STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Wednesday 20 June 2001 Mercredi 20 juin 2001
INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
JOHN THOMPSON
Wednesday 20 June 2001 Mercredi 20 juin 2001
The committee met at 1006 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr James J. Bradley): I'm going to call the meeting to order for Hansard purposes.
We have, first of all, the report of the subcommittee on committee business, dated Thursday, June 14, 2001.
Mr Bob Wood (London West): Mr Chair, I move its adoption.
The Chair: Mr Wood has moved the adoption of the subcommittee report. All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
JOHN THOMPSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John C. Thompson, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Review Board.
The Chair: Our first intended appointee, as a member of the Ontario Film Review Board, is John C. Thompson. Mr Thompson, would you come forward, please? Welcome to the committee. You may sit right there. Should you choose to do so, you may make an initial statement, the time of which is subtracted from the government members' questions.
Mr John Thompson: I'll be brief, then.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr Thompson: Actually, I'd like to thank you for your time this morning. I've talked to enough elected representatives from different countries and levels of government over the years to know how pressed some of you are for time.
I also realize I might be, to some, an unusual appointment for the film review board, but few people have the experience I've garnered over the years. Without going into detail, among the things I've looked at over the years have been field investigations into the black market, various examinations on criminal activities and so on and also research into strip clubs and the sex industry. On top of that, there's a fair amount of travel and work in other countries and a very thorough understanding of some of the underside of the human condition.
Now, I do understand that about half of the work of the film review board is involved in screening pornography, and in those aspects of my work that have dealt with the related components of the adult entertainment industry, I've come to understand the twin forces that pull on society, where we have our fascination with sex and the erotic aspect of our natures and at the same time the opposite pull to try to keep the destructive effects of things under control. This sort of struggle between permissiveness and prudence is an old one, and I understand both sides of the issue quite well.
I do have a strong commitment to freedom of expression and a healthy respect, even a degree of envy, for people in whom a spirit of creativity runs strong, but at the same time I have a fairly limited tolerance for anyone who would degrade other people or strip them of their dignity, and that sometimes will include entertainment. There's a boundary line that cannot be crossed, and I believe the film review board honestly represents the values of the vast majority of Ontario citizens and knows where that boundary line is.
Another concern of the film review board involves the depiction of violence, torture and cruelty. These are areas I've studied professionally for some 15 years. I've written about them and commented on them for years and, for what it's worth, I also have some first-hand experience with violence, having been twice shot at, among other things. With this, I believe I can provide good insight into what might be gratuitous, excessive and unnecessary, and again, I have a limited tolerance for the same.
I know the film review board provides an important function in helping Ontario citizens make informed choices about what they or their families will watch. Classification requires good judgment, maturity and experience, and these are attributes that I will bring to the board. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. This was a choice of the third party, so I'll start our questioning today with Mr Martin of the third party.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Thank you very much. I'm sure you're aware that one of the tasks of this board to which you're seeking appointment is to understand and try to maintain some sense of community standards when it comes to the kinds of offerings that are made by way of films to the public. What's your sense of how community standards are set and what would you bring to this position by way of an understanding of what we mean by community standards?
1010
Mr Thompson: In my own experience, in some issues there tends to be a rough consensus eventually, an area in which people who are opposed to something will no longer protest against a particular point. At the same time, on the other side of the issue there are people who are always sort of pushing the boundaries. I should explain. For example, in Parkdale I did some work with people in the area who were dealing with streetwalkers and they were, of course, absolutely opposed to street prostitution. On the other side, you could see how the industry was sort of filtering in and how the women were coming in off the streets, always trying to find new venues and so on. They've never got rid of prostitution in Parkdale, but eventually a sort of consensus arrived as to what would be tolerated and what would not be tolerated. People eventually worked it out for themselves.
When I was doing a research project on strip clubs in Ontario, again, I had a pretty good idea of what people were opposed to and, at the same time, what most people in the industry were content to do and the dissatisfaction they had with people in strip clubs who kept trying to push the envelope even further in the other direction. That struggle between, as I said, prudence and permissiveness is always a dynamic one, but eventually a consensus does emerge.
Mr Martin: How would you suggest that the board, or yourself if appointed to the board, continue to be in touch with the issue of community standards?
Mr Thompson: Actually, I do like the practice of the board where they occasionally invite people in from the general public to make their own judgment of the film and to see whether or not they actually agree. At the same time, I think the board clearly understands that pornography is legal in Ontario, is permissive and there is a wide audience for it. But the standards they watch out for are things I'd say 99.9% of Ontarians would not want to see in pornographic videos. It's the same thing, I suppose, with violence.
Mr Martin: You've talked a fair bit in your time this morning about the issue of pornography. There are other issues, of course, where films are concerned, violence being one of them. There seems to be a different standard, where we seem to be skittish when it comes to sexuality and things people do of a sexual nature, but when it comes to violence there seems to be no limit to what we'll show under the aegis of entertainment. You've talked a bit about your experiences, having done some work in the area of regulating strip clubs. What about violence?
Mr Thompson: I've actually got some practical experience with violence and, at the same time, it's something I've studied for most of my life. A lot of it really, I suppose, depends on context. For example, I don't know if you ever saw the first half-hour of the movie Saving Private Ryan, which was pretty horrific, but at the same time that was actually a time machine. It was instructive. That was a fairly realistic depiction of what was occurring at the point in history. For myself, I would have graded the film Restricted for that, or at least hoped that it was Adult Accompaniment. At the same time, if you have a degree of violence like that without a point, that is gratuitous and excessive or celebrates violence for its own sake, then I'd be a lot more uncomfortable with that.
Mr Martin: I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but the industry itself, I believe, last year did a review of its rating system and came forward with the suggestion that the category of Adult Accompaniment be split into two: 14A, which would mean that children under 14 would have to be accompanied by an adult to see certain movies. and 18A, which would mean those younger than 18. Right now, there seems to be a catch-all. Once you're over 14 -- I've got three kids now over 14 who seem to think they can go to anything and they use the argument that, "Well, Dad, it's PG or AA-13 or -14." The industry itself is suggesting that there be another category, 18A. What's your view of that?
Mr Thompson: Actually, I think that distinction makes sense. There are things that a 14-year-old or 15-year-old still might not be mature enough to understand or to handle that somebody who is 18 probably could.
Mr Martin: OK. What about the new area that is coming on stream now which, again, I recognize with my own kids, and that's the regulation of video games? There are some video games, particularly where violence is concerned, which are quite shocking. I know that in British Columbia they've moved to regulate the sale and distribution of video games, asking those who distribute them, who are in that business, to separate certain videos from ones that should be available. Again, it's the 14- and 18-year category that they've used. What's your opinion on that?
Mr Thompson: I suppose the real problem would be the shoot-'em-up video games, which is something I don't play myself for amusement, but I've seen them once or twice and they certainly look to be, again, excessive, gratuitous and extremely violent. On the other hand, some games I know have actually been converted. The US Marine Corps took Doom II because a person who played the game could actually tailor the environment, so they would create the interior of protected areas and then run marines through with this video game as a training system.
I have some problems with a video game which on one side you could use as a military training system to condition people to shoot quickly and automatically in protected areas and something that a 13-year-old can play for hours without adult supervision.
Mr Martin: What's your view re the bit of a brouhaha that's out there right now, the senior officer in our Armed Forces who watched pornography on his laptop and thereby lost his job? If you listen to some of the CBC playback, there is certainly a mixed bag of opinion on that. Are you aware of that and what's your view?
Mr Thompson: In my own opinion, the question is, was he doing this on his own time and on his own ticket or on ours? If we're paying him to run our Pacific fleet, then he should be running the fleet, but if he's off by himself on his own time, then what he does is his own business.
Mr Martin: I note in your resumé that you have some fairly significant involvement in politics. Are you a member of any particular political party?
Mr Thompson: Provincially, no. Federally, I'm a member of the Alliance Party at the moment. But that's never really held me that much. I tend to get involved in political campaigns and in ridings, but that really depends on the individual. I've been all over the place. I've worked with people from just about every party on their campaigns at one time or another, normally because they were people I knew and respected.
Mr Martin: How did you find out about this particular appointment or opportunity?
Mr Thompson: I was talking to a friend of mine, Derek Nelson, about films and the judgment of films and he suggested that I actually put my name in for the Ontario Film Review Board and it went from there.
The Chair: We'll move to the government caucus.
Mr Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: They are waiving their time, so we'll move to the official opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Good morning, sir. Welcome to the committee.
In your resumé under "The Mackenzie Institute," it's obvious you're the executive director. I'm from rural Ontario and a lot of my information comes from the newspaper or something I might happen to read. If I were to read comments from the Mackenzie Institute in the newspaper, should they be quoted, might the Mackenzie Institute be described as a right-wing think-tank?
Mr Thompson: No, that's a characterization that I think is wrong and I've always resented. Personally, we tend to have a set of values that do work toward individual freedom and stability and, at the same time, individual rights, but beyond that we've normally gone after people who are involved in organized crime, insurgent groups, things like that. As for being right-wing, that's a criticism that's been levelled at us once or twice and it's something I've always resented.
Mr Crozier: So I may have read that. I was just trying to recall something about the Mackenzie Institute.
