Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 0905 in committee room 1.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS

MS. DEBBIE BAXTER

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Debbie Baxter, intended appointee as member, Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Good morning, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.

We have two items on the agenda today, beginning with one intended appointment. Following the intended appointment, we will consider the concurrence of the appointment. Once we have completed the consideration of our intended appointment, we will resume our report writing on the committee’s review of the WSIB.

Our intended appointee for today is Debbie Baxter, nominated as a member of the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Ms. Baxter, can you please come forward and take a seat at this table here? Thank you. Good morning. You may begin with a brief statement if you wish.

Just to let the committee know, any time used for her statement will be deducted from the government’s time for questions. Each party will have 10 minutes to ask questions. The questioning will start with the official opposition.

We will now open the floor and ask you to make your presentation. Thank you very much for being here.

Ms. Debbie Baxter: Thank you, and good morning.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my candidacy for the Ontario Clean Water Agency board.

My qualifications: Just to expand on that for a moment, I was born and raised in eastern Ontario; 20-plus years in the technology industry managing large-scale technology project implementations. I have a diploma in information technology from Loyalist College in Belleville; I have been a certified management accountant since 1991. I’ve been granted the ICD.D designation by the Institute of Corporate Directors through Rotman at the University of Toronto.

I have worked on many large-scale IT implementations. Anecdotally, one was with the government at the Ministry of Finance, the IFIS implementation of a common chart of accounts. More recently, I’ve had experience with other boards, some in the government sector, and so I’m very familiar with board governance.

My understanding of the requirements from the chair of the OCWA board is that they’re looking for someone with technology expertise to bring to the board. They are also looking for someone with financial expertise. I have both of those qualifications.

I’m interested in this role because of a genuine desire to give back. It’s an opportunity to use my skills in a situation where they can do good.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you for your presentation.

We’ll begin now with the official opposition, if there are any questions. Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you for coming out, Ms. Baxter.

Just looking at your resumé and where you’ve been, certainly you seem to be impassioned about the environment. But the Ontario Clean Water Agency really is determined by the latest science, and it really is a business that requires not only the production of safe water, but at a price that people can afford. I’m just wondering what your feeling is on that type of statement and working with the science in the process or through the process.

Ms. Debbie Baxter: My understanding of the requirements of the role from a governance standpoint is a desire for them to expand some of the capability on the board to include some of the requirements that I bring to the table.

You are correct that I am not a water purification expert or anything like that. I have no experience with that. What I do have experience with is efficiency and large-scale system implementation, so making sure that we are implementing the best processes that have the control measures in place etc. I think that pertains regardless of the application.

0910

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Good morning. You were trained by Mr. Gore to deliver his—what was that called again?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: An Inconvenient Truth.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I lost it; I’m sorry—An Inconvenient Truth.

Municipalities are facing issues with money. Money is tight, not only with this government, but with municipalities. They’re having difficulties implementing some of the plans that the government has imposed upon them, so I wonder, how do you see your approach to implementing the OCWA’s mandate in situations where the client is facing financial or other difficulties?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: Thank you for the question. I’m not yet on the board and I’m not as familiar with their mandate as I would be if I were immersed in that. I think that they go through a competitive process with the bids that are necessary for the municipal sourcing requirements for these kinds of roles, and my understanding is they operate on a not-for-profit basis. In those situations, there’s a lot of opportunity for efficiency, so I would look forward to the opportunity to watch for those situations and bring my experience to bear.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: So you believe in a competitive bidding process? Is that what you think they should be doing?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I think so, yes.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Now, even so, I’ve had experience on councils where that has come in on the high side and then we’re faced with a position as to whether we continue on with it or hold it back. This is what municipalities face, and then if we have a government that’s mandating that you will do this type of thing, it’s a difficult position to be in. What would you say in your position with this agency as to how you would get around some of these issues?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: My thought would just be that as I become familiar with those files, when I’m actually on the board, definitely watch for opportunities like that.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay, thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you very much. My question is with regard to your experience from LoyaltyOne. The Ontario Clean Water Agency has a business plan to operate and, understandably, based on Mr. Pettapiece’s remarks, we know dollars are scarce at the municipal level. The agency is going to win contracts, and you’re going to lose contracts, so based on your experience at LoyaltyOne, how could you positively affect their business plan to ensure that there’s stability for the agency in terms of a good funding model?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: Thank you for the question. I think that my experience over the last—probably more years than I’d like to admit to—20-plus years is that there’s a certain way to treat customers. You can drive to the lowest price and a lot of cost avoidance and efficiencies and things like that, but there’s a customer service element that’s important as well. That’s probably the perspective that I would bring. As a member of the board, it’s really about governance. You’re not involved in crafting these deals; it’s about approving them, but I think some of the questions that I would be asking would be around how we’re establishing a customer relationship and are we driving the efficiencies that we need to through the process.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate your answer. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: We see the Auditor General identified a sole-sourcing contract for $3.7 million, and then it was renewed without any competitive bids. We have an issue with that. In trying to develop value for the customer, we’re committed—the PC Party, at least—to open tendering. We’re just wondering what your beliefs are on that. Would you push for more competitive bids throughout the agency?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: My thought is that as I become more familiar with these details, when I’m actually on the board, I’ll be more prepared to be familiar with these kinds of details. I think that it’s important that an agency like this is adopting the appropriate principles; I expect that they are today, and I would continue to look for that in the future.

