We got together with a whole bunch of parents, not only from Regent Park but from the neighbourhoods and the local environs, and formed what was really a cooperative nursery so that the mothers could drop their kids off. They would work for one day a week there and the other four days they'd have three or four hours to get out.
We expanded that to have a toy-lending library. Everybody would bring in a couple of toys that they had and the other people could take them home. If the mothers wanted, they could come and sit around and have coffee. It was a very inexpensive thing, but it provided people with a break, which seemed to work very, very well. This was years ago, but I think it's still running. I've lost contact with it, as my children are now teenagers and into a whole new set of problems.
Ms Carter: Yes, it sounds a bit like a family enrichment centre we have in Peterborough, but I'm sure something like that can be a lifesaver to very many people.
Just one other point: We mentioned a couple of conditions, diabetes and epilepsy, that can be very relevant to driving and, of course, the other one that we hear about is alcoholism. I was just wondering if you could tell us anything about how these conditions interact with the question of driving.
Dr Waldman: The reason that diabetes and epilepsy are classically cited is that you can get a loss of consciousness and sometimes with extremely little warning, especially in diabetes.
1030
Ms Carter: Even with modern medications?
Dr Waldman: Yes, especially in epilepsy. With modern medications it's less, so the issue is that you really don't want somebody to be losing consciousness while they're driving. Alcohol and other things that impair cognitive functions are far more difficult to assess. Alcohol is obvious, but there are lots of other things that will impair people cognitively while they'll still be conscious. The whole spectrum of neurological diseases of aging, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's etc might impair somebody's ability to drive.
I have very strong feelings about alcohol, but there is legislation. How well it's enforced is another issue entirely, but I think things that leave people cognitively impaired are far more dangerous than things that leave them physically impaired. You can get hand controls for somebody who doesn't have feet that work very well, but it's harder to pick up somebody whose brain is not working very well. How you assess them and how you decide whether they're fit to drive is a very important issue.
Ms Carter: Do you feel happy about having to draw the line in individual cases as to whether somebody should drive?
Dr Waldman: I think the important thing here is individual cases. Like I say, in diseases like epilepsy where you lose consciousness, your end point is fairly well demarcated. In something like Alzheimer's, where you have a slow deterioration of mental function, it becomes much more difficult to legislate that you should take somebody's licence away at this point rather than that point. I think what probably is needed here is a far better education campaign to the public and especially to physicians as to the dangers of people driving who are cognitively impaired.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Waters, and then Ms Harrington.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I wanted to ask about diabetes. It's one of the things that I've had a number of constituents come in over. I know what the law is at the present time, but is the law indeed outdated? With modern medication, in a lot of cases these people are saying that a person who has a bad heart has just as much potential for an accident as they have.
Dr Waldman: I would tend to agree with you. I think that the diabetic part is probably anachronistic in a lot of ways. Diabetics do get into trouble, but usually they have a fair warning that they're getting into trouble and tend to pull off the road. Also, with modern monitoring equipment you can tell fairly quickly where your diabetes is at.
Diabetes by itself is not a criterion for losing your licence; at least in my understanding of it, it's only if you've had periods of unconsciousness because of diabetic seizures or coma, but this is becoming more and more unusual. I think physicians are aware of this, and very rarely do I see physicians taking somebody's licence or applying for it because somebody is just diabetic. You have to be very poorly controlled.
Mr Waters: The problem doesn't seem to be so much with a licence to drive a car. It's people who hold A and D licences, professional driving licences. I guess I fail to understand why it's all right to drive a car but it isn't all right to drive a five-ton truck.
Dr Waldman: I don't see that at all. I agree with you entirely. I think that it's a relative but not an absolute contraindication to an A and D licence, or it should be, as far as I'm concerned. If people have control, there's certainly no reason why they can't be doing everything everybody else is, and in fact with new technologies on the horizon of insulin pumps and tighter control, I think this will probably cease to be an issue in the next few years.
Mr Waters: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Ms Harrington, there's one minute left.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): The appeal board certainly tries to bring justice to people, as most appeal boards do. What changes would you see? I know you're probably not that familiar with how the board is operating at the moment, but would you envisage any changes to, say, whether or not the panel should travel across the province and whether or not there should be more people involved on the board?
Dr Waldman: I wouldn't know, to be honest with you. I have no idea of the volumes and who you are seeing. It seems to me that you're judging things on evidence and the evidence should be fairly hard. In other words, it should be based on clinical reports and that.
I don't know if people have to travel across the province. You might be able to just, I would think, do it by submission rather than having people show up. It might not be necessary if the evidence that's provided is clinically valid. I don't know why the person would have to show up before the committee.