1020
Mr Thompson: I'm trying to remember the names of some of the newspaper columnists who have written about us. One called us "fair, impartial and protective of democracy." We've also been called "scrupulously accurate and discerning."
Mr Crozier: What's the main objective of the Mackenzie Institute?
Mr Thompson: To provide information and comment on matters pertaining to organized violence and political instability.
Mr Crozier: Violence, then, is the main thrust?
Mr Thompson: Organized violence. I don't deal with, say, things like criminology or individual criminal theory. A serial killer or something, I wouldn't be interested in, but organized violence that's being done, perpetuated for a particular cause, is something that always attracts our attention.
Mr Crozier: In Mr Martin's questioning of, essentially, how you would arrive at what may be community standards or contemporary standards, you made one comment about the fact that the board goes out and invites the general public to come in and view films. Is that what they do?
Mr Thompson: I understand they do that once or twice a month. They'll bring in a panel of 12 people from the general public and then see if their agreement corresponds with the board's assessment of a particular film.
Mr Thompson: What is it that you do in your day-to-day life that would allow you to meet a mix of Ontarians from whom you may get an idea of what community standards are?
Mr Thompson: I've talked to, over the past few years, if you look at some of the records of people we've interviewed on various fields and subjects, 800 or 900 people in the average year. When I get called on to do lectures, I go everywhere from universities to high schools to local community clubs. When we're researching a particular issue, we will talk to dozens and dozens of people on that particular issue.
Mr Crozier: So you do this in your professional life as well as, as I say, everyday kind of life.
Mr Thompson: Yes.
Mr Crozier: Also with regard to the military person whom Mr Martin referred to, you said it would be a question -- I'm paraphrasing; perhaps you can remind me -- as to whether it would be on his personal time or on our time. Have you ever done anything of a personal nature on the Mackenzie Institute's time?
Mr Thompson: Probably. I suppose we all have, but I don't think I've been using my computers in the office to download pornography.
Mr Crozier: No, I wasn't even suggesting that. I just was getting to the answer that you gave me: probably we all have. So it may not be that it was on his personal time or on our time; it may be what he was doing on our time.
Mr Thompson: I just find it hard to correspond, say, fleet readiness strengths or manpower levels with downloading pornography.
Mr Crozier: So do I. That's why I'm trying to get at where your problem with that is. Is it with what he was doing or when he was doing it?
Mr Thompson: Actually, I don't really know enough about it to comment. If this was an obsessive activity that he was spending hundreds of hours on, I would be concerned.
Mr Crozier: Oh, sure.
Mr Thompson: If this was something he did in five minutes in a lunch break sometime, then maybe DND is overreacting.
Mr Crozier: How's our time doing here? I just have one more question, but I want to leave time.
The Chair: You've got to 10:29 to ask.
Mr Crozier: OK, I'll just have one more question. We're doing a little organizing here; excuse us. You're currently working on two children's books, fiction and historical fiction. Can you just tell me what kind of books those are? Have you written other children's books?
Mr Thompson: No, this is my first stab at it. I've got a niece who always liked me to tell her stories, especially about dragons and mythical creatures. So I've been assembling some short stories about this for her, and I'll see if I can get it published. I've got an illustrator lined up. I'm also writing an account of a piece of gold and how it's changed over 3,000 years, the different hands and the different times and places it passed through and what it meant to them.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Mr Thompson, you indicated earlier -- was it Derek Nelson who suggested you apply for this job?
Mr Thompson: Yes.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Can you perhaps give us some indication of who Derek Nelson is?
Mr Thompson: He was a columnist at Queen's Park for many years. I believe he's also married to a member of the government.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Who would be?
Mr Thompson: Janet Ecker.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I see. You've indicated in your resumé that at the present time you're not married. Do you have children?
Mr Thompson: No, I don't.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm the mother of four children, and so I'm rather interested in the new rating, particularly that would refer to adult accompaniment. Do you think this is a better system of rating for the impressionable teenagers?
Mr Thompson: The distinction between 14 and 18? I think it would be preferable to just allowing adult accompaniment generally. I think there is a major difference between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old in their attitudes. It's a time of tremendous change, as you well understand.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Yes, I certainly do understand. Sometimes 18-year-olds can be more like 13-year-olds, and vice versa. I guess the concern that I have is the actual monitoring, that while a film might be rated for 18-year-olds and under, those under 14 can access those films, whereas if it was strictly adult accompaniment, there would be no question around age, and that's a concern that I certainly have as a parent. I would think that perhaps the film board might consider that.
Also, the community perspective and community standards, you would appreciate that they would change from one community in Ontario to another. So there are communities where perhaps some activity might be more familiar or where young people would have been exposed to particular activities, where in other communities that may not be the case.
Mr Thompson: I think it's entirely possible in some cases, but again I understand the film review board tries to bring in people from all over Ontario to reflect different communities and their different approaches to things. At the same time, of course, community standards are also dynamic. Although I do appreciate that the film review board does have some hard and fast rules about, say, the depiction of torture or the use of minors in pornographic movies, that's sort of a line that really can't be touched and shouldn't be. I'd be very surprised if the community turned around and suddenly tolerated those.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I only know in my own experience as a member from rural Ontario that I travel in circles with parents who, from time to time, would say they are very disturbed at some of the movies that young people are able to access very freely in terms of the language and what is presented on the screen, violence and what they would say is pornography.
Mr Thompson: I also think you might be surprised how those concerns are shared by people in downtown Toronto as well.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Precisely, which is, I guess, maybe my question about the effectiveness of the ratings now for adult accompaniment, whether they are appropriate or whether they were better the way they were before.
Mr Thompson: I think they are more appropriate, but, again, there will never be complete unanimity on the division. But I think to discern between those under 14 and those between 14 and 18 would be more useful.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for appearing before the committee. You're allowed to step down now.
MARGARET MARTIN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Margaret Martin, intended appointee as member, the Early Years Steering Committee of the city of Toronto health unit.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Margaret Martin, who is an intended appointee as member, the Early Years Steering Committee of the city of Toronto health unit. Welcome to the committee, Ms Martin. As you probably heard, you're quite welcome to make an initial statement, if you wish, the time of which, I should say, is subtracted from the government members' questioning time. I was once chastized for not reminding them of that. Anyway, welcome to the committee. We're happy to have you before us.
1030
Ms Margaret Martin: Thank you and good morning, Mr Chair and members of the committee. My name is Margaret Martin. Thank you for this opportunity for having me here this morning. I'd like to take this time to give you a brief background of myself with respect to being considered for the appointment to the Early Years Steering Committee of the city of Toronto health unit.
I was raised in Dundas, a town that provided for my family a strong community fabric of support and strength that played a great role during my youth. I completed my post-secondary education at McMaster University and at the University of Toronto. Throughout my teens and 20s, I was involved with the Polish scouting organization of Ontario. I worked extensively on initiatives that would help give the young people in my community the opportunity to spend a couple of weeks at summer camp, experiencing new friendships and opportunities and building confidence.
This community also very much influenced me in who I am today. More importantly, it impacted on my awareness of how fulfilling it is to have a community network to support you, not only in your older years but those of your youth as well. During the last 10 years, I have become involved in the Polish-Canadian community. Presently, I am on the board of directors of the Canadian Polish Congress, working with committee groups that deal with issues including ESL and support services to new immigrants.
In 1996 my son, Ethan, was born. Before his birth, I began to identify as much as possible the resources that would help me in raising him. My primary one was my family, but I also looked to books and the community. We live in the riding of Parkdale-High Park, a mixed socio-economic neighbourhood that, in my mind, is a good representation of the city of Toronto.
During Ethan's first two and a half years, I participated in many of the available programs in my community. As a new parent, I became interested in what was available to my child during those first years. Ethan has been attending preschool and junior kindergarten in a school in our neighbourhood. I have spent the two years working with school representatives as a class parent and am planning to continue my involvement with them. Ethan is a very fortunate child to have a strong, supportive family and will have access to many wonderful things throughout his life. And that is why I am here today.
My interest in the steering committee is a belief that it will play a significant role in our community by increasing availability of programs to children and families. These programs are a crucial part of the needed resources that parents and caregivers need for children during those first years. The Early Years Study has provided us with a vision. It's now the role of the committee to take up the challenge to champion early childhood development. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll start with the government members.
Mr Wood: We'll waive our time.
The Chair: The time has been waived. We then move to the official opposition.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Thank you, and good morning, Ms Martin. I did notice in your resumé you've indicated that you are involved in your riding association?
Ms Martin: That's right.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I can assume, because you have been an employee of the government, that it would be the Conservative riding association?
Ms Martin: That's correct.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Both federally and provincially?
Ms Martin: At this point just provincially.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Just provincially. OK. With regard to the early years initiative, you are familiar with the National children's agenda and with the federal dollars that have been transferred to the province?
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mrs Dombrowsky: You are aware that the $114 million that Mr Baird unveiled plans for are federal dollars?
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mrs Dombrowsky: OK. I think that's very important to appreciate. Are you aware of the four areas where the federal government indicated it would be appropriate to spend those funds?
