Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CONTENTS

Wednesday 19 November 1997

Subcommittee reports

Intended appointments

Mrs Marilyn Sharma

Mr William Saunderson

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur L)

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth PC)

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North / -Nord PC)

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights L)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim

Ms Donna Bryce

Staff / Personnel

Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1010 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. Before we begin with our first interview, we need to deal with the reports of a number of subcommittees, going back from September 25 right through to November 6.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I move adoption of the reports of the subcommittee on committee business dated Thursday, September 25; Thursday, October 2; Thursday, October 9; Thursday, October 16; and Thursday, November 6.

The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to the motion?

You've heard the question. All in favour of that? It's carried. Thank you for that, Mr Baird.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
MARILYN SHARMA

Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Marilyn Sharma, intended appointee as member and chair, Social Assistance Review Board.

The Chair: We move to the first interview, Marilyn Sharma, who is no stranger to these environs. Ms Sharma, welcome to the committee. Do you wish to make any opening comments?

Mrs Marilyn Sharma: Yes, I do have a short opening statement.

I would first of all like to thank the committee for having me here today. Just as a brief introduction, as you will see from my résumé, I am currently the general manager of the public appointments secretariat, a position I have proudly held under two administrations for the past six years.

Prior to assuming the general manager's position, in December 1990 I was offered and accepted a position in the Premier's office as the project manager, with sole responsibility for producing a publication which would list all the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions to which the province makes appointments. This resulted in the publication of the first-ever Guide to Agencies, Boards and Commissions. I take a lot of pride in saying this today, because of the short time line that was available to me to meet the Premier's commitment to the people of Ontario. As a matter of fact, I managed to have it produced one month ahead of the five-month schedule.

With the successful completion of the guide, I was honoured to be offered the opportunity of setting up the public appointments secretariat, a position I willingly accepted. People who have worked with or have had the opportunity to deal with the secretariat recognize it to be a unique organization where political and civil service staff work closely together to ensure that the appointments process is administered efficiently. It is a small, dynamic, user-friendly organization with an emphasis on accuracy, timeliness, accessibility and courtesy.

As you will also see from my résumé, I have had a varied and interesting career. I have a reputation of taking on tasks and responsibilities that are new, challenging and complex. As examples, I was responsible for institution of freedom of information and protection of privacy requirements in one of the largest decentralized ministries in the province. I was also responsible for the establishment of the first rates and regulations department in a telephone company and for successfully taking the company into one of its first applications for a rate increase before the public utilities commission in over 10 years.

I will not go into any further details of my professional career, but I am willing to answer any questions the committee may have on what appears on my résumé.

The position for which I am being reviewed here today offers me a great opportunity to utilize the tremendous level of experience I have gathered in the various positions I have held. My strong background in the area of public policy, my experience in interpreting and applying legislation, my familiarity with administrative justice in Ontario, my sense of fairness and my work in developing new organizations to support legislative requirements all serve to provide me with the skill base I believe is necessary to undertake this task.

It is with this background and a willingness to contribute to Ontario that I take on this tremendous responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you for that. Do members have any questions?

Mr Baird: We defer to our colleagues in the official opposition at this time.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Welcome, Ms Sharma. Glad to have you here.

My experience with the Social Assistance Review Board stems from being a regional councillor dealing with people who are on assistance, trying to find some means within the system to meet their needs. From time to time we referred people to the Social Assistance Review Board, either because their case fell between the cracks or because we felt there was a compassionate situation where maybe there was some opportunity to deal with this as a last-ditch effort.

You're assuming a position as chair of the board, which from reading the documentation would appear to be largely administrative, but you'll be dealing with, in a sense, new policies coming as a result of Bill 142, so there will be the opportunity or the latitude for the board to colour in the policies, the application of those policies.

Therefore, how do you see your position as chair of the board? It's not simply administrative. When questions come up that demand interpretation, how do you see yourself working with the board to deal with these situations to make sure the needs of people in need are met?

Mrs Sharma: First and foremost, because the board operates within the mandate of legislation, there is a framework in place within which the board operates. When people come before the board, they come before the board with the parameters in place that their cases will be dealt with in a fair, objective and unbiased manner.

As the chair of the board, I will not be making the decisions on all the hearings. Bear in mind that we would have a full complement of board members who will be hearing cases and whose responsibility it will be to make the decisions on the cases they hear. I would have very little input, I would say no input, in terms of the decisions that board members are making in regard to the evidence before them. The board basically will be responsible for making the policies and putting the processes in place that will ensure -- and that's my job, to ensure that people get a fair, unbiased hearing when they come to the board. That's basically what I'm looking at doing.

Mr Cullen: Just to fill this in -- because if life was as simple as only dealing with process, it would be a wonderful world, but often that is not the case. We had the opportunity earlier at this committee to deal with an appointee to the Social Assistance Review Board who said, "I'm there only to apply the rules." When the issue of interpretation came up, this particular appointee shied away from giving us any kind of indication of how policy would be interpreted.

It's not just process. If you as chair are discovering that, for example, for teenage welfare cases there is a particular pattern of hearing and that interpretation of policy is going this way and perhaps it ought to be reviewed -- there's clearly some latitude within interpretation in dealing with the application of the government's policies. What we would like to be assured of is that, yes, we want the process to be fair. Obviously, there's a policy framework in place. But the overriding purpose of the legislation, the government's intent, is to make sure the needs of people in need are met. Within that framework, will you from time to time look at the trends in the cases and be able to therefore consult with your colleagues and say, "Look, folks, we seem to have this trend here on teenage welfare cases, but really we could go another route," or even, for example, make recommendations back to the government about the application of the particular policy?