Ms Harrington: Some of these things maybe the board will be facing questions about, how they proceed.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thanks for coming before the committee. The briefing notes I have here brought to light a concern that doctors do have of revealing any sort of clinical or medical condition that may cause them to be unfit to drive. When this is reported, I gather that doctors feel pressured that when the patient or the client does not get a licence, they are blamed for this. I presume the question was asked, how this could be done where the doctors would not get the blame to say, "I have just reported you because I revealed your medical conditions to those who are issuing the licence." They feel blamed about that.
Dr Waldman: I think you're looking at an issue, as I said before, of confidentiality versus public good. What I would think is that it should be made very clear to physicians that they're indemnified under law from any liability by this. Some of us know this, but a lot of physicians might not.
If you would advertise or let physicians know that it's their obligation to report people, just like you do in child abuse, and that the law will indemnify you against any prosecution for this, then I think the issue becomes much easier. If a physician would just tell a patient: "You've had this condition. The law requires that I report that you may be unfit to drive. It's up to the motor vehicle branch to decide to take your licence away or not. I'm not taking your licence away from you. I'm just notifying the branch, as I am required to do by law."
I think physicians have to know that they are indemnified and that this is a legal responsibility on their part. Otherwise they're placed in a very bad position, as you state.
Mr Curling: The question I have may have nothing to do directly with your role but will impact indirectly sooner or later. Lately I've been having quite a few people coming into my constituency office about the driving school and the operation and how people are being given licences. They suspect somehow that there is -- how would I put it? -- a lot of coercion, a lot of little influencing going on between the driving school and the Ministry of Transportation. That may be away out of your role, but what happens, they feel, is that many of the incompetent drivers who are coming out of there are because of how that is being done. I know you're not on the board yet, but would that be a concern to you if we're getting a stream of people who are not being tested properly? In any system, it subjects itself to some sort of manipulation or some coercion in some respect. Would that be of concern to you?
Dr Waldman: I think it's of concern to everybody. There have been lots of proposals brought forward about people being given provisional licences or the first few years that you have a licence you can't drive on the highway or you can't drive alone and things. I think there might be, like we have in hospitals and everything else, a probationary period of being licensed that might address these. I can't speak to whether there's collusion between driving schools and the Ministry of Transportation, but I would think some of the proposals about conditional licences or probationary periods might address this issue.
Mr Curling: The reason I ask you that is because it seemed to me within this board it has the power of revoking licences. Those who will be issuing permits for vehicles, if I understand it correctly, may revoke or refuse to renew a licence for the performance of a vehicle inspection or what have you. I thought that within that area I asked a sort of closer monitoring could be done. Maybe you're not the individual who should do that, but I'm saying it will still have an impact on that.
Dr Waldman: It could. I really don't know.
Mr Curling: I have no further questions.
1040
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): First of all, doctor, I'd like to thank you for serving on this board. I think it's important that we have people of your background putting their names forward and coming up and serving on appeal boards like this. I'm sure it takes away from your time in your practice, which would no doubt be more satisfactory in terms of monetary compensation, but I do appreciate and my party appreciates your doing this kind of thing.
One of the concerns I have with regard to the appeal board is how a citizen of Ontario gets involved with the board. It relates, as Mr Waters has said, to an experience with a constituent of mine who was a truck driver and found, only when he went to renew his licence, that his licence was being denied to drive a truck because of diabetes, which he had had for some considerable period of time, five or six years, but was well controlled.
I would really like to hear your comments with regard to the whole process of how a citizen gets involved with the appeal board. I guess I'm most concerned about how the citizen is confronted with this law. It seems to me harsh and unusual that one day a truck driver has a right to make a living and then the next day, all of a sudden, he finds out he doesn't. In the meantime, it's very, very difficult for him, of course, to live. I think the whole process is very cruel to the citizen at this time.
Dr Waldman: I would in large measure agree. It seems that nobody should be surprised to find out that they're being denied a licence. In other words, if they haven't had a seizure or some time when they've been medically unfit to drive, I don't believe that they should have their licence revoked. I think that if somebody is surprised to hear that they are not getting their licence renewed, then the system has broken down. I can't imagine a circumstance where somebody would have to appear before the committee and not know why. The mere fact that they have diabetes certainly doesn't constitute -- I think one in 12 people or something has diabetes to some extent or another. So we're certainly not removing licences holus-bolus.
Mr Sterling: I don't think it's a question of appearing before the appeal board without knowing why. It's a question of going along for a period of time -- I think this gentleman was three or four years or five years with diabetes. He claimed to me that it was well controlled and that he followed the dietary instructions as well with regard to his diabetes. He'd never suffered any unconsciousness. So I guess the concern to me is that the law should be such that it says, unless we get this thing straightened around within six months or a year, you will have an opportunity to appear in front of this appeal board before we take your right to livelihood away from you. There should be a notification process.