Ms Martin: I do recall that they had indicated that the funds were to be divided into four different areas, but I'm not 100% sure what the four are.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Do you know that one of the areas was for child care?
Ms Martin: That's right, yes.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Are you familiar with the fact that, according to Mr Baird's plan, not one cent will be directed toward child care?
Ms Martin: That's correct. Yes.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Yes. Do you have an opinion on that particular fact, given also that in the city of Toronto at the present time there are 13,000 children waiting for a child care fee subsidy?
Ms Martin: Well, I think that child care is -- it's necessary that parents have a choice in their child care and that they're able to work within their community to be able to access the child care that they will need. But I also think that the city of Toronto is very unique. The immigration, the population is growing. We're finding ourselves at a point where we're -- hopefully, through the work of the steering committee, they will be able to tap into the resources that need enhancement that will be able to help the situation.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I certainly support your idea, your presentation. It's important that parents would have a choice. I'm sure, though, you understand that for many parents in the city, because of the cost of child care and the shortage of spaces, there is no choice, because they cannot afford to access the spaces that might be available to them. As a member of the steering committee, would you think it's appropriate to advocate for government support for child care for more subsidized spaces so that more families who need quality child care for their children can access that?
Ms Martin: As one voice of 10, I'm sure that when that issue does come to the table I would definitely participate in a discussion of the need to have spaces, and the committee would then make a suggestion to the minister.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Certainly, I would hope that. Do you see yourself as an individual who would bring that issue to the fore?
Ms Martin: To discuss it? Sure, absolutely. It's a part of the requirements, the needs of children. Absolutely. It would be a part of a number of issues that would have to be discussed when we sit down to put together the plan.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Are you familiar with the organization called the Coalition for Better Child Care?
Ms Martin: I'm familiar with them.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Are you aware that they have had a campaign which has gone across the province to assess how communities are meeting the child care needs within their communities? Were you aware that initiative was underway?
Ms Martin: Yes, I am.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm glad. I've attended many of those forums. Certainly at none of the forums I attended were government members present, although I know they were invited, so I do have a concern that maybe the very good information that was presented in those forums was perhaps not arriving with the members of the government. I think it's important information for them to have, to understand that across Ontario there is a serious and significant need for support of child care services within communities for families who do not have the means to pay for the spaces that would not be subsidized; that they really do need those services. I'm happy to know that you are familiar with them.
That would conclude my questions. Thank you very much, by the way.
Mr Crozier: Thank you and good morning, Ms Martin. In an answer to Ms Dombrowsky's question regarding the 13,000 children who are waiting for subsidized daycare spaces in Toronto, part of your comment -- and I'd just like you to perhaps repeat it -- was that you referred to the immigrant population. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms Martin: Sure. I just think Toronto is unique in the situation that it finds itself in when you're discussing numbers, for instance, and addressing the issues. You have English as a second language, you have disproportionately more immigration ending up in Toronto versus smaller communities.
Mr Crozier: What did you mean, though, having it in the context of 13,000 spaces being waited for for subsidized daycare?
Ms Martin: My comment was because I've been working with Polish immigrants who have been coming to Ontario and seeing that proportionately I have far more that I have to discuss and meet with compared to places outside of Toronto. They're coming to Toronto for the first couple of years, often before they move to other communities in the province.
Mr Crozier: You do see a relationship, then, between this waiting list for subsidized daycare and immigration? I want to be sure that I understand what you mean.
Ms Martin: I haven't done the research on it; it's just from my own experience working with Polish immigrants who are coming to Canada who are often staying in Toronto for their first year or two. These families often are waiting also. The parents are trying to find jobs. They're also looking for subsidized daycare. I think proportionately there are more in the Toronto area in the first years compared to going outside of Toronto. That's what I'm trying to correlate. But I don't have the research. I assume once we are on the committee we will be detailed with numbers and facts that will help us.
Mr Crozier: The Enterprise Canada group is described in your resumé as a consultant. Is it a registered lobbyist?
Ms Martin: Yes.
Mr Crozier: It is? So you act as a lobbyist?
Ms Martin: A government relations consultant, yes.
Mr Crozier: You left the office of the minister December 1997 and started in January 1998, literally went from one job to the other, from being, I take it, on the minister's political staff, to becoming a lobbyist. Help me, because I really can't recall; are there any specific regulations that would prohibit certain employees of government from doing that?
1040
Ms Martin: There are, but in fact the first year I was with Enterprise Canada I did no government relations. In the first year you're prohibited from contact with the ministry that you were working in. But I initially was assisting some staff; I did no government relations.
Mr Crozier: I see. The daily communications you have with Queen's Park, both bureaucratic and political, what kind of communications are those?
Ms Martin: For instance, news releases. As announcements are made from ministries, identifying on behalf of clients information that may be useful to them.
Mr Crozier: And the Ontario Legislative Highlights weekly newsletter is something that Enterprise Canada produces?
Ms Martin: That's correct.
The Chair: That concludes the questioning for the Liberal Party. We go to the third party.
Mr Martin: I was worried when I first saw your name that actually it was --
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): Are you related?
Mr Martin: I was just going to say, when I first saw her name I thought maybe it was my sister coming, because I do have a sister.
Ms Martin: Margaret?
Mr Martin: Yes. Maybe she wasn't telling me something.
Ms Martin: The moment I became Margaret Martin, I become one of many.
Interjection.
Mr Martin: She's a Liberal.
Mr Wood: She's moving in the right direction.
Mr Martin: In the right direction, yes.
My concern in these appointments -- and we've had quite a slew before us over the last few months as these new boards are up and running -- is that they not become simply a vehicle to further impose a government agenda on communities that may not in the long run be in their best interests. So my first question for you is, what is your understanding of the role of this committee? Is it a committee that works with government to implement, and I'll use the word "impose," an agenda where early childhood and children's issues are concerned or is it a vehicle to get into the community and find out what's needed, what in the view of the community will be in their best long-term interest? And how does that interface with other things that the community is doing or sees as necessary?
Ms Martin: The latter. This committee will sit down, audit the resources of the community that they're representing, identify where there are needs, what needs to be enhanced, put together a plan and then make a proposal to the minister as to how to implement the changes that they see are necessary to help provide additional resources to families and so on.
Mr Martin: If you, in your role, discover, as I have over the last couple of years, that many of the initiatives of the present provincial government are driving more families into poverty, and deeper poverty than we've ever seen before, if you find that's the case as you become involved and immersed in this work, would you personally be willing to challenge the government on some of those initiatives as part of this committee?
Ms Martin: Again, I'm one of 10. I'm sure we would be addressing the issue of poverty, definitely, and what we can do to help children within our community. As a group, we will then put together what we feel are the next steps or a plan that will help address the issues that we are concerned with, and poverty I'm sure will be one of them at that time.
Mr Martin: Are you aware of the group called Campaign 2000?
Ms Martin: Yes, I am.
Mr Martin: They have highlighted poverty among children as a key issue to be addressed by all levels of government. In 1989, the federal government passed a resolution unanimously that child poverty would be eradicated by the year 2000. Where in fact we had one in 10 children in poverty in 1989, we now have one in five. Would you agree with those statistics?
Ms Martin: Again, the issue of poverty -- no child should be living in poverty. I would hope that through the steering committee we would be able to address ways to help the children within our community and their families so that they're able to develop and move forward. It's definitely an issue that would come to the table and we will discuss as a group as to how to address it.
Mr Martin: The government has been very clear that it believes that taxpayers should have control over more of their money and are the right people to be deciding how to spend it, but when it comes to the poor, they seem to have a different rule of thumb. Everything they've done indicates that they believe the poor don't spend their money wisely, particularly when it comes to spending it on their children, and so have moved to implement more community-oriented programs as opposed to allowing poor families to have more money and to have more control over the spending of that money. What would your view of that be?
Ms Martin: I think a strong community network is crucial. I grew up in an environment in a small town where you could count on support, whether it was the church, the local community hall and so on. So I think having a strong community and having those resources so that parents or caregivers, when they need to turn to individuals or organizations for assistance, whether it's child rearing -- that is incredibly crucial and it's very helpful. In the long term, it helps you to work together as a team and an organization. I think children benefit from that. I know I did. I recall spending time with different groups within my community. That is something you live with and you see that you can turn to others to advise you. The six months I was at home with Ethan, I spent time meeting with other new mothers within our community from all different backgrounds. We were able to share information and help one another from our own experiences. I think that community strength is very important.
Mr Martin: What would the priority be for you, giving families the money they need to feed their children at home or setting up breakfast programs for children whose families don't have the money to feed them at home?
Ms Martin: I think you have to look at the situation. I can't answer that. I'm not in a position to answer that question right now. Obviously I want all children to be feed and in each case it would have to be looked at individually.
Mr Martin: So you wouldn't agree with me that it makes sense, probably looking at your own circumstance -- and you've shared it quite readily here this morning; and I know looking at my own -- that families should be able to feed their children at home?
Ms Martin: Oh, absolutely, but there are circumstances where that is obviously difficult. So if we can enhance, I would say, helping children with a morning breakfast program, let's try to do that; coordinate something with other partners so we can help those kids for whom, for whatever reasons, the parents aren't able to provide a good meal in the morning.