Mrs Sharma: I would say it's a little bit of everything. As the chair of the board I would be monitoring not only the process, but I'd be monitoring all aspects of the operation and the administration of the legislation. As a good chair, I would certainly want to deal with any matters I see that are problematic. Any trends I see that are leading in any specific direction, I certainly would want to alert the minister of that. It is not my decision to make the policy, but it's certainly my responsibility as the chair to point out if there are areas of concern or issues that are coming before the board that show any specific trends that need to be looked at. But I'm not in the policy-making business.

Mr Cullen: Would you be therefore open to those who monitor from the outside the activities of the board and its members in making decisions? For example, I think of legal aid clinics and community health resource centres who often help low-income people deal with the system. If they detect a trend in terms of interpretation where the legislation might lead one to go someplace else, would you be open to representations from them to at least review the direction that the board is taking?

1020

Mrs Sharma: My background being as an economic policy adviser, I think the best policy and the best way you can operate is to listen to everyone. I would certainly not be averse to listening to people who use the system not only from the professional side, but also the users of the system. I would certainly be willing to listen if it is going to mean making the board a better board.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Ms Sharma. You're here to have an appointment as chair of the Social Assistance Review Board, but if Bill 142 is passed, of course, that will be replaced by the Social Benefits Tribunal. So in essence I presume this appointment is a very short appointment -- or is this an appointment to the new tribunal as well?

Mrs Sharma: Under the current legislation, the chair is appointed for three years. Initially, the appointment is a three-year appointment. If and when the changes come about, we will have to deal with those in terms of transition, but my appointment right now is a three-year appointment to SARB.

Mr Gravelle: But just to the Social Assistance Review Board, rather than --

Mrs Sharma: Yes, because that's what is in existence now in terms of the legislative base. We would deal with the new legislation at the time.

Mr Gravelle: I presume you are preparing yourself for the position. Are you preparing yourself on the basis of the new legislation, which may of course be passed at some point in the near future?

Mrs Sharma: I'm being appointed as chair of SARB. Basically, I'm going to deal with the issues that are coming before SARB in my tenure as the chair of SARB. Certainly I'll be looking forward at what's happening with the new legislation. I know it has gone through second reading. If and when it comes to pass, yes, I certainly will be giving that some thought, but at this point in time my concentration is looking at --

Mr Gravelle: But there would be a new process, then, put in place.

Can I ask you a question that may be a stupid question? I apologize if it is. You're the general manager of the public appointments secretariat and you're coming before us for an appointment. I'm just curious as to the process, how your appointment came about, in light of what could be viewed as a potential conflict. I'm not suggesting you appointed yourself by any means, of course, but I'm just curious. It's just an odd situation.

Mrs Sharma: I've had a very odd career pattern. It came up two ways. I have been with the public appointments secretariat for six years and I've done all kinds of interesting things in terms of my background. I became aware of the position, indicated an interest and put my application in, and was given consideration based on the work I've done in the past and the strong liaison I've had with the various people I've worked with. My name was given consideration and I was interviewed for it.

Mr Gravelle: Can I ask you for your opinion in terms of the changes that may result under Bill 142, which certainly in my opinion reduce the opportunity for people on social assistance, or make it more difficult for them to make appeals because of the fact that there will have to be an internal review done before it can go to the new tribunal. Would you be prepared to give us your thoughts on that process? It seems far more limiting to us, and more restrictive.

Mrs Sharma: In terms of the position I'm taking up, I'm not prepared to give you my thoughts on that primarily because the job I'm taking is one of applying the legislation and not applying my own personal views or intentions. I'm a professional bureaucrat and I'm used to working with government in terms of various pieces of legislation. I don't generally give my views on them, but I certainly am willing to carry out the requirements of this legislation.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Thank you very much, Ms Sharma. My apologies for missing part of your initial presentation.

You may have been told that I usually ask people about their political affiliations. Can I assume, given your background -- and I know, as you just stated, that you have been in your current position for a number of years, including during the time I was on the government side -- that you are not a member or not affiliated or supportive, other than perhaps through the way you vote, and that's your own private right, with any political party?

Mrs Sharma: That's right. I'm not affiliated with any party.

Mr Silipo: I'd like to pursue a couple of questions with you. The first is this question of your sense of how long your appointment is actually going to be valid for. I appreciate what you said earlier. I'm trying to go beyond that a little bit. I'll put the question this way: There must have been some discussions between you and the minister, or whoever at the end of the day said to you, "We'd like to recommend you for this appointment," about what it meant that you were being recommended for appointment as the chair of the social assistance board. At some point in time, this board will shift into another entity, or the responsibilities that are now there will shift to the new tribunal. Is it your understanding that you are being appointed to complete the work of the Social Assistance Review Board, or is it also your understanding you would be then part of that transition into the new tribunal?

Mrs Sharma: There wasn't any detailed understanding. The appointment is an appointment to SARB. I assume there are lots of variables that are going to play a role in terms of how long the appointment is. One is that when the legislation does get third reading -- my understanding is I'm going to chair SARB. What happens in the interim would depend on what is happening with the bill. I'll deal with that once it comes to that point. It would be up to the minister to make that decision, but my appointment is a three-year appointment to SARB.

Mr Silipo: You must be familiar, as we are, by virtue of the numbers we have in front of us -- I'm sure you have looked at these and other pieces of information as they relate to SARB -- with the fact that caseloads and the number of people on social assistance have indeed declined over the last couple of years. That's clearly there and it's undeniable. We can argue about what the reasons for that are, but let's just for the sake of the moment leave that aside. But interestingly enough, during that same period of time, the number of people making applications to SARB has increased and I gather is projected to continue to increase.

Again, in the discussions you've had with the minister or whomever with respect to your appointment, what discussions, if any, have taken place with respect to what people expect you to do about that?

Mrs Sharma: Quite frankly, in terms of the caseload, that's what I'm going to be looking at. Speculation as to why it's increasing is not really part of my responsibilities. My responsibility is that when the cases come forward, they are handled in an efficient, effective and fair manner.