Dr Waldman: I agree with you entirely. I can't understand how somebody would all of a sudden, who has never had a problem with their diabetes, lose his licence. I don't know what the mechanism for that was.
Mr Sterling: It did happen to this gentleman. He was under this tremendous pressure during the period of time and fortunately the appeal board dealt with him in a favourable manner, but it was not a pleasant process. I didn't feel that the notification process was adequate.
There's no doubt you will be confirmed today in terms of your appointment. I'd like you to make some recommendations to this committee, if you feel so inclined after you have served on the appeal board, as to how you see the process could be improved. I know it's difficult as an appeal member to do that, but when there's a direct request from a member of a committee to make some kind of recommendations as to how the process could be improved, I think it has to be improved some way. At least my dealings with it does not seem to have been satisfactory in terms of how citizens are dealt with. I'm not sure it's just the appeal board; I think it's some of the steps that lead to it.
Dr Waldman: I think one of the things that you're saying and that bears looking into is that you have one body that takes away licences and a second body that's totally non-related that either gives them back or keeps them away, and that there perhaps should be stronger coordination between these two bodies. That seems to make eminent good sense to me.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would just like to add -- I can't really say anything different from what's already been said to you -- I'm glad that you're coming forward to participate on this board. Like other members have indicated, I've had situations that have come into my constituency office where I feel that proper information has not been presented to a person who finds receiving a cold letter in the mail that their livelihood has been taken away. I think it's absolutely essential that greater steps are taken to ensure that reasonable communication is extended to these people, if indeed they're medically unfit to be on the road. You have a big responsibility and it's a difficult job, I know, in dealing with the branch of the ministry that initially makes the determination based on medical reasons, and I suppose you have to review the medical information that's presented to you.
You have another responsibility and that is dealing with the vehicle inspection standards. I guess that's probably something you'll have to acquaint yourself with further.
Dr Waldman: I certainly know absolutely nothing about that, to be honest with you.
Mr Arnott: I suppose there'll be other people who are more inclined to understand the mechanics of the motor vehicle, but you'll be involved with the medical decision more so.
Dr Waldman: I would hope so.
Mr Arnott: I hope that you will take the advice forward that you've received from the committee members.
Dr Waldman: I certainly will.
Mr Frankford: Could I ask a point of information, maybe for the researchers, for Dr Waldman, but does the board provide a report or an analysis of its work? There's obviously a considerable interest in what it does, so I think that could be very useful to enlarge our knowledge of what it's doing.
The Chair: In fairness to Mr Yeager, if he wishes to answer that question, Mr Yeager doesn't have to write a report after the interviews, if that's what you were wondering.
Mr Frankford: I meant the board itself, whether it has any detailed annual reports.
Mr Lewis Yeager: I don't have any specific annual reports from the board itself, but I'll check that and find out and report back to you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Waldman, for appearing before the committee this morning.
1050
JEAN PIGOTT
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Jean Elizabeth M. Pigott, intended appointee as member and chair, Ottawa Congress Centre board of directors.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment is that of Jean Elizabeth Pigott as the intended appointee as member and chair of the Ottawa Congress Centre board of directors. I'd like to welcome you. If you wish, you may make some brief opening comments to the committee.
Ms Jean Pigott: I would like to. I'm a saleswoman, and you always bring some material.
Thank you very much for having me, because I have a little bit of a story to tell you. If I could just give you some history about the convention centre, it is 10 years old. We actually celebrated our 10th anniversary last night, along with the Westin Hotel and along with the shopping centre, the Rideau Viking 300-store shopping centre, which is beside us.
This is Confederation Boulevard, the heart of the capital, and I've marked in a dark colour here the position of where the congress centre is. Ten years ago, this was one of the most remarkable urban renewal projects because this was a rather desolate area and the decision of three governments to put in the convention centre, which has 70,000 square feet -- we can serve 3,500 people for dinner, that kind of thing, plus the shopping centre, plus the hotel.
I have spent a great deal of my life in the urban planning area. Let me tell you one of the despairs of North America and many other cities in the world is what is happening to their core areas. A lot of major cities are dying because they have not planned well to save the core part of their area, to keep people downtown, to keep retail downtown and to put in the right kind of transportation. The interesting thing about this area in the 10 years, 80% of the people who use this core area come by transit. We still have a car problem but, you know, there's never ever enough room for cars. Anyway, this is a success story.
Now the congress centre was built --
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms Pigott. I don't wish to interrupt you, but are you going to be very long?
Ms Pigott: No. Just quick, quick.
The Chair: All right.
Ms Pigott: Now what has happened in the 10 years, it is a success story because we've had three million visitors, we have produced 560,000 bed nights for the hotels, over $200 million has been in direct expenditures by delegates and by taxes. It got into a little trouble. March 23, I received a phone call from the Premier's office asking if I would take over the congress centre as chairman because there had been some supposed mistakes made by the board. I agreed to take it for six months because I wanted to walk in to find out what was happening.