Mr Martin: And feeding children at home is made most difficult when your income isn't adequate, in my view.
The federal government introduced a program called the national child tax benefit supplement, which was designed to give low-income families on average, say, $80 a month per child to feed their children at home. The provincial government, in its wisdom, decided that anybody collecting assistance from the provincial government, whether it be Ontario Works, an OSAP loan or the Ontarians with disabilities support program -- across the board they would claw back every dollar that any of those families got by way of the supplement. So if the cheque came in the middle of the month from the federal government, it would be missing from the provincial cheque that would go out at the end of the month. Do you think that's fair?
Ms Martin: But was the money not rerouted in an alternative way to -- the money was still used, though, somehow. It was sent to the communities, was it not, in another way? It's not that they kept the money for themselves.
Mr Martin: Yes, the municipalities were allowed to keep 20% of the money to set up programs, and they do fund some wonderful programs that help everybody in the community. But, again, it seems a little inconsistent for a government that now is proud of the fact that it has surpluses in terms of money coming in and money going out, that has been promised over $900 million from the federal government to deliver child-oriented programs and that has announced they're going to give another $4 billion away in tax breaks, to be taking money away from poor families and using it to support those wonderful programs, instead of taking it from those other sources. It seems to me it would be more logical, in terms of its availability and the moral and ethical issues surrounding it, would you not agree?
1050
Ms Martin: I'm sure the government -- policies they put in place are never intended to hurt the children. I just think, as a member of this committee, which is why I'm here, we will, as a group, look at what we feel is the best way to enhance and try to improve the situation for the children within our community. That will be first and foremost on our mind as we identify the resources that are there right now and try to improve the situation.
Mr Martin: I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if you discover, as a member of this committee, that, however well intentioned, a program or initiative of the government is in fact hurting families, would you be willing to say to the government that that's wrong?
Ms Martin: The discussion at the table comes up on a certain issue and I will voice an opinion at that point, absolutely, to the committee. The committee as a group will then plan and we'll work on putting a plan forward to the minister. But as an individual -- one of 10 -- I will always be there ready to honestly react as to what I believe on certain issues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Martin, for being at the committee this morning.
SULAKHAN (SAM) HUNDAL
Review of intended appointment, selected by the official opposition party: Sulakhan (Sam) Hundal, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Sam Hundal. He is an intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario. Welcome to the committee, sir. You are welcome to make an initial statement, should you see fit, and then there will be questioning by the members of the committee.
Mr Sam Hundal: Mr Chairman, I feel privileged to come in front of the standing committee and meet the members and share my experiences with them.
I am a resident in Ontario for over 28 years. By profession I'm a real estate broker and I happen to be a non-health professional, a citizen of Ontario, and would like to bring the people of Ontario's concerns, needs and aspirations to the notice of the management so they can make rational decisions to enhance the quality and access to health care in this area.
My involvement in the community -- I will be very brief, Mr Chairman -- has been very extensive. I've been a member of Peel Memorial Hospital Foundation for many years and I was involved in various committees. Part of that was to raise funds -- a campaign to successfully achieve over $7 million for the hospital. I was involved in the celebrity jail-and-bail program for the foundation, which was very successful, and part of a team in Brampton to donate an eye laser machine to the local hospital.
After that I happened to be a member of the board of governors of Peel Memorial Hospital and had the privilege to sit on the strategic planning committee, the quality review committee, the community advisory council, the community awareness task force, the funding disparity task force, the public relations committee and the multicultural advisory committee over a few years' time. That gave me experience to meet with people and learn how to get input from the public to make right decisions.
I've been a member and chair of Brampton Community Legal Services. I was the president of a committee which worked for two years to get legal clinic services in the city of Brampton, and I had the privilege to meet people from various segments of society to represent on that committee.
I've been involved with a youth employment centre. Being a member, vice-president and chairman of the board gives me another edge to learn how to make decisions and how to get input from the public.
I was elected to the real estate board of Brampton and had the chance to sit on five or six different committees which run the day-to-day affairs of the board.
Apart from that, I've been locally involved and have been the founder-president of Peel Intercommunity Relations Association to enhance better community understanding and relations in Ontario.
I am also a founder-member of the Brampton Race Relations Action Council, which is a committee of the Corporation of the City of Brampton. Various interest groups are represented on that committee. That enhanced my knowledge of the community concerns.
I was sitting on various boards. I happened to attend various seminars, conferences and think-tanks for board development. For example: Levers for Change in Health Care -- it was a think-tank for two days at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel; I was very much involved in that one and I think an elaborate report came; successive governments have given attention to that report -- Hospital Restructuring Project; Trustees' Role in Monitoring Quality in their Hospitals; Redesigning Health Care for Today and Tomorrow; Trustees in the Greater Toronto Area; and a couple of board developments where very famous persons came to give information to the board members. One of the very interesting ones was the hospital restructuring, the London-UK experience, and Boards That Make a Difference; a New Design for Leadership in Non-profit and Public Organizations.
The list goes on. I don't want to elaborate, but this gives me experience to bring input from the public to boards' notice to make a good decision suitable to the needs and aspirations of the people in Ontario.
I should say that I'm very proud, and it speaks for itself when you are a recipient of the Governor General's medal in Canada. I should not elaborate, because many of the members know why it is given. I'm the recipient of Ontario's outstanding award. I believe it's given to very restricted people and institutions only. I'm also the recipient of a professional award, out of 42,000 people, by the Toronto Real Estate Board for the year 1992. That's given for professionalism and service to the community. I have been recognized by the city a few times. This gives me another initiative to work for the public in order to enhance quality of life in Ontario.
1100
As far as my education, I did not put it all there. Originally I graduated from India with also a bachelor of teaching degree which I did not indicate. I enhanced my qualifications from University of Leicester in the area of education. I went to University of Windsor and did my master's in world politics and my legal assistant courses. I'm a professional real estate broker, which involves so many courses. That's a little bit of my educational background.
I'm very privileged to have four grown-up children, married, all professionals, one of them in the process to become a barrister in the province of Ontario. I'm a very proud grandparent of five grandchildren. My roots are in this community. I will be very pleased to sit on this committee and work to enhance the quality and access of health care in this direction. I would love to have questions from both sides. I will prefer from both sides. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will go to the official opposition first this time.
Mr Crozier: Welcome to the committee. What steps led to your order-in-council appointment to the College of Opticians of Ontario?
Mr Hundal: Every day when we attended functions, the people from the public were asking me, "You have experience, you have the will; why don't you sit on one of the health boards?" I applied for that. I sent my resumé to the ministry and got a call from them that will I be interested to sit on this council and I look forward.
Mr Crozier: It was your general interest as opposed to any specific interest in the College of Opticians of Ontario.
Mr Hundal: Sure. I'm not an optician professionally or at all; I'm just a member of the public.
Mr Crozier: In leading up to this, I assume you were notified that you were going to receive an order-in-council appointment.
Mr Hundal: Yes, I got a letter that I should come before the committee, and I feel honoured to meet them before I get any appointment.
Mr Crozier: Did you have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with a recent difference of opinion between the opticians, the optometrists and doctors in the province.
Mr Hundal: I don't know much in detail. I got some information from the library and from the clips, whatever, but it is very difficult for me to comment as a professional. But there is a concern in the community, as well. For example, the other day, an article came in the newspaper that the laser treatment has not been very successful. Some people lost their eyesight. I was very concerned about that, the quality of this area. If you lose the eyesight forever, the human life, what happens? I was a little bit concerned about that. But I don't know much about the details, how it works, what qualifications and what should be done. I will be doing that with the experience and training to sit with some of these professionals, hopefully.
Mr Crozier: I see you have the need for glasses at some time or another. Do you go to an optician or an optometrist?
Mr Hundal: Yes, I go. One of them, the doctor actually, he was one of the governors with me on the hospital. I learned a little bit of that. My wife went for the eye treatment and then some other family members went, so I have a little bit of knowledge, not much, but a little bit.
Mr Crozier: I just want to be certain. Do you go to an optician or an optometrist?
Mr Hundal: First you go to the doctor. Then you go to the optician.
Mr Crozier: I always deal with the optometrist. I have absolutely no experience with opticians.
Mr Hundal: I'm very concerned. I trust my doctors and I go to them.
Mr Crozier: So your optometrist who conducts the examination doesn't put any undue pressure on you to buy your spectacles, your glasses, from him or her as opposed to going to an optician.
Mr Hundal: It's not, but practically, you know that when everyone has a shop around there, not directly but indirectly, they encourage the individual people to buy from that shop. You know, they are there. But I do not buy from them. I went to shop around where I could get the cheaper, the most economical ones.
Mr Crozier: That's my point, because I have complaints in my office from time to time, not a great deal, where optometrists appear to put undue pressure on their clients to buy from them, as opposed to going to an optician.
Anyway, I just wondered what your experience was. Thank you for coming to the committee. I think Mrs Dombrowsky may have some questions.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Mr Hundal, are you a member of any political party?
Mr Hundal: I'm not a card-holding member of any provincial political party.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Federally, are you?
Mr Hundal: Federally, I stood for member of Parliament with Jean Charest. I stood as a candidate with Jean Charest and I've been involved in the --
Mrs Dombrowsky: For which political party?