I have no comment in terms of the increase in the amount. I'm going to have to deal with it in terms of the problems or the issues and concerns surrounding the increase in the caseload in terms of what it means to the board and its operation. Why it's happening, I have no idea.

Mr Silipo: I'm surprised by that.

Mrs Sharma: As far as I'm aware, statistics aren't kept as to why people come on or come off.

Mr Silipo: But surely someone would have pointed out to you -- there may be disagreement on this, but it has certainly been my understanding that if you look back at the history of what has happened with respect to applications to this board, where you see jumps in caseload from year to year, you can almost inevitably tie them back to major changes, or minor, however one wants to describe those changes, in policy that has been put together with respect to social assistance. I look back, for example, even at the years when I was in that ministry and can see where some of those -- I remember some conversations I had with your predecessors around that very issue.

Does it surprise you that the changes this government has made to the social assistance system so far -- let alone what's going to come yet with the new legislation, but what they've done so far -- would be one of the major reasons why you have on the one hand caseloads going down, but appeals to the Social Assistance Review Board going up?

1030

Mrs Sharma: I have not really turned my mind to that. As I say, I'm looking at what is before the board, and the requirements and the rights of individuals to appeal. Individuals do have a right to appeal. Basically, that's where my attention is going to be, making sure people get a fair and hopefully timely decision from the board.

Mr Silipo: What is your understanding and your comment on the various processes the board has put in place over the years to try to deal with that increase in caseload? Could you comment on that?

Mrs Sharma: I think they have made some very positive, significant steps based on the statistics I've seen in terms of dealing with the backlog and dealing with the cases before them. I would like to go in and have a look myself. The backlog is quite high. I would certainly like to do some further analysis. Economics being my background, I certainly want to look at this and do some analysis of my own to see whether there are more creative ways we can deal with this and have some of these cases dealt with in a more expedient fashion.

Mr Silipo: What is your sense about what is going to happen with the new legislation when a number of the grounds upon which people can now make appeal to the social assistance board will no longer exist, when the question of interim assistance is going to be open to the board to claw back when the actual appeal is unsuccessful? Do you see one of the results of that being that it will reduce the caseload that SARB will have to deal with?

Mrs Sharma: I really cannot say at this point in time. I guess time will tell. Not until that's in place would we have any information to prove that.

The Chair: There's five minutes left for the government members.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Ms Sharma, thank you for appearing today. I was pleased to hear a couple of comments you made. One is that you feel your responsibility is to implement and carry out the structure of the legislation. I'm most impressed with both your academic and your career credentials, because I think you do bring a marvellous skill set to the table.

I was a little puzzled, and I hope you would maybe clarify this in my mind, that you have a marvellous career and now you're applying for a three-year appointment, essentially -- it could be longer. I was curious as to why you wanted to pursue this opportunity.

Mrs Sharma: I never refuse a good challenge, and I'm very optimistic that given this opportunity, I'm going to make a difference to the board.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you for your presentation. Back two and a half years ago, the government of the day decided to reduce social assistance down to about 10% above the national average. I guess because of that, the caseload certainly has increased, and will. Would you care to comment on that reduction?

Mrs Sharma: It's difficult for me to do so. When I get into the position and I am able to look at the --

Mr Stewart: But that's what your position is going to be all about. There is a reduction. It's down to, as I said, 10% above the national average. That's what your position is going to deal with, to look at appeals etc. For you to go into it without some type of opinion on this -- I can appreciate you have to be fair and neutral and so on, but you must have an opinion on this particular situation.

Mrs Sharma: There is a lot of speculation in terms of why things are happening. I've heard all kinds of views on that. Again, as I indicated to Mr Silipo, there are no statistics kept as to why people apply or why they appeal, so it's difficult for me to equate or correlate the decrease with an increase in the appeals that are coming before the board.

Mr Stewart: A major concern of the public and many people who are footing the bills these days is fraud and abuse. Again, when we look at some of the statistics, it is extremely high, but certainly going the other way since certain legislation has been put into place and more concern given to it. Do you have any comments on that?

Mrs Sharma: I think anything that any government does, and this is my personal view, that makes the system more efficient for the people who have to use the system as well as the people who have to pay for the system must be looked at in a positive vein. Some of these systems that have been put in place have done that. I certainly think it's in the right direction.

Mr Stewart: Certainly there's a concern that some of the cases that may come before you -- I don't know, but we can speculate -- may border on fraud and abuse. Do you feel you can deal fairly with those?

Mrs Sharma: Certainly.

The Chair: Any further comments?

Mr Baird: Thank you very much for your comments this morning. What qualifications do you think you possess? One of the issues we're dealing with in terms of agency reform, particularly adjudicative agency reform, would be effective management, a whole series of things, whether it's case management, whether it's the whole process of administrative management at the board itself. What sort of experience and background and skill set do you bring in those areas?

Mrs Sharma: The first one is that I have an extensive background in setting up new structures and working with the processing of processes. I have worked with the agency reform committee under Mr Wood in terms of looking at the agency sector and areas where we can assist in improving it. I have been an integral part of the ADM's working table on agency reform and looking at it from the bureaucratic side as well, on contributing to that process. So I am quite familiar from both the administrative side and the organizational side, and I'm familiar with it from the agency reform initiative that this government has taken as well.

The Chair: Mr Silipo has indicated he wishes to get on again. There's two minutes left in your time slot.

Mr Silipo: Ms Sharma, I wanted to do this particularly because there's an issue you've addressed a couple of times where I'm troubled by your answer. I want to just come at it again. That is the comment you made in response to one of my colleagues opposite that there aren't statistics kept about the nature of why people appeal. I can tell you that when I was minister, I remember on more than one occasion seeing statistics that showed me grouping by grouping what kinds of reasons people were applying for -- obviously not the specific appeals, but in terms that so many of the cases had to do with X issue. Is that something that has changed as far as you're concerned?