Three things: First of all, we had a special audit and the special audit is now complete and it has shown that there was no fraud, but there were mistakes and we have 26 recommendations for the MOU, plus all the other things to do. The second thing that I have discovered in the six months I have been there is that there is a future for conventions. We're in a depression. There's no doubt about it. It's been tough. But I am going to say to you here that after my research there is definitely slow growth but a decided growth in the convention business, so I believe the convention centre has quite a good history for the next 10 years.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Pigott. This was a selection by the official opposition. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Ms Pigott, for coming in, so we are able to ask you a couple of questions and have you inform us a little bit more about the centre. You say that it ran into a bit of trouble. I don't know if I'm reading properly, but it runs about $50-million deficit each year. Is that right?
Ms Pigott: Yes. It's more than that. It's $200 million at the moment.
Mr Curling: Each year?
Ms Pigott: Each year, yes.
Mr Curling: That's not a little bit of problem, it's a huge problem at a time when we are looking at trying to make sure that we run things efficiently. None of this is your fault at all. I gather that one of the problems that contributes to this situation is that the congress centre is either too small for certain things or too large for certain things; therefore, it doesn't generate the kind of money that it could do or be competitive. Since the Premier called you and said, "Would you like to take this thing over?" how do you see coming out of this awful deficit that it generates every year?
Mr Sterling: Could I just ask for a clarification? You said the loss was $200 million?
Ms Pigott: Me? No, $200,000.
The Chair: I think maybe we should wait till we get to your turn in rotation.
Mr Sterling: No, I just want a clarification of the figure.
Ms Pigott: It was wrong.
Mr Sterling: It's $200,000.
Ms Pigott: Yes, $200,000, sorry. I'm still back in the NCC days when I was talking millions.
Remember, it was designed and built, like most convention centres, 10 years ago. Remember the thinking 10 years ago: it was built as a loss leader. It was expected to lose $1.2 million a year and would be subsidized by government for that amount -- this government, the Ontario government. We have quite a good track record. It was coming down to half a million; it's now down to $200,000. You're perfectly right.
My first thing I attempted was to find out how on earth -- what do you do? Because I come from the business world, I expect places to operate profitably. I asked the minister if I could find out some way to find some financial stability for the next three years so you could turn it and you could find the kind of volumes you needed. What I had asked the ministry was if I could find a way -- I went to a bank with my business plan to show how I could break even operationally with the Ontario government giving a guarantee.
I have gone to a bank, the banks have looked at my business plan and they have said, "If the Ontario government will guarantee your loan," in three years' time I will break even and I will begin to turn it into a profitable situation. How do you do that? First of all, you take a look at your marketing. We've done six months of very good research, we've built links with the tourist bureau, we've built links with the hotels. I'm appalled to tell you that for three years there was no concerted advertising to go out and find new business, even in the depression or recession. So the marketing is one thing.
The second thing is, you could turn a profit in that place -- I know you can within three years -- partly by being very efficient. We have gone through a restructuring. I've taken over $225,000 out of the overhead of the place. The social contract is another thing but, sheer management of the asset, we've taken $225,000 out this year. It won't show up till next year, but that's part of it.
The other one is capital. There's no way that kind of a centre can produce enough money for capital, but that's up to government. If we should increase, I'll put a business plan together or we'll put a business plan together that shows we need it. At the moment, we're only running at 54% occupancy. Most convention centres that are really successful and make money -- and there are only a handful in North America -- run about 70% to 74% occupancy. We don't need to grow any further at this particular point. Yes, I would love to have more display space, but that can be rectified by technology and better management.
Mr Curling: Governments haven't got the luxury any more to run loss leaders.
Ms Pigott: No, they can't, absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr Curling: I presume the government has guaranteed you that it will continue to run some sort of loss leader, hoping that it could turn around within a certain time by guaranteeing the loans. I gather the congress centre spent thousands of dollars fixing the floors. The fact is, should that fail, who pays for that?
Ms Pigott: I believe that, because we are an economic generator, we produce -- our taxes that we have paid in the last 10 years have covered any of the deficit that you have covered over the years, but the moral problem is that you should not be running on deficits. You have got to go out with a very clever marketing plan and you have to make certain that the private sector is involved in your marketing so that they're taking the initiative and the risk.
Secondly, when it comes to capital, I believe that either the regional government of Ottawa, the national capital region, or else this government, if there needs to be capital spent -- but it would have to be based on a return to those governments. We don't need to do anything at all. Thank goodness this government -- and I thank it very much for the money to repair the floor, because it was a health and safety issue; it had to be repaired. Now it's repaired, last year, we won the BOMA award, the government building award for preventive maintenance. It's in good shape. You have a very good asset in that place.