Mr Hundal: Pardon?
Mrs Dombrowsky: Can you name the political party?
Mr Hundal: I think you should know Jean Charest was leading the PC Party of Canada at that time, federally.
Mrs Dombrowsky: This is for the public record; I hope you understand.
Mr Hundal: Yes, sure.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I appreciate that you would be able to provide me with that information. You perhaps had the opportunity to review in the material that was provided to you that there has been concern raised by opticians in the province with respect to the membership, that the members at large on the committee have not had an especially good attendance record.
Your resumé is very impressive and you obviously are a very busy man. I was wondering if you might be able to indicate here at this committee the kind of attendance record you intend to establish as a member, knowing that those in the profession are very concerned that some of the members at large have, it would appear, not taken this responsibility very seriously, and some have had an attendance record of less than 25% of the scheduled meetings.
Mr Hundal: I think that the regulations under the health professions procedural code are very clear on how to regulate it: who can practise, who can establish, ethics and who can become a member.
But there is a possibility that some people may take advantage of that, especially some of the corporations. They probably give advertisement. I was in Florida the other day and there was a big sign for eye laser treatment that you can get immediately, no need to wait like that. So there's a possibility that could happen, but I'm sure the guidelines are very clear.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I don't think I've been clear in my question to you. I would like to understand from you, because some members of the committee to which you are intended to be appointed, have not attended regularly. Some of the members of this committee have attended less than 25% of the time. What I'd like to understand from you this morning is, would it be your intention to better that kind of attendance rating?
Mr Hundal: I am a very distinctive professional man because I cannot hide myself, so I try to provide the best services wherever I go. I hope my record on the board of directors in Peel Memorial Hospital and as the chair of the legal clinic was roughly 100%.
So I tended to bring the maximum input from the public to the board as much as I could, to the best of my abilities and capabilities. I have the time because I am self-employed. I have no other effect on my activities at all. I hope I will put 100% input in that direction.
1110
The Chair: We will now move to the third party.
Mr Martin: Thank you very much for coming this morning. I was quite impressed with your resumé and your long involvement in public service.
I was just wondering, from all the things that you could have applied for -- and there's a myriad of agencies, boards and commissions that this government oversees -- why would you choose this one?
Mr Hundal: This is related to health care. It makes no difference whether I sit on this board, any board of health care, but I think this is a challenge. My daughter is a manager in one of the institutions and she says, "Dad, look at that." This is a very concerning area, the eye laser and eye treatment and so on, and it's a demanding area. More and more, there are some people coming from different parts of the world. They have more problems with their eyes, maybe because of the heat or other environments, and I thought maybe I could contribute better in this field.
Mr Martin: Have you looked at the Regulated Health Professions Act to determine which actual board, which group of professionals dealt in what area of expertise? What does the College of Opticians do, in your view? What do they cover?
Mr Hundal: I think we have very strict guidelines, the role of the College of Opticians and the structure of the council, so I know a little bit of that. If you want to tell me, I can explain it, because I have the point. But I don't have the deep knowledge of that one and how it works. It will be an opportunity to work with more experienced people and learn more: what are the challenges coming every day and what are the needs of the community in the different areas of Ontario? I will be looking into that opportunity to learn more about that. It's very difficult of me to say that this is professional -- I believe professionally to make any comments on that one.
But the guidelines are very clear. If you want me to, I can speak to you about what is the role of the college and what is the structure of the council. They are available in the libraries everywhere. Any individual can have that. Tony, you know better. You have the experience of sitting many, many years on this one.
Mr Martin: Do you understand the nature of the disagreement and dialogue between, for example, the opticians and the optometrists?
Mr Hundal: I heard about it, but I don't know any details, because every group would like to have their own decisions independent of the other. This is the law of society every day. But I think the rules and regulations made by the ministry should be obeyed. Then perhaps, with the input from the public, it would be enhanced according to the chosen needs of society. I think they are very clear, and we should be very clear to both groups as a ministry and as a board member.
The Chair: Mr Miller.
Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Thank you, Mr Hundal. I'm certainly very impressed with your record of public service over the past many years. I just want to pick up on the points raised by the opposition parties. From my limited knowledge, there seems to be a debate going on between the optometrists and opticians in terms of what they can do. In fact, in my first month of elected office here, my local optician requested an appointment with me and had me come into his office to demonstrate what he's doing with the equipment he's using, so I would have a good understanding of what they're doing and a bit of what the conflict is about.
I would certainly suggest that's probably something that would be very worthwhile doing yourself, visiting both an optician and an optometrist, to be fully versed in what the conflict is about and what an optician should be allowed to do. How do you feel about that?
Mr Hundal: I think you've made a fair comment. You spoke for me, and I think we should look into that one so that future conflict doesn't come out. It hurts the whole system.
Before that, I must thank you for the contribution of your family members to the province of Ontario in the past. We look forward to you, as there are great expectations in Ontario from the public about your future activities.
But thanks for the question. I think we should seriously look into that one. The council should get input, perhaps have some conferences or seminars or think-tanks in different areas of Ontario and get first-hand knowledge of concerns of the people and of both groups on how we could work together and follow the rules and regulations of the government, of the ministry, as well.
Mr Wood: We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. You may step down now; the questioning is completed.
Mr Hundal: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It was my pleasure and honour to meet and share my experiences with the committee members.
The Chair: If I may do so -- Mr Wood may be helpful in this regard -- Mr Martin is going to have to depart early.
Mr Wood: I am prepared to move concurrence.
The Chair: Yes, we might deal with the concurrences where he's been present so that he can make a judgment.
Mr Wood: That would be fine with me.
The Chair: The first one we will deal with in concurrence was the selection of John C. Thompson, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Review Board.
Mr Wood: So moved.
The Chair: It has been moved by Mr Wood. Debate or discussion, first of all, of the appointment of John C. Thompson? Any comment by any member of the committee?
Mr Wood: Let's put the question.
The Chair: If not, we'll put the question. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr Wood: I move concurrence re Mrs Martin.
The Chair: OK, Mr Wood has moved concurrence in Margaret Martin, intended appointee as member of the Early Years Steering Committee in the city of Toronto health unit. That motion is there. Any discussion?
Mr Martin: These committees are being set up across the province, given that the government is moving in that direction and is going to use them as a vehicle to deliver all kinds of really important services to children and families. My growing concern is around the issue of growing poverty. What I detected from her answers was skating around and avoidance. From her long history of involvement with the present political party in power, I don't think she's going to be able to separate that in her participation at the committee level and in some of the decisions that she'll make and, with that, may miss some of the real issues present in the community of Toronto, which has to be, I would think, of great concern to anybody looking at poverty in this province at the moment and its obvious face lying on the streets.
There needs to be very courageous and aggressive action taken by whatever group ends up driving the children's agenda in this city. I, frankly, don't think she's going to be able to separate her relationship with the government from her need to be very courageous and forthcoming and aggressive in addressing some of the issues where families and their lack of resources to feed themselves and their children at home are concerned, as just one example of the things that she's going to have to come up with. So I'll be voting against this appointment.
1120
Mr Crozier: Just a couple of comments as well on Ms Martin: I attempted to clarify her partial comment initially with regard to immigrants. I still have some doubt as to the following answer I got, because I got the impression that there was a suggestion that the unmet need for subsidized daycare spaces in Toronto might have something to do with immigrants. I don't feel that I got that clarified by a definite "No, it does not."
The other thing was, although certainly she is being appointed for the Toronto health unit, she said that Toronto was unique in the province. Well, there's a need for daycare spaces in my riding and, I think, across this province. I just wanted to put that on the record. Toronto does have some unique situations, but to some degree, the same pattern is across the province and the same need is across the province.
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I certainly want to speak on Margaret Martin coming before this committee, because I think she was open, forthright, and for a volunteer position -- I mean, some of the things that we put people through. With all due respect, Mr Martin talked about she probably wouldn't bring the right insight to this or that. I'm of a view that you don't have to belong to the NDP to care. As Progressive Conservatives, we care, and supporters and so on are in the community, applying for volunteer positions. This is not just a position of finding someone who cares or finding someone who has the time to commit; she obviously is doing that in the community already.
Volunteer positions, as many people know, are not always the easiest positions to fill with good, qualified people who have the time commitment. I would just like to put that on the record. As the previous person said, I think she would contribute to this think-tank, if you will, sir.
The Chair: Any other member of the committee have anything to add? If not, I'm going to call the vote.
All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
The third one we're dealing with, the intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Opticians of Ontario, Sam Hundal.
Mr Wood: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Concurrence has been moved by Mr Wood. Any discussion, first of all, of Mr Hundal? If not, I'll call the vote.
All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Thank you. We have dealt with three of our intended appointees this morning. Mr Martin is going to have to depart. He's going to have a replacement come in. Normally I would be starting with the NDP; I'll start with the Conservatives, if that's OK, this time as we come round.
DEAN ALLISON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Dean Allison, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Mr Dean Allison, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors. There is a member of the NDP, so I will start with the NDP in a moment.
Mr Allison, you may come forward. Welcome to the committee. You have an opportunity to make an initial statement, should you see fit. Should you not see fit, that's fine as well. Subsequent to that, members of each of the political parties represented on the committee will have up to 10 minutes to direct questions to you, sir.