Mr. Jim McDonell: So maybe just a quick follow-up with that: You would push for open, competitive bidding and more transparency with your new role on the board. Is that a belief you have?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I think it’s a bit tough for me to commit to that without really having a chance to be familiar with their strategy and their mandate. I think that I would be very interested in doing what’s right for the province and what’s right for the agency and for its customers.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’ll just tell you, from a municipality—in my former role, competitive bidding was our only option, especially at a value of this amount. We wouldn’t be allowed to choose a sole-source provider without going to the market first. Thank you.

Do we have more time?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes, there’s still a little bit of time left.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you.

We’ll move to the NDP. Ms. Monique Taylor.

Miss Monique Taylor: Good morning, and thank you for being here with us today. I realize that you have the financial and the technical backgrounds, but also here I see that you have definitely been involved with environmental issues with the awards that you’ve received. I just want to know, with bringing both of those scopes together, what specific challenges do you feel are facing our water safety?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: My personal opinion is that water is one of the least-appreciated resources that we have currently, and that we almost take it for granted. I think that puts it in a particular risk area, that the general population doesn’t perhaps value it to the same degree. I think that there are risks from that standpoint.

One of the things that I’m interested in participating in on this board is really that they have no particular mandate around conservation or anything like that, but their mandate is around safety and safe water. I am interested in seeing how we can bring to bear some of the new technologies that exist to manage down some of the risks relative to safe water etc. I think those are the two reasons.

Miss Monique Taylor: We’ve been definitely hearing a lot about line 9 and the bitumen being transferred through our province. What are your thoughts on that and what those effects could have on our water supply systems?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: To be honest, I’m not familiar with that yet. I know that there is a process to get me up to speed on all of these issues etc. when I am able to join the board, but I’m not familiar with that issue at this point in time.

Miss Monique Taylor: Also, another question is our First Nations and our reserves and the water issues that they’re facing. What are your thoughts on that?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: From the preparation that I’ve done to date, I know that the Clean Water Agency does have clients that are First Nation groups, so I think that there is a need for the same kind of sophistication of systems that we would deploy in any municipality across Ontario to be applied in those situations as well.

Again, I’m repeating myself, but I am excited about the opportunity to bring some of these new technologies to bear, especially in some of the more remote areas in Ontario.

Miss Monique Taylor: Just one more question, and then I’ll pass it off to my colleague here. The opposition was asking questions regarding tendering out the process. My thoughts on that are, what is our consistency across the province to making sure that everyone has clean water and safe water, and that by tendering out to maybe the lowest bidder we might end up in situations like Walkerton. What are your thoughts on that?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I think that those are some of the considerations that really need to be identified in each of these contract situations. I’m just not familiar enough with the files at the OCWA until I actually join the board to be able to really respond in detail. I do know that OCWA does have a mandate for the safety of water in Ontario, and so they do have the opportunity for that oversight and to provide the role that you’re speaking to.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Good morning. Thank you. It’s quite an impressive resumé you have. Thanks for coming in.

As you know, water issues in Ontario are going to become a big player as the years go on, as you can appreciate. You’re presently full-time employed?

0920

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I am.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. In the past—present company excluded—we’ve had problems sometimes with people making meetings and taking on responsibilities when they already have a full plate. How do you feel that you’ll be able to accommodate the committee if an emergency meeting comes up? Are you going to be available to do what they require?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I’ve discussed the time requirements with the chair of the board, Mike Garrett, and I am quite comfortable that I can manage those time requirements within my portfolio. I don’t see any issues at all.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We’ll move to the Liberal Party. Mr. McNeely.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. Baxter, for being here.