1100
Mr Curling: You come to this congress centre with a lot of experience, a lot of expertise; as a matter of fact --
Ms Pigott: Lots of mistakes too.
Mr Curling: -- with your great business sense. Could I ask you this question then: If you had the money, would you buy that place for the private sector?
Ms Pigott: I think if the national capital region would accept the challenge that we are meant to turn into a convention and tourist centre, as the second metropolitan area in Ontario, fourth largest in Canada, we've got an asset that has never been fully exploited, which is the fact that we are the capital of Canada.
Mr Curling: I understand that.
Ms Pigott: If, for example, there was the kind of marketing plan that must be put forward by all the partners, let me tell you I have a hunch that the private sector would say: "That's a pretty good asset, in good shape. Maybe we should take responsibility for it."
Mr Curling: If I understand you properly, you're saying if the government pumped enough money into this thing and --
Ms Pigott: No, no.
Mr Curling: In other words, they did so far with the floor. I think government has to start making some very, very important decisions on things that they're pouring into and not getting back the money. I think the services could still be there. I don't want to sound too much like a Conservative here to say that --
Ms Pigott: I sort of thought you were, sir.
Mr Curling: -- only the private sector could run the business, can run businesses, because there is of course something too that the congress centre can contribute to society as a whole. Do I understand you properly to say that provided there's an adequate amount of money put into that to maintain it, like what the government has done in putting in the floor, bringing it to a sort of standard, that the private sector would be very willing to then buy it at that time because it's viable?
I don't know how long I have, but the bottom line I'm trying to --
The Chair: You have one minute.
Mr Curling: The bottom line I'm asking here is that continuing on that same train and taking over as chair of this, with all the problems that it has, what time frame do you give it to say -- you said you only want it for six months?
Ms Pigott: Yes.
Mr Curling: What time frame would you give it to say, "We're on the right track, we're okay and we will be making a profit from this," or "It can maintain itself"?
Ms Pigott: I believe within three years, less than that probably. Remember, the Ontario government has committed to give us money till 1995. I believe that within three years, with this new board that's coming aboard and a new general manager, we will have it operating at break-even or profit within that three years.
I have no money for capital, but I don't think we're going to need any capital in the next three years. I do not think we're going to need any expansion in the next three years. On the other hand, unless I and the team we put together can work with the private sector, with the tourist industry and all those affected, the federal government, the NCC and the federal partners, to create a marketing strategy to bring people to the capital -- one of the fastest-growing areas in conventions is the pre-package beforehand and post-package afterwards, and let me tell you, I've dedicated my life to bringing children to the capital.
I've watched Washington for too many years and have seen how they always bring children to their capital. I think we ought to have packages that when you come to a convention in the capital, you'll bring your family ahead of time, for the weekend before or the weekend afterwards. That's the fastest-growing area in the convention business. That's what I'm after.
The Chair: Mr Sterling.
Ms Pigott: I get going.
Mr Sterling: First of all, I'm extremely pleased, Jean, if I may call you that, Ms Pigott, that you were able to take this appointment. To get someone who was a president of one of the largest food-processing companies in Ottawa and then the chairman of the National Capital Commission, to get somebody with those qualifications to serve as chairman of the Ottawa Congress Centre, I think we couldn't have picked a better person in terms of having the ability to know what the tourist market's about for Ottawa-Carleton, and in fact for more than Ottawa-Carleton, for the Outaouais as well on the Quebec side. I'm very pleased that you've taken this position.
When Mr Curling talked about fiscal prudence in terms of how much the government is giving to the Ottawa Congress Centre, people in Ottawa-Carleton continue to sort of look to Toronto and say: "Well, yes, we're losing $200,000 or $300,000 a year on the Ottawa Congress Centre at this time. We may have to put a little bit of money in it."
But when they look down at Toronto and they look at this big Dome, which is just vacuuming up taxpayers' dollars and was basically the responsibility of Mr Curling's former government and the mess was created during that time, the people of Ottawa-Carleton get a little sensitive about the issue of provincial support for the congress centre and they say, "We think that the province of Ontario should be involved in this."
I guess my concern is what has happened vis-à-vis the board and the former chairman and the former manager of the Ottawa Congress Centre, and I guess my concern is the structure of this centre. Again, it appears that the former chairman, who I believe is involved with litigation at this present time with the Ottawa Congress Centre Corp -- there seem to be a number of irregularities. I guess what it all pointed down to, and the bottom line as far as I was concerned, is that nobody seemed to be calling the chairman or the manager to account.