Mr Dean Allison: Thank you. I just want to tell you it's an honour to be here today. It's the first time I've been to Queen's Park. I looked forward to coming here today, to actually be in the Legislature.
Just a bit about me: I grew up in London, Ontario. I did my schooling in Kitchener at Wilfrid Laurier, Waterloo, and then moved to Oakville for about 10 years. Most recently, I've just moved down to the Niagara Peninsula, where I'm now residing in the town of Beamsville. I have three wonderful kids, six, seven and eight. My eight-year-old will be turning nine next week, so we're really looking forward to moving down to Niagara to do that.
As you may have seen in my resumé, I've been involved with business for some time. Over the last five or six years, I've had the opportunity to own my own business. We have been looking for an opportunity to get more involved with the community and saw this as one possible way to do that. I want to thank you once again for the opportunity to be here.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We will commence now. We have a member of the New Democratic Party replacing Mr Martin. So the first person will be Mr Kormos for the third party.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thanks for coming today. What's your history of involvement in the voluntary sector?
Mr Allison: I've been involved with the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce. I've been involved with Canada's Waiting Children program, which deals with adoption.
Mr Kormos: Sorry, I don't know that program.
Mr Allison: Actually, it's a program that was set up by Wendy's to work on adoptions here in Ontario and in Canada. It's an advisory council that works in co-operation with the Adoption Council of Canada, in terms of trying to place children.
Mr Kormos: What's your work with them?
Mr Allison: I sit in an advisory board role.
Mr Kormos: Other involvement in the voluntary sector?
Mr Allison: Besides the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, I've had some involvement with Junior Achievement in Niagara as a board member.
Mr Kormos: What about your voluntary involvement in the human services area?
Mr Allison: Human services being what specifically?
Mr Kormos: A broad range of direct services: Meals on Wheels, delivering food to senior citizens; down at the camp on Lake Erie, working with disabled kids; that type of volunteer work in the human services area.
Mr Allison: Recently I haven't been involved with that.
Mr Kormos: Most people don't know about the Trillium Foundation; they really don't. How did you identify the Trillium Foundation as something that you wanted to get involved in?
Mr Allison: Sitting on the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, through the chamber I was invited to a meeting to discuss the Trillium, to find out more about it. That was the first time I'd ever --
Mr Kormos: What was that meeting?
Mr Allison: That meeting was in Beamsville.
Mr Kormos: What was the meeting? Who sponsored that meeting?
Mr Allison: It wasn't sponsored by anybody. There was a local representative talking, one of the local people, I don't believe they're on the committee, but someone just discussing the Trillium and what they are all about.
Mr Kormos: So this was a group of people that was being addressed.
Mr Allison: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Who was conducting that?
Mr Allison: I believe Manfred Fast was conducting it.
Mr Kormos: How did you find your route to here?
Mr Allison: In looking at being more involved, as I said -- I just moved into Beamsville about three months ago and would like to be more actively involved in the community. After seeing the Trillium Foundation and what they did, I thought this would be an excellent thing to be involved with.
Mr Kormos: You've lived in Beamsville for three months, and prior to that you lived --
Mr Allison: I lived in Oakville but had a business in Beamsville for the last nine years.
Mr Kormos: And you were the Alliance candidate down there?
Mr Allison: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: Was it the Erie-Lincoln riding?
Mr Allison: I believe that's it.
Mr Kormos: Is your MPP supportive of your application?
Mr Allison: I would assume he is.
Mr Kormos: Would he know about it?
Mr Allison: I would assume he does.
Mr Kormos: Why would you assume that?
Mr Allison: I have not talked to him about it, so I would assume that was the case.
Mr Kormos: That's why I'm wondering. Mr Hudak is a minister and he's very busy. Do we have any assurance that he would be supportive of your appointment?
Mr Allison: I think you'd have to ask him.
Mr Kormos: Exactly. That's why I wanted to know if you had any idea.
Mr Allison: I would assume he would be supportive, sure.
Mr Kormos: My concern is that you're aware of the requirements for Trillium board members, the proposed requirements, aren't you?
Mr Allison: Not of all of them, no.
Mr Kormos: Are you aware of any of them?
Mr Allison: I'm aware of some of them.
Mr Kormos: What are the ones you're aware of?
Mr Allison: You must be willing to volunteer your time.
Mr Kormos: Any others?
Mr Allison: In particular, what?
Mr Kormos: Surely you were explained the expected requirements of a Trillium board member, weren't you?
Mr Allison: Of the amount of meetings involved?
Mr Kormos: No, that a Trillium board member must ordinarily have a history of involvement in the voluntary sector, preferably in the human services area. Nobody explained that to you?
Mr Allison: Not in particular, no.
Mr Kormos: What experience have you had in consensus building?
Mr Allison: A fair amount, actually, through other organizations. I sit as the president of the Ontario marketing co-op of Wendy's.
Mr Kormos: I'm talking about consensus.
Mr Allison: I have to build consensus on ideas and suggestions through that.
1130
Mr Kormos: Do you subscribe to any particular theories of consensus?
Mr Allison: Not in particular.
Mr Kormos: Are you familiar with any of the written work on consensus building.
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: I don't doubt that you have a working knowledge of financial statements, because you're in business. If there were other people applying for this same position who had better qualifications, would you expect them to be appointed before you?
Mr Allison: I guess that would depend on what you determine is better qualifications.
Mr Kormos: Somebody who, for instance, had a more extensive history of involvement in the voluntary sector, preferably in the human services area.
Mr Allison: That just depends on what you're looking for. I feel that my business background plus my involvement in the community is good to be involved in any kind of community service organization.
Mr Kormos: But you've only been living in Niagara for three months.
Mr Allison: But I've worked there for nine years.
Mr Kormos: I understand that. And then you go back home to Oakville.
Mr Allison: Where do you live?
Mr Kormos: You go back home to Oakville.
Mr Allison: I don't live in Oakville any more.
Mr Kormos: Until three months ago, you went back home to Oakville, right? You haven't been involved in any direct volunteer services -- Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, perhaps?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: No Meals on Wheels. But you've been on boards. I trust that since you were a candidate for the Alliance -- was it the Canadian Alliance Party?
Mr Allison: That's correct.
Mr Kormos: It was the Canadian Alliance Party; it wasn't the Reform Party any more -- that you have strong political views.
Mr Allison: On what in particular?
Mr Kormos: I have strong political views. That's why I'm clearly a New Democrat and why I'm involved politically. I trust you have strong political views.
Mr Allison: I have views just like everybody does.
Mr Kormos: Do you have strong political views?
Mr Allison: In regard to what?
Mr Kormos: I suppose anything from the death penalty to rates of taxation to any of the other things that people have political views about.
Mr Allison: At this time I don't see what that has to do with the Trillium Foundation.
Mr Kormos: I'm sure you don't, but I'll tell you why. Do you know any of the other members of the board in Niagara?
Mr Allison: I'm not familiar with all the members, who they are.
Mr Kormos: Do you know any of the other members of the board?
Mr Allison: Not that I'm aware of right now. Who else is from Niagara?
Mr Kormos: You don't know who's on the board?
Mr Allison: I know the names but I don't necessarily know the people.
Mr Kormos: Do you know a Mr Johnson?
Mr Allison: No, I don't.
Mr Kormos: You don't know Mr Johnson --
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: -- the former Alliance activist in Niagara?
Mr Allison: No, I don't know him at all.
Mr Kormos: Don't know him at all.
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: You don't know any of the other board members?
Mr Allison: Who are the other board members?
Mr Kormos: I don't know who they are either. I want to know if you know.
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: You don't know any board members. You haven't called any board members to inquire about the sorts of responsibilities that they've had to engage in?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: You knew you were coming here to be screened by this committee, didn't you?
Mr Allison: Yes.
Mr Kormos: Other than the meeting you attended with Mr Fast, did you do any other research?
Mr Allison: I have seen some things on-line and some of the criteria that's required, yes, for the foundation.
Mr Kormos: What I'm interested in is the amount of preparation you did because I'm concerned that people get appointed to things when they have no idea about what the foundation does. Do you know the source of Trillium Foundation's funding?
Mr Allison: Yes, I do.
Mr Kormos: Tell us about that.
Mr Allison: I believe in part it comes from gaming.
Mr Kormos: Yes, it partly comes there, and the balance?
Mr Allison: I was under the impression most of it came from gaming.
Mr Kormos: OK, mostly from gaming now, and the balance?
Mr Allison: Am I to be concerned where the funding comes from or am I concerned of how it is supposed to be --
Mr Kormos: You bet your boots. I'm asking you if you know where the funding comes from.
Mr Allison: Not all of it.
Mr Kormos: Do you know some of the beneficiaries of the grants over the course of the last 12 or 24 months in Niagara?
Mr Allison: Not specifically.
Mr Kormos: What about generally?
Mr Allison: Generally, I know of some.
Mr Kormos: Which ones do you know about?
Mr Allison: I just went over the list quickly. I couldn't say specifically.
Mr Kormos: Can you identify one single beneficiary of a Trillium grant in Niagara?
Mr Allison: No, not specifically.