Mrs Sharma: No. Let me clarify. What I meant was that when people come off social assistance, they don't give us reasons as to why they are coming off.

Mr Silipo: All right. The other question I had is, given your position as a civil servant -- I'm assuming that if after your appointment to this board your appointment does not continue to the new board, you would be able to go back to the civil service. Given the nature of your position, do you feel that you are put in any kind of sensitive or awkward position or a potential conflict by virtue of being a civil servant; that is, that you are being appointed by a government and at the end of the day you continue to be responsible to the government of the day through your position as a civil servant? Is that going to in any way encumber your ability to be independent of government policies?

Mrs Sharma: Absolutely not.

The Chair: Ms Sharma, that completes the time for interviews. We thank you very much for appearing before the committee.

Mrs Sharma: Thank you very much for having me.

1040

WILLIAM SAUNDERSON

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: William Saunderson, intended appointee as member and chair, Ontario International Trade Corp.

The Chair: Let us proceed to the second interview. That's with the MPP for Eglinton, Mr Bill Saunderson. Mr Saunderson, welcome to the committee this morning.

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Thank you very much. I'm very happy to be here.

The Chair: Do you wish to make any opening comments?

Mr Saunderson: Yes, I'd just like to say a few words.

I've had a chance now as an MPP and as a cabinet minister to be involved with the business community, because that's what my portfolio was involved with. I had a chance to learn a little bit about how important the export trade is to this province. If we look back on the last few years, when we had a recession in the country and indeed in North America, if we had not been an export-oriented province, we would have suffered a great deal more than we did. So I think export is an important aspect of the Ontario economy.

You know my background as a businessperson. I was in business basically for 40 years on the financial side of business before seeking election in 1995. I spent a great deal of that time, in my business career, dealing with people from other countries and indeed travelling to other countries, so I obtained a good working knowledge of how international business works.

I'm happy to appear before you today to answer any questions you may have or give any explanations you might like. Mr Chairman, I'll turn it back to you.

The Chair: Thank you for that. We begin the questioning with the official opposition.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Welcome to the committee, Mr Saunderson. Could you tell me exactly the terms of your engagement? I find it very strange that we have someone appointed the chair of the Ontario International Trade Corp who continues to sit as an MPP. Can you just tell me exactly how that works?

Mr Saunderson: My understanding is that I have been appointed, or will be, if successful today, for a three-year period, which is what former Premier Davis was appointed for in 1994.

Mr Kwinter: So in fact your appointment will exceed the mandate of this government.

Mr Saunderson: That's possible. It all depends on when the election is called, I suppose.

Mr Kwinter: How are you compensated?

Mr Saunderson: When I was the minister involved with this organization, we asked all the members of the board, numbering 21, to take no compensation other than $1 a year. I'd be happy to forgo my $1.

Mr Kwinter: So you're going to continue to be paid as an MPP, and I assume -- I don't know for sure, but I'm reading into this that you don't expect to be running in the next election.

Mr Saunderson: That's right. I had said I'm not going to be running in the next election.

Mr Kwinter: You're not going to be running in the next election, and then you will just continue on at this $1 a year plus your expenses.

Mr Saunderson: That's correct. I think it's a good way to serve one's province, regardless of whether one is an MPP or not.

Mr Kwinter: I commend you for wanting to do it. I just wanted to understand what exactly the terms of engagement were.

One of the concerns I have -- as you've been a minister, I've been a minister in the same portfolio. I attended the launch of the Ontario International Trade Corp. At the time, my comment, and it was widely reported, was that it was nothing more than a launch of a new logo, because there was really nothing of substance there. They made a big deal of the fact that Bill Davis was going to be the chair of this. I can tell you, he was never to be heard from again, because I certainly never heard from him again as to what he was doing.

Secondly, the big thrust was this video where people could come into this centre downtown and plug into the video machine and get information on Ontario. That was supposedly the big thrust of what this agency was doing. Today, and even then, when you consider Web sites on the Internet, where that's just standard procedure in any jurisdiction, you should be able to have that. To make that the focus of what this agency was going to be doing when at the very worst there should have been an in-house information session for the staff to say, "Here's a facility that's available to help you when you're dealing with our client base" -- to make that the basis for this new initiative I found very strange. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr Saunderson: First of all, as far as Mr Davis is concerned, he did attend and chair the board meetings on a regular basis. I attended some of those board meetings, and he did chair them very capably. The OITC's forerunner actually goes back to about 1981, and then the name was changed by the previous government, as you say, in 1994, when the OITC in its new form was launched.

As far as I'm concerned, since I've been involved in the government, the OITC has been very active. They have a staff of around 30 to 40 people. All those people have responsibility for various parts of the world, to go to trade shows, to take companies to those parts of the world, to help them further their exports.

I did take a trade mission myself to South America last spring under the auspices of the OITC. It was extremely well organized and extremely successful. We took 25 people with us, representing 15 companies, two community colleges and one university. We covered Chile, Argentina and Brazil. The doors that we were able to open were substantial. The planning that we provided to the companies through cooperating with the federal government, with their embassies in those countries, allowed good contact and resulted in a lot of new business for Ontario companies. The total amount of new business that we anticipate is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million. That may not seem a lot, but that was all new export work that these companies or organizations had never had before.

That's the type of thing I would like to see done more by the OITC. We did some other trade missions to trade shows as well. To give you two examples, we went to Chicago last year to the plastics show, where there were some 35 Ontario companies at one of the biggest trade shows in the world. Again, we were able to open some doors and bring people together not just to further their exports, but to maybe get more partnerships between American and Canadian companies, and companies from all around the world, for that matter, to partner with Ontario companies, which would help manufacturing both here and in their countries, but would also help with external trade.

The other one that I would mention is the air show in Abbotsford, British Columbia, in August. Again, there were 20-some companies from Ontario, because we are becoming a big factor in the aerospace industry, so much so that by the year 2000 we expect that Canada will be the fourth-ranked aerospace country in the world. Of course, we are about 40% of the economy of Canada, so that's going to benefit Ontario.