How do you see that changing at this present time? That's my chief concern. I think the Ottawa Congress Centre offers tremendous potential and I am angry that this potential has not been achieved in the past. We've lost jobs in Ottawa-Carleton because the potential wasn't achieved in the past. How do we keep you, Madam Chairman, and the manager in check? How do we make certain that these directors or the accountability mechanism are working in this whole structure?
Ms Pigott: There are three documents that I hope, if I'm appointed, I will work from. One is a strategic plan as to where we should be in the next three to five years. It's very important and it must be based on very good research. The second is a business plan. I'm not so worried about the business of coming down here to see your Treasurer about getting a guarantee; I'm just as concerned about presenting that to the bank, because banks always want to make sure how they'll get paid back.
The other thing -- remember, I was in such dire financial straits this summer that didn't think I could pay the bills in September and went to the regional government and borrowed $500,000, almost on a handshake, that I would get the guarantee. So the business plan is very critical to me.
The other one is the memorandum of understanding with the ministry and with the government. I'm going to use a phrase that the auditor -- you see, I didn't want to come until I had a special audit because I didn't want to commit myself unless there was a special audit.
If I can give you just one piece of history, I walked into the NCC in 1985, and four months after I got there the RCMP walked in and charged the general manager. I'm a little nervous of walking into places unless I know exactly where the books are. I asked for the special audit and the minister insisted that we have it. The special audit showed, and the expression by the auditors was that it was loosey-goosey; it was not tight.
I have said to the minister, "There are the 26 recommendations from the special audit." I have said to the minister that I hope she takes this report and sends it to every schedule 2 agency in the Ontario government, because it was fine in the 1980s. There was money and you could go back to the government and ask for more. Today you can't, and thank God for it, because all of us who work in non-profit organizations using government money should be as tight as a drum when it comes to accountability.
1110
Of these 26 recommendations, one of the first is the training of the board of directors. We will have about eight new people on board in the next month or two, and let me tell you, the first thing that's going to happen is training, how you operate as a board of directors of a schedule 2 agency, and also affecting accountability for public money.
Second is the memorandum of understanding. Of the 26 points right now, half of them are in process. One is the MOU, and let me tell you, I hope it's going to be a classic document between the ministry and ourselves. It's a very important document, and when it's finished I hope that you ask for a copy and that every time you talk to a non-profit corporation that asks for government money you make sure you have some kind of document like that in place.
Mr Sterling: In terms of the board, are there up to 12 directors on the board?
Ms Pigott: There are 12 directors including the chairman.
Mr Sterling: What has happened with the board in the past? Has there been a lack of interest, a lack of information?
Ms Pigott: I've always believed in renewal. I think you should serve on a board -- I've served on many boards, profit and non-profit -- and after two terms it's probably a very good idea to say goodbye. You become comfortable, you don't ask the right questions. This whole question of directors' liability has now sharpened up an awful lot of corporations, both in the private sector and the public sector. You have to learn how to ask the management questions. In fairness, these are all good citizens of Ottawa, but I don't think they ask the right questions.
Second, we were mesmerized in the 1980s that building bigger factories was the answer, and you never -- I mean, I come from a production family, a high-speed production family -- build your factories to your peak demand. You always hit one in the middle, because you can't afford to have it lie empty. In fairness to the board, I think it was mesmerized by the idea that we needed more space, we needed these great big conventions.
Quick fact: Guess what's happening to the big conventions? They aren't as big as they were before because, with the recession, corporations and governments don't send 20 to 30 people to a convention any more; they send 10 or 12 and they are saying that what we need now is more focused conventions. You're going to find that they have to have very meaningful meetings and conventions, based on either technology or marketing or all the rest of it, or on heart disease and this kind of thing. I don't think we need a lot more growth either, but I think what happened was that it looked like a right idea to do this big development and we used up some of the good cash flow that we should have had.
The Chair: Mr Arnott, there's one minute left.
Ms Pigott: Sorry. Once you turn me on I can't stop.
Mr Arnott: That's okay; that's quite all right.
Ms Pigott: It's because I was an MP once.
Mr Arnott: Yes. I've enjoyed listening to you and I hope we get the chance to talk later. I'm the Tory Tourism critic and I think we'd be well advised to listen to whatever advice you may have. Ottawa's a beautiful city. I think we can promote it further as a tourism destination, as a hospitality destination, as a convention centre.
Ms Pigott: Absolutely.
Mr Arnott: Very briefly, do you have any advice on what we should be doing over the next two years to further that from the provincial government's perspective?
Ms Pigott: My own feeling is that you've got to turn to the private sector. The private sector has got away with the fact that they like to fight among themselves. We have got to have the strategies in place to pull the private sector and say, "Look, the capital" -- I can speak only for that -- "is a tourist place."