Mr Kormos: Do you know who the Robert Wood Singers are? Have you heard of them?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: You've never heard of them?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: They're an institution in Niagara. They've been there for -- how many years? -- 30 years now. They just received a significant grant from the Trillium Foundation. They've been an integral part of the community. They're a choral group. Are you familiar with the Port Colborne Operatic Society?
Mr Allison: No, I'm not.
Mr Kormos: Are you familiar with Bellerophon?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: Do you know what Bellerophon is?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Kormos: I'm through, Chair.
The Chair: You've completed your questioning? Thank you very much.
Mr Mazzilli: Thank you, sir, very much for coming today. Let me just clarify a few things for the record. The position that you've certainly applied for is a volunteer position on the Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors, the province-wide body.
Mr Allison: That's correct.
Mr Mazzilli: That shouldn't be confused with local grant review teams that look at the local perspective of getting local input of what should be funded and ensuring that it meets the criteria. You'll get different views, but I don't think it is a bad thing that you don't know who has benefited in the past. It brings a new perspective and it doesn't bring any biases to the table. I just want to ask you, as a volunteer, what is your driving motivation to be on this board?
Mr Allison: I think that one of the things that's important is putting back into the community. I do put back into the community through my businesses, and personally, financially. As I looked at what Trillium does, I was very impressed that they step up alongside of other charitable organizations that are already doing things in the community and they support and add to what they're already involved with. That to me made a whole lot of sense. I give financially through my businesses, but I felt it was important to also spend some time in the community and be able to give back that way. I think what the Trillium is doing is excellent. That's one of the reasons why I like what they do.
Mr Mazzilli: Certainly that's exactly what Trillium does. Many local projects are supported through Trillium through a $100-million fund that is set up through the province of Ontario from proceeds of the Ontario Lottery Corp that are distributed into communities and into different regions. Some of these Trillium grants are partnered with HRDC grants, with private contributions. At some point you get a community project that moves along that otherwise would not have without all three of those partners. I certainly heard a lot of "which political party" and views. More and more I get this from the NDP, that you need to belong to the NDP to somehow care about social issues or care about your community. I, for one, do not buy into that concept. Will you care about your region and the Ontario Trillium Foundation if you're appointed to this board?
Mr Allison: Most definitely.
Mr Mazzilli: Those are all my questions.
Mr Johnson: I had a couple I wanted to ask Mr Allison. What's a Tim-Wen combo?
Mr Allison: A Tim-Wen combo is where there's a Tim Hortons and a Wendy's that share the same real estate.
Mr Johnson: Is there a corporate relationship between those two companies?
Mr Allison: Tim Hortons was sold to Wendy's a few years ago, but they're operated separately.
Mr Johnson: I'm going to tell you that I'm disappointed, because I thought you'd come in here with some doughnuts. I would have been more impressed if you had passed those around before I had to vote.
Mr Allison: I was going to see if you guys were going to be nice to me first, though.
Interjection.
1140
Mr Johnson: I shouldn't and I won't ask you how you liked being cross-examined by Mr Kormos. But I did want to know a little bit about you. You said you had three children. Are you a good father?
Mr Allison: I believe so.
Mr Johnson: You don't beat your wife?
Mr Allison: No.
Mr Johnson: You spend time with your children and your family?
Mr Allison: As much as I can.
Mr Johnson: Your business requirements for your business company would require at least 40 hours a week?
Mr Allison: Not always, but just depending, sure.
Mr Johnson: Sixty or 80 sometimes?
Mr Allison: Sometimes less.
Mr Johnson: My point is that I could very well look at your resumé and say, "My gosh, you should have been on the Boy Scouts committee of your local church and you should have been helping to deliver Meals on Wheels," and there are all sorts of things, but I would like to say that from my perspective you've organized your life in a way to be, in my opinion, successful in business, you're doing your best to raise your family, and I wanted to commend you on those qualifications that I see in your resumé.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. I can't ever recall a question in the committee, "Do you beat your wife?" I can't ever recall that.
Interjection.
The Chair: That's good. I just say that in fun. That's a reasonable question, but I cannot recall it.
Anyway, we go to the Liberals now.
Mr Crozier: Good morning and welcome to the committee. You're aware of the gross amount of money that the Ontario Trillium Foundation has to dispense each year?
Mr Allison: That's correct. I was aware that it was around $100 million.
Mr Crozier: Yes, and that the board of directors that you're being appointed to, then, will be responsible for administering and distributing 20% --
Mr Allison: Twenty million dollars, yes.
Mr Crozier: When this concept was first introduced a few years ago, it was $100 million. Do you have any comment, since gaming revenues increase substantially each year, on whether that amount of money should increase?
Mr Allison: I believe that in my capacity as a board member, if I am so chosen, that's not an area for me to decide. I believe that's for the elected officials to decide how much money is spent.
Mr Crozier: But if you have an interest in your community and what the board does -- and you may not have been particularly aware of what the responsibilities of the board were before -- how would you know that this wouldn't be part of your job now to advocate for more money?
Mr Allison: I guess until I'm actually in the job and see what it entails, I don't know enough about the day-to-day responsibilities.
Mr Crozier: Notwithstanding that it may not be a responsibility of the board, would you advocate that the government provide the same share of gaming revenue as it did in the first place when they set it at $100 million?
Mr Allison: I couldn't comment on that until I have a chance to see and learn more about the day-to-day operation of the Trillium Foundation.
Mr Crozier: That's a very political answer. That's good.
When you were a candidate for the Alliance Party, the Review, the Niagara Falls newspaper, on October 24, 2000, reported that you were at a meeting where you wanted to -- this will remind you what meeting you were at: "Let's go out and kick some Liberal butt." That's what you said at this meeting, so that might remind you. Nothing wrong with that, either. That's the way you feel. But at that meeting, Tim Hudak is reported to have "made" -- some -- "jokes about the Prime Minister, then criticized the federal government for the way it operates its justice system, citing" -- some -- "photos that appeared in ... " -- a newspaper -- "showing Karla Homolka partying in prison." Hudak said, "When you see that kind of picture with today's ... candidate," -- referring to the Liberal -- "you know it's time for a change." Did you agree with Mr Hudak, with the statement that he made?
Mr Allison: Agree on what, that there was a time for change?
Mr Crozier: No, that it was time for a change and his reference to the Karla Homolka situation.
Mr Allison: I'm not sure what that has to do with the Trillium Foundation. If you could maybe give some context as to how that affects the foundation.
Mr Crozier: With all due respect, sir, generally at this committee we ask the questions.
Mr Allison: Sorry, I haven't been to one of these before.
Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Mr Allison should know that he doesn't have to answer the question either. It's certainly up to Mr Crozier to ask the most difficult questions, but if Mr Allison doesn't feel it has anything to do with the Trillium Foundation, he can decline to answer the question, and he should know that.
The Crozier: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Mazzilli.
Mr Allison: I have no comment.
Mr Crozier: Good. Then I have no further questions.
Mrs Dombrowsky: Mr Allison, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review the history of the Trillium Foundation, but initially it was established and intended to be seen as a non-partisan agency. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that when individuals with very public political backgrounds are appointed, there is a growing perception that the foundation is less and less non-partisan and that the decisions made by the foundation might reflect more the political temperament of the individuals who make up that body.
Do you have any thought on this? Do you have any sense that there is a sense or understanding out there that people who support this government are appointed and that the government has an opportunity to have some impact or influence with individuals who are on the foundation?
Mr Allison: Obviously I haven't been involved with the foundation to know what the ties are in terms of that. I understand that as board members of the foundation we need to look at each case on a case-by-case basis to determine what awards deserve funds based on the involvement of the charities in the communities.
Mrs Dombrowsky: It's just a perception that has come to me from people I have spoken with, not only in my riding but from other parts of the province. There's a perception that it is now a very partisan body, and so some people feel less inclined to even apply for funding, particularly if they're from a riding where their member is not a member of the government. I find that quite regrettable personally.
Mr Allison: I was under the impression, actually, that applications for funding were somewhere in the neighbourhood of three or four to one in available grants that can go out. So it doesn't seem to me that that slowed down the process of people applying for grants, according to that comment.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I appreciate the numbers, but I think it would be interesting to do a study on the locations.
My colleague has another question.
Mr Crozier: Yes, and also a clarification for Mr Mazzilli's and others' benefit. In retrospect, I should have commented on it right away, but I thought my line of questioning was just as relevant as asking you if you beat your wife. You chose to answer that, so I thought you might answer some other questions.
Are you still a political activist? Are you still actively involved in the political process?
Mr Allison: From what point of view?
Mr Crozier: You still don't understand, sir: I'm asking you the question.
Mr Allison: I'm not doing anything presently.
The Crozier: So you're not a political activist?
Mr Allison: That's correct.
The Crozier: The point being that, in my view, the Trillium Foundation and appointments to it should be as non-partisan as we can possibly make them, and I just want to be sure that was the case with your appointment.
1150
Mrs Dombrowsky: You are familiar with some of the areas where funds are directed from the foundation. As an individual, do you have particular priorities in terms of agencies that you think would be most worthy of receiving grants from the Trillium Foundation?