You mentioned the Ontario Investment Service, which is located downtown in BCE Place. I think that is a very good operation. Not only is it good from the point of view of being a focal point where you can bring foreign investors or foreign trade people, but it also helps foreign companies that are looking for assistance to maybe locate in Ontario.

I can tell you that the Ontario Investment Service was a prime factor in the decision of many of the Japanese auto parts companies that have come to Ontario over the last two years. They have gone to the facility and have asked a number of questions, and the facilities there have thrown up a number of suggestions of where plants could be located. When I have spoken to companies like Denso, which is a very big radiator manufacturer coming from Japan to locate here, they have found the Ontario Investment Service, which works very closely with the OITC, to be of great assistance.

So I don't think it's just a name, as you implied. I was pleased to let you know it is functioning and has functioned well in the time that I've been involved with it.

Mr Kwinter: I'll tell you my concern. I have no problem with trade shows; I think they're fabulous. If the government could organize to get Ontario manufacturers to go to a trade show and help them with the costs of exhibiting and have a critical mass, that's wonderful, because people go to trade shows to do business. I have no problem with that.

I don't have a lot of problems with trade missions; I have problems with the spin that's put on trade missions. I've always said this. It's ridiculous to think that someone is going to go to China in one week and sign $5 million worth of orders. It just doesn't happen. These things take months and sometimes years to negotiate. When you go to the air show in either London or Paris, those deals have been done for months and they're just waiting for the air show where they announce them. Suddenly, you come back and say, "We went to the air show and we signed up $5 billion worth of orders in a four-day visit." That just doesn't make any sense, and you know that. Those things are all predetermined.

1050

My concern is, are you going to be able to provide some kind of direction so that we have people on the ground in these areas so that you're not reactive but you're proactive? These deals take, as I say, months and sometimes years to negotiate. A lot of these things that are announced on trade missions never happen. I can tell you a whole list of them. The atomic energy commission went there and announced all these things. Nothing has ever come of it, but they make good headlines and justify the trade missions.

My concern is that there aren't people on the ground. I'm not suggesting that you reopen all the trade offices, but it seems ridiculous that a jurisdiction like Ontario, which is one of the most trade-dependent jurisdictions in the world, and its largest customer, where 80% of its business is done, doesn't have a representative. It's like having a company and saying: "Our biggest customer is in the United States, but we don't have any salesmen there. We're waiting for them to come to us." Have you given any thought to that? Have you made any overtures to the government as to what it can do about that?

Mr Saunderson: I have. First of all, I agree with you; it takes time for these deals to happen. As you say, a lot of the announcements are a result of many, many months of talk, but they use a facility like the air show -- by the way, I haven't been to those two -- to get some publicity. I agree with that. I certainly want this organization to be proactive, not reacting to something.

My feeling is that small and medium-sized companies are the ones that need the help to export. The big companies, of course, whether it's aerospace or automotive or whatever, are out there and have been out there doing foreign trade for a long period of time. You know that from your experience too. But the companies that need the break and the assistance in exporting are the small and medium-sized companies.

We run wisdom exchanges, as you probably know. The previous government started those, and they were good. I think we have improved upon the system, but always one of the most attended sessions at those wisdom exchanges is the one dealing with exports. So yes, those are the companies that need the help. I would never go on any trade mission unless I was taking with me a number of companies of that nature, because for a minister or somebody involved in this, as I would be, to run around the world by himself or herself is pointless. You have to go and take companies so that you can open the doors for those companies.

You asked about trade offices. As you know, the previous government closed down the 17 offices that were located around the world. We still happen to have someone on the ground as far as tourism is concerned in Japan. I feel that this man has done a great deal to promote tourism to Ontario. Indeed, Ontario gets about 350,000 tourists a year from Japan, and that's as many as each of Alberta and British Columbia, and we don't have big mountains in Ontario -- because the Japanese like to ski. But we do have a lot of golf courses, and they like to golf. The point is, having somebody on the ground, we have competed quite well with other provinces that have a lot to offer.

I have used that as an example in my talks with people within the government. Having spoken to Roy MacLaren, the high commissioner of Canada to London, he would be willing to allow any province to use some of the space they have, because they have downsized a bit and they have some extra space. So down the road it's very possible that we would have not a huge office operating in some major centres, but people there representing Ontario, where people could come from the UK into London to talk to that person.

Indeed, I have had some words with the Premier about this. Rather than going to the big expense of independent offices, you could have our people in certain locations around the world where we do the majority of our trade. Where we do the majority of our trade is with the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Japan. As a starting point, that might be where you might put those people.

Mr Kwinter: Can I --

The Chair: We just went quite a bit over time, so I think I had better call a halt to it.

Mr Silipo: Mr Saunderson, I can probably dispense with my standard question, given that despite what the government is doing, or perhaps from your perspective because of what the government is doing, you're still a supporter of the Mike Harris government. I still see you sitting on the other side, so that means you must still be a member of the party.

Let me go from there to a couple of questions I have on your appointment, which I really find interesting and I see some logic to, actually. First, just for my own information more than anything, in terms of you going to this position, given that you are coming at it from having been now for a couple of years the minister responsible for this body, I'd just be curious about your responsibilities in this position vis-à-vis those that would have been carried out by your predecessor. For example, in terms of your previous job as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, I understood that you were the lead person for the government who would be travelling to other jurisdictions to promote trade and doing those kinds of things. Is that something that switches to you in this new position, or is that a role that the new minister will continue to carry out?

Mr Saunderson: Just to make one comment about what you said at the beginning, yes, I am indeed a very keen supporter of the government.

Mr Silipo: We all have our flaws, Mr Saunderson.