One part of your CV that I’m very interested in—I think the OCWA has been operating for many, many years, so they’ve got good people on contract and good people who know how to scope projects. They understand all the building and how the two have to come together, and make sure that the projects they put in place are ones that are economically feasible and that work, and that they don’t get into a deficit position. But I think what must be missing on the board, and I think missing everywhere—and we’re seeing that with the message that Obama is giving us. The Keystone project—that it’s not proceeding until Canada gets their game together on the environment.

I like the work you’ve been doing on carbon reporting. You’re an environmental architect for Canada’s largest solar voltaic rooftop generation system, a registered corporate steward, a frequent guest speaker and author on “Creating the Business Case for Sustainability.” Sustainability is of prime importance today. We cannot think as we did in the past.

I think the OCWA, like all groups, probably would need someone like you on their board. So could you go into some detail on what you’ve done from an environmental aspect, from sustainability, from looking at carbon as the issue that we have on this planet?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: Thank you for your question. For the past I would say about five years, I have been focused in the environmental area. At LoyaltyOne, we’re very committed to that, so they have made significant investments. We operate an almost carbon-neutral operation. Our carbon is getting very close to zero. We’re a marketing company, so that’s not tremendous. If we were a resource company or something like that, that might be a tremendous accomplishment. It’s not huge, but we are doing everything we can not only to minimize our impact but also to share that knowledge with our business partners etc.

Carbon is really the heart of that. We believe it’s a significant challenge for our society today, and we’ve deployed a lot of different strategies. We’ve implemented a solar rooftop. We generate hydro back into the grid in Mississauga, enough to power about 16 homes in Mississauga at this point. We’re not saving the planet all by ourselves, but we are making a dent. We also utilize carbon offsets for a lot of our operations. We do a lot of outreach to partners. Sometimes, if we’re doing an event with a partner—as an example, a charity partner—we might offset that event as part of our contribution to that charity. So it’s a variety of different things.

Sustainability is an emergent area. Five years ago, no one was talking about it. Now, it’s becoming the topic of many boardroom discussions. So it’s an area where I feel quite comfortable in my ability to contribute to the OCWA.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I think the organization, the OCWA, would benefit certainly by your expertise.

Next question here.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): About four minutes.

Ms. Soo Wong: Oh, good. I can ask a question.

Thank you so much for coming to today’s hearings, Ms. Baxter. Can you share with the committee—because you have very diverse both corporate education and corporate-level experiences. Can you share with the committee what knowledge and skills you are able to bring to this agency? My second part to the question is, what do you see as some of the current challenges with this particular agency?

Ms. Debbie Baxter: I think that the most important skill that I can bring from my background is really the experience implementing some large-scale system implementation projects and getting all of the parties around the table to agree on the best path forward or the best solution.

I think that having a financial background is obviously helpful. There’s a move from a best-practices standpoint to ensure that you have people on the board who have a strong financial background and are able to review the financial statements and do that kind of due diligence with the appropriate background and knowledge.

I feel that those are the two areas where I will really be able to contribute to the greatest degree.

In terms of the challenges that are facing the agency, I’m just not as familiar with the files as I will be, should I join the board and have the opportunity to become familiar with their files. But I do know that they are in the midst of a large process to change the technology to try and automate things. One example might be if you’re in a northern community, a remote part of Ontario, someone needs to fly in and check on a particular water meter or water testing device. If that feedback could be automated, then it saves costs for the municipality around the flight and the transportation. It’s much more constant feedback from that testing device, so it improves safety and improves efficiency.

I find those opportunities quite interesting. I think there’s a real opportunity to do some very innovative things to improve the situation. But it’s probably also a challenge at this point for such large projects of that nature to be implemented.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. That concludes our time for asking questions of Ms. Baxter. Thank you, Ms. Baxter, for being here today. You’re now excused from the committee. You may wish to sit and watch the rest of the proceedings until we go in camera.

For the benefit of the members here in attendance, perhaps a brief summary of the concurrence vote would be of value—I’m just reading off a script here.

In brief, the vote on concurrence is simply that: whether the committee does concur or does not concur in the appointment. The committee does not have the authority under standing order 108(f) to prevent an appointment, merely to indicate whether it is in favour or not in favour of the appointment. If this committee votes that it is not in favour of the appointment, it may indicate the reasons as to why they are not in favour in the report, which will be sent to the House following the vote.