Mr Allison: I have to say at this time that I have no priorities in terms of who should be receiving funding. I don't know the total history of who has received funds in the past, so I couldn't comment on that in case someone has already received funds. The second thing is, I would have to look, in conjunction with the board, on a case-by-case basis to see.
Mrs Dombrowsky: But you would have no personal priority to consider agencies that provide services for children over some recreational applications or agencies that provide services for seniors or the disabled as opposed to some other applications that might arrive?
Mr Allison: No. I realize there are four areas where they give out funds. But until I find out exactly how those have been distributed and what the requirements are, I couldn't comment on any kind of priority.
The Chair: Any further Liberal questions? The Liberals have one minute left.
Mr Crozier: I'll defer my time. The member might want to ask a question.
The Chair: Does anybody else want to ask a question? Is that allowed, Mr Wood?
Mr Kormos: I was curious about your response to Mr Crozier.
The Chair: Mr Wood has stated that it would require the consent of the three parties for any further --
Mr Wood: If you want to ask a question, then --
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wood.
Mr Kormos: I was curious about your response to Mr Crozier. I'm a New Democrat. You've got people here who belong to political parties. I have no quarrel with the fact that you're an Alliance member or not. That is your right. But I think it's a fair question.
If people were to ask me today or even tomorrow, "Kormos, are you still a political activist?" I'd say, "Well, of course I am." It would be naive to think I wasn't. Again, I'm not asking whether or not you anticipate being a candidate, but I do think Mr Crozier's question was quite fair in that your response suggests to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that your alliance with the Alliance is as it was, for instance, when you were a candidate. Is that a fair --
Mr Allison: Could you clarify the question?
Mr Kormos: I don't know how much clearer -- you're still a member of the party; you're still an enthusiastic partisan?
Mr Allison: I'm still a member of the party.
Mr Kormos: And you're still an enthusiastic partisan?
Mr Allison: An enthusiastic partisan? From what point of view?
Mr Kormos: Your support for Stockwell Day or Deborah Grey -- I guess you could pick any number of players. You are still very much the political animal you were when you ran for the Alliance party. Is that a fair --
Mr Allison: No, actually that's not correct. While I was running, I worked night and day. I don't do that.
Mr Kormos: Of course not.
The Chair: The Liberal time that you had with the consent of the three parties has expired.
Thank you very much, Mr Allison. You may step down.
We will now consider the appointments, and the last one is for Dean Allison, intended appointee as member, Ontario Trillium Foundation board of directors.
Mr Wood: I move concurrence.
The Chair: Mr Wood has moved concurrence. Any discussion? Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: As you know, I'm not a member of the committee, but I'm here as of right. Mr Martin will not be voting or returning to vote in support of this.
Let me put this: I have no qualms about Mr Allison's integrity, his representation of himself by way of his CV or even, quite frankly, his eagerness to be on the provincial board. But it has been a disturbing habit, (1) when I sat on this committee and (2) as I view it vicariously or observe it vicariously, to see people come before this committee expecting to be appointed, in this case, to a provincial board -- and again, there's no remuneration; it's merely expenses paid. One has to have some sympathy for people who want to volunteer their time. But if one has done no research into the task to be expected of him or into the function of the board, that's surely got to leave the members of this committee shaking their heads as to what's going on, especially from an experienced businessperson like Mr Allison, who employs people. I'm sure if he were asked for advice at a job fair for young people, he'd tell them that one of the first things you do before you apply for a job with a company is educate yourself about the company. That's pro forma stuff; that's pretty basic.
For Mr Allison to come before this committee and indicate that he attended a meeting with the local staff person of the Niagara Trillium operation, to not be aware of what the expectations were of members of the board of directors -- and the reference points I made were the expectations of a board of directors, as published by the board of the Trillium Foundation to assist in obtaining or enlisting new members. I find it remarkable that Mr Allison wants to establish his roots as being in Niagara, although he concedes he lived in Oakville until three months ago, and yet he isn't familiar, notwithstanding having run his business there, with what I consider some pretty notorious public foundations which have been Trillium beneficiaries, like Bellerophon, the navy cadets, notorious across Niagara region, not for any bad reasons but for all the good reasons. The Port Colborne Operatic Society, again, a beneficiary of Trillium funds. Most recently, the Robert Wood Singers -- who from Niagara doesn't know about the Robert Wood Singers? Not that Mr Allison should be expected to, because he's not from Niagara.
I'm concerned about the mixed messages here. One, he wants to say, "I'm Niagara. I'm Niagara's best."
Interjection.
Mr Kormos: I understand that. I'm reaching the issue of candour, OK? The impression, though, is that here's a man who is very Niagara-involved. The fact is, the board of directors has to constitute regional representation. It's only reasonable that one of the considerations in selecting a board member should be the regional representation of that member.
As to political affiliation, everybody in this room, short of the civil service -- they of course don't having feelings about politics; they have no opinions about this government; they have no opinions about its policies; they have no opinions about the terminations of various assembly staff here at Queen's Park, because they're civil servants. The elected people here have very strong political views, and I'm well aware that politicians move on to any number of jobs that are non-partisan, apolitical. The politicians who do that, I suggest to you, should properly park their politics and be very cautious about their politics upon doing that. Obviously, when there are appointments to the judiciary and so on, that's not only expected but demanded. But I also expect it of other partisans who move on to public service.
I find it remarkable that once again there's a candidate for a position who hasn't done any fundamental research into the operation of which he wants to be a member of the board of directors. One of the first criteria suggested by the board itself for membership on the board is an active history of involvement in the voluntary sector, preferably in the human services area. Again, I have no doubt that Mr Allison has been a volunteer on the chamber of commerce board, on the young entrepreneurs' organization board and the Canada's Waiting Children program advisory board and past board member for Junior Achievement in Niagara. One of the first criteria referred to hasn't been met. Again, no quarrel. He is a busy person. I have no qualms about it. If he's so busy, then he couldn't have engaged in that human services volunteer work. Perhaps he's too busy to be a volunteer on the board of directors.
I find it remarkable that an intelligent, educated person would come here not prepared for the committee process, betraying so little familiarity with the organization to which he wants to be appointed a board member.
I also, quite candidly, wasn't aware of the meeting Mr Crozier referred to and what appears to be a partisan relationship with Tim Hudak. Again, I have no quarrel with any of that, but people should be candid. The unfortunate Americanization of the refusal to answer, the Americanization of style by persons appearing before this board -- there is a power to compel people to answer, but it's far too complex for the committee to engage in with each and every person. I am prepared to draw inferences from Mr Allison's refusal to answer. I quite frankly think there are better suited people for the board of directors.
I invite Mr Allison to apply once again and, next time he appears before this committee, to demonstrate some of the acumen he says he has by preparing and familiarizing himself, as even a teenager applying for a job at a burger joint would. There isn't a teenager in town who doesn't know by now that you familiarize yourself with the operation. You show some familiarity with what it is you're applying for a job with before you go to submit to the interview. Mr Allison gets an A+ for enthusiasm, an F for preparation.
The Chair: Any other discussion? Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate some of the points Mr Kormos has brought up, and I want to say that it may appear, and it may be the case, that sometimes at this committee we ask some very pointed questions. Some might even think we give some intended appointees a hard time, and that may be the case. We only get 10 minutes to review any particular nominee, and we know a limited amount about that person.
I happen to think that the appointments we're making, be they volunteer or paid -- no matter what the situation of the appointment -- are important. That's why I think in most cases, although we may have let a minute go by this morning, we take the time to ask the candidates questions.
On the other hand, most of the time -- and it's their choice -- the government chooses not to ask any questions. I don't know whether or not they know the appointees better than we do; I don't know whether or not the government members consider this an important process. Only they can answer that. But I consider this committee an important one.
In addition to that, we only get a chance to interview and ask questions of a minor number of appointees. Of all the appointments that go on, we get lists where there are 30 or 40 appointees and we get a chance to pick three or four. Some are chosen for a particular reason. Perhaps some are even chosen at random; I'm not sure. But I take the responsibility on this committee seriously. If, from time to time -- and I'm not being apologetic; I may just be stating the obvious -- we seem to take a particularly tough attitude, it's because we consider all appointments, be they volunteer or paid, as important to the citizens of Ontario.
The Chair: Any other comments or discussion? If not, I will put the vote to members of the committee.
Mr Kormos: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.
Mr Wood: Does he have the jurisdiction?
The Chair: Mr Kormos cannot request a recorded vote.
Mrs Dombrowsky: I do.
The Chair: Mrs Dombrowsky has requested a recorded vote.
Mr Johnson: I request a recorded vote too.
The Chair: Mr Johnson has requested a recorded vote, so we have multi-partisan support for a recorded vote on this.
AYES
Johnson, Mazzilli, Miller, Wood
NAYS
Crozier, Dombrowsky
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Any other business before the committee?
Mr Wood: I move adjournment of the committee.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
The committee adjourned at 1204.
CONTENTS
Wednesday 20 June 2001
Subcommittee report A-101
Intended appointments
A-101
Mr John Thompson A-101
Ms Margaret Martin A-104
Mr Sulakhan (Sam) Hundal A-108
Mr Dean Allison A-112
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr David Pond, research officer,
Research and Information Services