Mr Saunderson: I'm only sorry you didn't ask me the question, where I could have gone on for hours, why I am such a keen supporter because --

Mr Silipo: That's why I didn't ask it.

Mr Saunderson: -- I really believe strongly that we're doing the right things in every aspect of all legislation.

Mr Silipo: You never answered a question I asked you in the House, so why don't you just do the same thing here?

Mr Saunderson: I like small rooms.

There are two aspects of business that we deal with -- three aspects, really. One is to keep businesses thriving in Ontario; one is to get more investment into Ontario; the third is to help our Ontario companies export. Exports create jobs and that creates demand for goods and services, and that always creates economic activity. So no matter what we're trying to promote, whether it's the existing businesses or more investment in Ontario or more exports from the existing companies, we're always trying to create jobs and the economic activity that goes with that.

As I said to Mr Kwinter, we want to be more proactive at OITC and do more export missions or trade missions. I would expect that the minister, Mr Palladini, will continue to do the investment-type missions where you go abroad and you take with you a sector of the Ontario industry, as I did many times, but one in particular: the automotive parts manufacturing companies. You go abroad and meet with other companies to try to bring partnerships and also sell the advantages of doing business in Ontario -- and there are many advantages to doing business in Ontario since we got elected.

However, on the trade missions what I'd like to see are more missions much like the one we did last spring to South America. I saw the benefit of that. I saw the benefit that an order for a lighting system for a city was obtained by a company in Ontario, which means that order will be filled by people working in Ontario and ultimately will lead to a factory being put up in South America. So it's a win-win situation for both Ontario and the country you visit. I'd like to see more trade missions of that nature. We could probably do one a quarter to do them properly. To say you're going to do them week after week just doesn't make any sense. It takes time to plan. Therefore, my aim is for three or four sensible trade missions per year concentrating on exports.

1100

Mr Silipo: So it's fair to say from that that the role the current minister will play will not be significantly different from the role you played. Obviously, you may be doing more of the travel, but he will also continue to do that.

Mr Saunderson: That is correct.

Mr Silipo: The reason I ask this is because I do think that is important. I think it is important that there be a political presence. Obviously, you're in a unique situation in terms of carrying that out, but it's important for the minister to also be seen as the person who is at the head of that, where appropriate.

I also want to get at one other issue which has to do with why it is companies choose one jurisdiction over another. I'm sure we will continue to disagree on this, but I would be interested in your observations on why it is that when you look at the jurisdictions around us, particularly the US jurisdictions around us, you can find that there are a couple of things that exist -- one or more. One of them is either they are involved -- these are the ones that are attracting business that might be coming to Ontario; in other words, the jurisdictions that we compete with.

Part of the reason that I think is undeniable is that they are increasing the advantages they offer to new businesses that come into their jurisdictions by way of either tax credits related to job creation or other kinds of incentives, for example around research and development, whereas certainly under your tenure as minister in your government this jurisdiction has gone the opposite way. I know you've got all sorts of other reasons and rationales in terms of the tax reductions etc, but I'd just be interested in your observation as to why it is that when you look around, those jurisdictions that are growing are doing that at least in part, if not entirely, because they are prepared to put money on the table by way of, as I say, those tax incentives for new businesses. We're not. Isn't that one of the reasons why we're not doing as well as we could be doing in terms of attracting business from other jurisdictions?

Mr Saunderson: Actually, I think we're doing very well getting new businesses into Ontario. We know there are jurisdictions around us, basically south of us, that give tax breaks to companies to come and set up in their regions. They give them grants and loans and other things. It was our policy in our documents when we sought election, we said we would not give grants to businesses, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. When you give grants to businesses, you sometimes support the weak people. When you give loans to companies, forgivable or not, you become the banker of last resort, and the banker of last resort usually gets the worst deals.

I say to you that we've done well getting new companies here. I could go through a long list if you would like, but all I can say is I've had the opportunity, as the minister Mr Palladini will have, of cutting ribbons and making announcements. It became a regular basis to be out at least once a week doing that. I don't think it has hurt us to do this.

What I think has helped us is to have the right business climate, where we say we're open for business, where we say we are going to do certain things for business -- change the labour laws. You may not agree with them, but we did that and that seemed to make a big change for businesses to come to Ontario. We were off the radar screens around the world as far as a place where businesses wanted to come. That's why we started the Market Ontario program about a year ago now. It's a $17-million-a-year program for three years, and it is working effectively to get the word out that Ontario is open for business again, that it has made many changes to be accommodating to businesses but we are not in the grant business.

I don't think that has hurt us. As I said earlier, since being elected we have created something like 260,000 net new jobs, the majority of them coming in the last year, which I think somehow reflects on the time it takes to get the message out and also to have the benefit of the Market Ontario program, which is an advertising program, if you wish to call it that. I think it is paying off.

On R&D, Ontario now has, with the challenge fund that was announced in the last budget, some of the best tax credits, probably the best tax credit system in the world. Quebec is very close to us, and depending on what size of companies we're talking about they may be a little better than us, but we are a little better than them on some. The bottom line is our research and development tax credits are very good. That's one of the reasons why I'm so pleased that the change in curriculum is going to be emphasizing more maths and sciences, which will lead our students into R&D jobs down the road, because that is where the future is. We are doing extremely well with the pharmaceutical industry, as an example, creating jobs there.

Mr Spina: I feel awkward calling you Mr Saunderson, because I've worked with you for such a while. I was honoured to be the parliamentary assistant when you were minister. I applaud the opportunity that will be given to you. Hopefully, you will be the chair of this corporation.

I have a twofold question, if I may. One has to do with your experience, your background in the financial investment field. The other has to do with a comment you made with regard to some strategic markets and small business. I'm going to try to tie those together.