The committee also has the ability to defer the vote on concurrence if requested. However, any deferral may not be for more than seven days, making the deferred concurrence the first order of business at the next meeting of the committee.

We will now consider the concurrence for Ms. Debbie Baxter, nominated as a member of the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

Would someone please move concurrence?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’ll do that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Debbie Baxter, nominated as a member of the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Any discussion? None?

All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

AGENCY REVIEW:
WORKPLACE SAFETY
AND INSURANCE BOARD

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): We will now be proceeding with our next order of business, and that is the continuation of the report writing.

Is there anything the committee would like to discuss before we go in camera? Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I approached you and told you, our party would like to move ahead today on our nine motions and vote on whether they’ll be included in the report or not. We’re going to move ahead with it. The other parties can do as they wish.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Dhillon.

Interjection.

Ms. Soo Wong: Can we have a recess? I haven’t seen the report.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): So what we’re going to do—

Mr. Paul Miller: We can discuss what we’ve got.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Once we get to the report writing, I was planning to move for a five-minute recess so we could clear the room. We can discuss this issue in camera.

Is there a motion to move in camera?

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Chairman, the same as last week, can we include a staff member? That’s still ongoing?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Is that okay with all three parties? Okay? Agreed. Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: We talked about reading these resolutions in, before we went in camera—or is it better to do it after? It doesn’t really matter. It’s up to the Chair. More efficient to do it now?

0930

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): I think the NDP did move their motions in—

Mr. Paul Miller: No, no. we’re not moving to sit in camera, Mr. Chairman. We also want a recorded vote on sitting in camera or not.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Dhillon.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I would suggest that perhaps the opposition does read their motions in before we go in camera.

Mr. Jim McDonell: We tabled them last week, and we just want to have them read so they’re on record; that’s all. It was suggested we would do it after, but it’s more efficient since we’re already here now and we’re still in open session. We wouldn’t have to call everybody back.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Any further discussion? So if you would like to move—

Mr. Jim McDonell: We’re just going to table them, and we’re just going to read them out. We tabled them last week—

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Right now, before we go in camera.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Then you have the floor, Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Our first recommendation was that WSIB premiums are insufficient to cover arising liabilities—Bill 119 may compound the unfunded liability problem, rather than bring in extra revenue. This is an especially crucial consideration for the construction industry, as it is inherently riskier than many other WSIB-covered industries.

The committee requests that the draft report contain detailed cash flow and client load projections for the WSIB for the years 2013 to 2040 for both the current situation and a scenario where Bill 119 had not been implemented.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): All right. Thank you. Mr. Pettapiece.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: The goal of the WSIB should be to minimize the effect of injury upon a worker’s quality of life, income and long-term well-being prospects.

The committee requests that the draft report contain historical data concerning injured worker re-entry into the workforce, specifically the change in the worker’s average wage, the proportion of workers that rejoined the same employer and worker retention over one, three and five years following injury. Such data should include worker outcomes prior to the retraining program being returned to WSIB jurisdiction.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Worker compensation systems across the world utilize numerous policy options, which include the availability of private insurers competing with state-backed agencies, different provisions regarding worker retraining and reintegration into the workforce and different medical eligibility criteria.

The committee requests that the draft report contain a comparative analysis of worker compensation systems in the following jurisdictions:

—other Canadian provinces;

—several US states, including at least two states with a single state monopoly over worker compensation;

—Australia and New Zealand;

—Germany, the UK and the Scandinavian countries.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Current benefit eligibility creates a six-year threshold following which an injured worker’s benefits are no longer subject to review.

The committee requests that the WSIB provide data regarding the incidence of claims being reviewed after five years of benefit payments and the outcome of such reviews.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Mr. Pettapiece.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: The WSIB is currently the sole insurer for all conditions and injuries arising in the workplace. It is imperative to identify areas where private insurers can be expected to provide reasonable coverage.

The committee requests the WSIB provide, for each condition and injury, a breakdown of claim incidence (claims per 1,000 workers), total annual number of claims, average annual claim cost and average benefit duration.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Ms. Thompson.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Two last bullet points: Ontario is not the first jurisdiction to face worker compensation challenges, and it will not be the last.

The committee requests that the draft report contain a summary of worker compensation reforms within the past 30 years in the OECD that aimed to tackle either revenues or expenditures or both in order to achieve long-term financial sustainability.