The tourist facts are fascinating. People today are looking for four-day weekends. How do you package for four-day weekends? How do you package for the young executive who's under great stress, who wants to see his spouse or see his kids, and you put the packages together? We've got to listen to the customer much more.
A quick, quick story -- I promise it's a quick story. Sitting in a dinner party the other night, this man, in a very emphatic voice, said, "I'm only going to ski at such-and-such a ski place." We all turned and said, "Why are you so emphatic?" He said, "It's all because of the Kleenex." We said, "The Kleenex?" He said: "Guess what? They know enough about me as a customer that when I go to jump on the lift there's a great big box of Kleenex." He said, "How did they know that I always need to blow my nose going up on the lift? I grab three or four things of Kleenex, I have a good blow on the way up and I say to myself, `In this place, if they know enough about me to do that, my car will be safe in the parking lot, the ski hills will be well groomed, my room will be excellent and so will the food.'"
We have got to get to the Kleenex thing about tourism. It's true; we have got to understand the customer and service. I've lived in Switzerland. The Swiss and the Austrians have an incredible way of taking care of you as a person. We have got to get that in Ontario.
Ms Harrington: First of all, thank you for all your contributions to Ottawa. It's a wonderful city. I grew up in eastern Ontario and I have family in Ottawa.
Ms Pigott: Oh, good.
Ms Harrington: I hope you have been involved in the Ontario government's tourism strategy committee over the last four or five months.
Ms Pigott: I've been very close to it because one of our board of directors, Mary Kotys, is taking care of eastern Ontario and she and I talk on the phone to it every two or three days. I think what the ministry is doing is absolutely the right thing and I'm quite excited about it. I know they're going through the agony -- I mean, they spent four or five days. I was so impressed, though, to hear that the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister stayed all the way through last weekend as they were trying to wrestle with the words.
Ms Harrington: Good. I think it's very important. I obviously am involved in tourism a bit because I represent the city of Niagara Falls. We're interested in some of the same things. I was going to ask you what you see as the problems with the organization and your vision, but you've addressed most of that, I would think. Let me ask you two quick questions.
In the Ernst and Young study, one of the recommendations was that the issue of the expansion or relocation be addressed and put to bed one way or the other before a business plan was gone ahead with. I gather your answer on that is that there's not going to be a relocation or expansion. Is that correct?
Ms Pigott: What has happened is that our research tells us that the growth in the convention is in the smaller. We're all right; we can take care of that. We have two problems. One is how to work out some of the parking problems. The second one is that we need some more exhibit space. What we're doing is sitting down with all our partners to see if we can't make do over the three years.
The other one is technology. We had a huge show two weeks ago and, because the show promoter had used a computer model of the floor, we were within inches. We saved so much space. It was very tight and all the rest of it. I believe those are the kinds of things we need to do in the next two or three years to maximize what we've got. We can't justify going out today with any large scheme. Convention centres today are not -- do you know the average convention centre in North America has 33% occupancy? We've overbuilt them; we've got too many.
Ms Harrington: So you will do the very best you can with what you have there.
Ms Pigott: Absolutely. Now, I might come back three years from now. You never know.
Ms Harrington: The other question I wanted to address was the suggestion with regard to having open board meetings. How do you feel that would work, and are you willing to go ahead with that?
Ms Pigott: I find this a very fascinating idea. I'll tell you my personal view, but I have to go before the board. This new board will have to address it. One of the reasons I would like it is that I find the citizens of our dear national capital region have to be more educated about the tourist industry and how we make it grow, because you'll only make tourism grow with repeat business, just as you've done in Niagara. You involve the community so that they become hosts and hostesses.
You know, 55% of all the people who come to the national capital region stay with family and friends. So let me tell you, if we could make the open meetings interesting enough that the press come after the first two meetings and it's not just controversy but it's good, accurate information -- you must remember I come from a bakery background. My belief is that you build a bigger pie, that you don't design a smaller oven.
1120
Ms Carter: A lot of the ground has been covered very satisfactorily already, but I'm still a little puzzled about this question of size. It seems as though the centre is relatively small compared to others. You mentioned a figure of 70,000 square feet; we had a chart which gave it as 44,000.
Ms Pigott: In the Globe and Mail, I guess in the last month or so, there was a report on convention centres. Of the top five, we're the smallest. But we're in there. One of the problems today is that, to pay for conventions, many of the conventions want to have a trade show at the same time. One of our problems is that the fit isn't quite right. We should have some more display space.
But just between you and me and the gatepost, there is about 10,000 square feet across the street belonging to the government that isn't being used, and I'm negotiating right now. They want to keep it for federal-provincial. It's a building that I don't think any Premier in Canada will want to go into for quite a few years after what happened at the last two constitutional meetings. I'm negotiating to see if I can't find some extra space.