Traditionally, a lot of governments have sought to develop deals with foreign countries and often with Third World countries to develop a domestic export market, but what happened at the other end was that the provincial or the federal government actually ended up either granting the money to buy that or guaranteeing loans through the international bank or whatever process. I'm wondering, because of your experience in the international financial field, is there in your opinion sufficient opportunity for the private sector investment field, both domestically and on an international basis, to fund many of these deals that might be put together?

The second part of the question was, what are some of the strategic markets that you think could be developed, particularly with respect to the small business portfolio I held when I was under you, but for small business in Ontario?

Mr Saunderson: I'll answer that question in two parts. There is funding to finance foreign trade with the Export Development Corp in Ottawa. I'm going to be in Ottawa this week and I would like to pay a visit to EDC, as it's known, just to clarify a few things for myself. I'd also, if possible, like to have a chance to visit our external trade minister, Mr Sergio Marchi. But I do know the funding seems to be there. I have good respect for the EDC. They've made some excellent comments in the press recently about exporting and just how important it is. They're there to do the financing. As you know, they're quite active in the short-term money market, to provide the funds for that type of business.

As far as other strategic markets are concerned, I would think the trade mission we did to South America is a good example of what can be done. The Team Canada mission is going there this January, as you probably are aware. We are sponsoring for the small and medium-sized businesses an export seminar based on that trip. We're doing that on December 2. So every time you do a trip like we did in the spring, to South America -- or Latin America, as it's known -- I think it's best to follow it up with the seminar, to have the people who are participating in that there to talk about their experiences to other small and medium-sized companies.

1110

Having said all that, areas I would be looking at for future business and external trade would be to eastern Europe. We are now seeing the signs that since the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, those countries that were freed, if you can call it that, at that time are starting to show good economic progress. That's even happening in Russia now. I would think eastern Europe, as far as Russia, might make a lot of sense. I don't know that you could do it all in one, but you could probably do it in a couple of visits. It's important to always follow up where the Team Canada missions have gone, by the way, because as Mr Kwinter ably pointed out, it doesn't count just to go once to these places; you have to go back again. Not that you have to go with the trade commission, but you have to be attending the trade shows and everything that's happening there.

I also think the Far East, the Asian Pacific, is still an area where there's a great deal of potential for Ontario companies, despite the fact that they're into a bit of financial turmoil at this stage because of their currencies and their securities markets. But that is another area that you have to keep going to on a regular basis.

There are other countries in South America, by the way, as well, particularly those that belong to the Mercosur, which is the trade arrangement in South America. I think those other countries are worth going to see.

Mr Spina: Thank you. I very much enjoyed the time that we worked together, Bill, and I hope you really do well with this appointment.

Mr Saunderson: You should feel happy with your self-help centres, which are now starting to happen all around Ontario.

The Chair: I'm going to call a halt to this love-in.

Interjection: It's embarrassing.

The Chair: Yes, it's embarrassing.

Mr Baird, you have two minutes.

Mr Baird: Thank you, sir. You're a very capable chairman.

The Chair: What can I say?

Mr Baird: There was some discussion over the issue of members of provincial Parliament serving on agencies, boards and commissions. I know you, sir, as Chair, in your own lifetime and distinguished career in this place, will remember that this is not the first time that was done. It happened a number of times, you will recall, in your tenure here. I think Osie Villeneuve, the former member for S-D-G & East Grenville, served as a member of the St Lawrence Parks Commission, and on the Niagara Parks Commission there were a number of members of provincial Parliament who did at various times either chair or sit on that commission, and a whole host of others. I'm sure it was more commonly done not too far back in your time here, sir.

I would like to talk about two things. One is the issue of promoting Ontario's trade abroad. I know you were of assistance to constituents in my part of the province with the last one. You went down to Delaware to assist the local economic development officials in securing -- successfully, at the end of the day, I might add -- a good number, 1,500 or 1,800 jobs, at a call centre that's coming to Ottawa in the coming months.

How would you see your role as chair of the board in terms of not just what we'd call, as Mr Kwinter talks about, a bigger trade show, rather being available specifically to assist local, whether it's a regional economic development agency or a local industry in securing investments to Ontario?

Mr Saunderson: The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism really seeks to get investment into Ontario and also to help promote trade abroad. I will also try to be of assistance to Mr Palladini in whatever way he wants, but particularly if there's a chance when we're abroad to also go and see a company which might be considering investing in Ontario, large or small, that's something I can do as well, because of my background and my experience. You would never, ever want to stop with just external trade; you'd always want to try to get investment into Ontario as well. I'm certainly happy to do that.

You mentioned the MBNA company, which is a call centre, an affinity credit card operation. It's really a form of bank. Yes, we did go down to Wilmington, Delaware, to promote Ontario, and we won that big operation for Ontario. I'd be happy to do that again, because I look on that as a form of trade as well. I would like to continue on those special assignments, if that's what the minister would like me to do.

The Chair: That exhausts our time with Mr Saunderson. We appreciate your presence here before the committee this morning. You are welcome to stay and watch what happens with the vote on concurrences, to see whether your new career takes off or crashes and burns.

Mr Saunderson: I'm hoping for a good flight. Thanks very much.

The Chair: Okay. The Chair would entertain a motion for concurrence for Ms Sharma first.

Mr Baird: Chair, I would move concurrence on the appointment of Marilyn Sharma as chair of the Social Assistance Review Board.

The Chair: Is there any debate on it?

Mr Baird: I would just make a few short comments. I think Ms Sharma's nomination is an excellent one. She's someone with a very distinguished record and career in the public sector. It's just an example of why the Ontario public service is well regarded, not just in this country but around the world.

She's does not have a partisan background in terms of any political affiliation. She could bring a tremendous skill set, not just that she has learned in her current post but working on projects ranging from agency reform and various other administrations in the government. I think you need a good, balanced skill set. You need someone in this position who will exercise good, solid, fair judgement, which unquestionably Ms Sharma will. But you also need a good skill set as a manager, running an adjudicative agency in the province. You can't have one without the other, I would suggest. I think the nominee has an excellent balance of both and we would all be exceptionally well served by her nomination.