Lastly, the task of promoting safety in the workplace was transferred to the Ministry of Labour in 2012 except certain programs such as Workwell, which focuses on injury-prone employers.

The committee requests that the draft report contain a summary of Workwell initiatives and inspections in the last five years and the WSIB’s planned role for the program over the next 10 years.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: We also have two resolutions to read in. We have copies that we can pass around.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Do you want to give them to the committee Clerk? Thanks. She’ll pass them around.

Mr. Jim McDonell: The following recommendation be added as an official opposition recommendation under the heading “Bill 119”:

“The committee recommends the government and the WSIB suspend the implementation of Bill 119 until such time as the long-term financial impact of the legislation on the WSIB’s unfunded liability is fully understood. Should the potential impact be negative, the committee recommends the government and WSIB not implement Bill 119.”

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you. The following recommendation be added as an official opposition recommendation under the heading “Workforce coverage”:

“The committee recommends the WSIB begin immediate negotiations to transfer part of its covered conditions and industries to a competitive regimen of private insurance. The committee recommends the WSIB state to the Minister of Labour the coverage and service standards private insurers shall abide by, and the minister implement such standards by regulation.”

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you. Ms. Thompson?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: No, that’s it.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay, thank you. Any further recommendations?

At this point, I guess, we will take a five-minute recess to go in camera. Mr. Miller, I think you—

Mr. Paul Miller: I just want to go on record as being opposed to going in camera. I mean, I will sit here, because you’ve allowed our staff member. But just from a technical point of view, I’m opposed to in camera, in general. It’s just a personal thing.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Just one moment.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Thank you for that. Do we have a motion to go in camera? Thank you, Mr. Pettapiece.

All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We will now recess for five minutes, to clear the room, so that we can go in camera to discuss the report.

Interruption.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): If I can just reply to you briefly: We’re not debating yet. We’re just creating a report.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Excuse me, Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Mr. Pettapiece.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: There’s no debate with this, sir, respectfully.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): There’s no debate today. We’re just creating a report, then we debate that afterwards.

Interruption.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): To make it informal and to allow us to work on the report.

Interruption.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes. I can have a word with you, but there was a motion to move in camera. Then we can explain to you why, and if anyone else has a question, we can explain to you why.

There’s no attempt here to cover anything up. This is done with every different commission or board or agency—just to move in camera when there’s a report being created. There are no decisions being made. We’re just creating a report.

Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Chairman, if you remember, I’ll reiterate that I did request a recorded vote on going in camera or not.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): That was held.

Mr. Paul Miller: But you didn’t have a recorded vote. You just said “yea or nay,” and we voted against it, but you didn’t say individual members.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: You always mention individual members.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s not both ways—“Mr. Dhillon, Ms. Wong”—

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay, let’s just recess for five minutes, then we’ll take the vote if necessary. We’ll just take a quick recess and then we’ll take the vote, okay? Thank you.

The committee recessed from 0940 to 0950.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay, just to make it clear: We did vote earlier, Mr. Miller, on whether or not to go in camera. We decided that we would go in camera, and I know that you opposed it. Do you want this to be a recorded vote this time?

Mr. Paul Miller: If it’s possible, yes.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay. Can someone move that we go in camera? Anyone want to move that we go in camera?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: We’ve already voted on this.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Yes, well, we did vote on it. I was just trying to explain. It wasn’t a recorded vote, though we voted on it. Mr. Miller has asked that we have a recorded vote.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Wouldn’t that be out of order?

Ms. Soo Wong: We’re reopening the whole vote. It doesn’t make sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: You know what, Mr. Chairman? It wasn’t done the right way the first time, but let it go, because it’s obvious people saw what happened. Let it go.

The Chair (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti): Okay, so we’re now in camera.

The committee continued in closed session at 0950.

CONTENTS

Tuesday 16 April 2013

Intended appointments A-23

Ms. Debbie Baxter A-23

Agency review: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board A-26

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mrs. Laura Albanese (York South–Weston / York-Sud–Weston L)

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mr. Jim McDonell (Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry PC)

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa–Orléans L)

Mr. Paul Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek / Hamilton-Est–Stoney Creek ND)

Mr. Randy Pettapiece (Perth–Wellington PC)

Miss Monique Taylor (Hamilton Mountain ND)

Ms. Lisa Thompson (Huron–Bruce PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Carrie Hull, research officer,
Legislative Research Service