Ms Carter: That's interesting, because I understood that some organizations, like the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Dental Association, for example, wouldn't be coming because the facilities weren't there.
Ms Pigott: Maybe they shouldn't come. You know what I mean? We're not going to build space if it's only these great big giant ones. They have a convention every three or four years. I want to go after that middle section of the whole convention market. Sorry.
Ms Carter: Another question is the mandate of the board. You already touched on the question of having open meetings. Then there's the question, how much should the board be involved in the day-to-day affairs? What exactly should it be doing?
Ms Pigott: I've been a chairman quite a few times in my life and I have been on a lot of boards. A board's responsibility and accountability is not to run the centre; that's management. You pay dollars to a good general manager and a good staff; they run it. What you must do is to make certain the policies are there, and then they are assessed on whether they are following board policies.
The second thing is, boards should look outward, not inward. Boards should be so conscious of what's happening in the marketplace, they should be helping you build your networks. I mean, I've been out on sales calls in the last month or two. It's great fun. Granted, one of the ones I went out on was a convention for 1998. It's a little far, but you've got to do that kind of thing.
Ms Carter: Another question I think you've more or less answered is the question of your relationship with the hoteliers and other businesses in the hospitality industry. I understand you would want to cooperate with them rather than compete. Is that right?
Ms Pigott: Absolutely, but it's a two-way street. They've got to cooperate with us. We have the largest facility. Bell-Northern Research couldn't function. They have 4,000 employees, so they need a room where they could have 2,500. But that's only one place. One of the problems is that there are a couple of hotels that have space for a dinner for 800 to 1,000; so do we. Now, how do we rationalize that? The only way I know how to do that is you've got to do it on trust. You've got to sit down, and there's some rough justice in there. That's going to take some management. But, again, go back to the fact that if we're worried only about divvying up the pie instead of going out and building a bigger pie, that's what I've got to get across to the industry. I'll make some mistakes probably, but I aim to try.
Ms Carter: Good for you.
The Chair: Mr Waters, a minute and a half.
Mr Waters: Gee, thanks. I seem to think these days that Ottawa's my third home, because Toronto happens to be my second.
Ms Pigott: Really?
Mr Waters: I'm back there again this weekend. One of the things I find very refreshing to hear, Ms Pigott, is the fact that you're looking to build the partnerships and you're looking at downtown Ottawa in its entirety and saying, "These are all of the resources of downtown Ottawa, this is how we fit into it and let's go out with the rest of them and work cooperatively to fill this place."
Ms Pigott: Absolutely.
Mr Waters: It's more a comment than anything that I have to make: I find it very refreshing. As a person who's been working as PA in the ministry for the last three years, this has been a very hot topic. In the last six months I noticed that the level of heat in the oven is turned down somewhat and we're not burning the product any more; we're now baking it.
Ms Pigott: Thank you.
Mr Waters: I appreciate all your efforts. The one question I would have, because I think Ottawa is probably a great place for other communities to look at, is, do you feel that historically the municipalities and the chambers of commence within the municipalities have given enough recognition for the cultural, tourism, heritage and recreation industry, not only as to jobs but as the economic generator they are?
Ms Pigott: Have you noted that company towns sometimes get a little lax? We've been a company town, okay? Now we know that the company is in trouble and it may move out or reduce its size. That's very healthy. All of a sudden, you know your feet are a bit to the fire. Then, of course, I think we went through a stage where only high tech was the answer. There was this incredible $450 million a year from the tourist industry and 28,000 jobs, but it wasn't sexy. It was sitting there, and suddenly I think people are saying, "Oh yes, this other lovely one, but they're not high-paid jobs."
Listen, what we need in this country is jobs, whatever they are. Suddenly you've got everybody saying, "Oh, let's take a look at the tourist and travel industry." Look what we've got: cultural tourism coming out our ears: 56 institutions, 18 festivals, sports tourism. We've now got the NHL and we've got the great success story of baseball and football. I'm not sure about the football, but anyway. Then we've got this recreational tourism, which is the fastest-growing area. We've got it all, but we've got to learn to get a return on the investment of the Canadian taxpayer.
The Chair: Thank you. That's a good note to finish on. We appreciate your appearance before the committee this morning.
Members of the committee, you have two final motions. I would look for a motion for the approval of the two appointees this morning.
Mr Waters: So moved.
The Chair: Are you moving both?
Mr Waters: Both at the same time.
The Chair: Mr Waters has moved the appointment of Dr Murray Waldman and Ms Jean Elizabeth Pigott. All in favour of those two appointments? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
The second motion we require is the approval of the subcommittee report from this morning's subcommittee meeting, the selections to be considered.
Mr Waters: Sure.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Waters. All in favour of the subcommittee report? That motion is carried.
Thank you for your attendance this morning.
The committee adjourned at 1129.