Mr Cullen: I want to say at the outset that we will be supporting the appointment of Mrs Sharma to the position of chair of the Social Assistance Review Board. I just had to note that the previous speaker seemed to point out that it was a good thing not to have a political affiliation, so I'll be interested in his vote when it comes to the next appointment, when we get there. I never consider someone's political affiliation to be a barrier to doing a good job. From my own experience within the federal civil service, I know there are excellent people in there who work for the betterment of all of our community.

I just want to get my concern on the record, because there are two points that came out as a result of our conversations, our questions and answers with the applicant. One is that Mrs Sharma did indicate that in her view she was being appointed to a three-year term as chair of the Social Assistance Review Board, yet we all know that board is going to disappear. It seems rather clear to me that someone has made a commitment to Mrs Sharma that it will be a three-year appointment, so therefore one has to assume it will carry over to the new board as created by Bill 142.

I am also concerned, and I think you detected that from the direction of my questions, that the board is going to be dealing with new policy, and therefore new interpretations of policy. No matter how you'd like to be very fine about it in terms of, "These are the procedures; we're just interpreting procedures," we all know we are taking decisions that are going to be affecting real people's lives.

This is where I want to simply put on the record, for the people I have sent up to the Social Assistance Review Board for review of decisions -- we all realize the rules are there, but the decisions that go up to the board often deal with those cases that fall between the cracks. I was very pleased to hear Mrs Sharma say that she will be reviewing the decisions being taken by the board, that she is open to points that will be raised by those people who interact with the board, simply because we do want to be sure that the purpose behind the legislation, that the needs of people in need are being addressed and that taxpayers' dollars are being protected. which sometimes are the same thing and sometimes are competing interests.

I think these things are important. You can't simply hide behind, as we heard earlier from other appointments that were being made to the board all of a month ago, "I'm just there to follow the rules." Would that life were that simple.

1120

Mr Silipo: This one gives me some trouble. I have no doubt about Ms Sharma's sense of fairness and her genuine desire to do that and to be that in this appointment. I have some concerns about the nature of the task she's going into because of the changes the government has made so far, particularly the ones that are yet to come. I don't know what to make of this appointment in terms of whether it's going to carry on into the new board or not. I didn't get a clear sense one way or the other. It may be that Ms Sharma doesn't really know herself what's going to happen partway through this process.

I am concerned about her sense that this is more an administrative type of function, because this is an adjudicative body. While the chair herself may not sit regularly on panels, it involves more than just running the ship in terms of the administration of it, so I have some concerns about that. At the end of the day I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I wanted to put on the record my concerns about that, because at the end of the day it's fair to say that my big worries about this board have to do far more with what the government policy continues to be and is going to be with the continuing changes that will severely limit people's rights to appeal than it has to do with the individual who's being suggested to head this board, at least in the intervening period.

I will support Ms Sharma's appointment because I frankly don't want to take what I consider to be the copout route of just not voting on it, which I know under Mr Baird's new rules we can do. But I do that with some reluctance and I want my comments to be on the record.

The Chair: You've heard Mr Baird's motion. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour?

Mr Baird: Could I ask for a recorded vote?

Ayes

Baird, Cullen, Gravelle, Ron Johnson, Newman, Silipo, Spina, Stewart.

The Chair: The motion is carried unanimously.

Next we have the concurrence for Mr Saunderson.

Mr Stewart: I move concurrence on the appointment of William Saunderson as member and chair of the Ontario International Trade Corp.

The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it?

Mr Stewart: I would just like to make a couple of comments, if I may. I think the experience that Mr Saunderson has had, not only as Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism but also his experience in the private sector, would stand him in good stead for this particular position.

Certainly we have to go out and promote Ontario. Mr Saunderson has that ability, and his track record of cooperation with other institutions, with other governments in his past positions, bodes well to promote this great province. So I'm most pleased to have made that motion.

Mr Cullen: We're pleased to support this particular appointment. Moving from the ministerial position, which sets policy, to actually implementing policy is a very interesting evolution. We know Mr Saunderson has a tremendous appetite for this area of international trade development. We expect he will put his considerable energies towards this. It seems to me that given both the government's agenda and Mr Saunderson's appetite, this looks pretty well to be a full-time job.

Of course, we will certainly take advantage of the opportunity to raise questions in the House as to how he is doing with his job. We think that's one of the positive things about Mr Saunderson remaining a member of provincial Parliament.

We will leave it up to his electorate to consider, in taking on this full-time position and all the energies that he will put there, how well he will serve his community. It does raise a question in our minds of how these things are going to be balanced, how justice can be done to this important portfolio and to the community that he represents in the House. Quite frankly, we did expect an announcement of a by-election. But that is not the case and we will certainly see how these things evolve and will be able to ask questions in terms of his progress in dealing with this important portfolio in the House.

Mr Silipo: We probably should reassure Mr Saunderson, in light of Mr Cullen's comment, that he won't be required to answer questions in the House. The minister may have to, I guess.

I just wanted to say I'm going to support Mr Saunderson's appointment because at the end of the day, even though we have significant differences about how you attract business to this province, attracting more business to this province is a difficult thing and it's clear to me that this is a job that he relishes and he's going to be able to actually do it with some vigour. That can only be good for the province.

The Chair: Any other comments? Are you ready for the question?

Mr Baird: Can we get a recorded vote, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Ayes

Baird, Cullen, Gravelle, Newman, Silipo, Spina, Stewart.

The Chair: Thank you for that. It's carried unanimously.

Is there any other business? As you know, we have no other certificates awaiting us at this point, so we'll see at the end of this week if we get more.

Mr Baird: Efficient management by our Chair.

The Chair: I don't take any credit for that. We'll see whether there are more and await a call for a meeting. Thank you all for that. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1127.