The committee met at 0900 in room 151.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Government Agencies will now come to order.

As you know, this is the friendliest committee in this beautiful castle. As always, all comments by members and witnesses should go through the Chair. Are there any questions before we begin? Are you ready for the last day of school? All right.

We will now begin the—

MPP Wayne Gates: Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Sorry?

MPP Wayne Gates: Just a question: I noticed that we have a lot of people who are supposed to come to the committee, but because we’re breaking for the summer, a lot of them won’t have to come. I’m wondering if I could put a motion forward to sit during the summer, so that we hear all the appointees; so they come before the committee, rather than automatically—like we did last week, which I talked about—just saying, “No, we’re not going to have them come to committee.”

I think this is the friendliest committee, as you say, but the reality is people should come before this committee before they get appointed to an agency or a board or whatever it is. So I’d like to put a motion forward that we sit during the summer, if need be, if there are appointees that go to committees or boards.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): So you’re perfectly able to put forward a motion, MPP Gates. Do you want to do it at the end of committee so we can have time to debate?

MPP Wayne Gates: I prefer to do it now.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Okay, so we’ll have to recess. It will be a bit of a shorter committee because we don’t have the subcommittee reports, but if you would like to do it now, we will need to recess. Or we could do the intended-appointee interviews and then the Clerk will connect with you about that and do it. What do you think?

MPP Wayne Gates: Okay, that’s fine.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Just making sure we have time for it.

MPP Wayne Gates: Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Yes, absolutely. That’s fair, MPP Gates?

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes.

Intended appointments

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Pasquale Fiorino, intended appointee as vice-chair, Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Okay, so we do have our first guest. Our first intended appointee today is Pasquale Fiorino, nominated as vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

Welcome. Thank you very much for taking the time to come. You may make an initial statement at your discretion. Following this, there will be questions from the members of the committee, from all sides—from the government first, and then the NDP and then the Liberals—and 10 minutes will be allocated to each recognized party. So the floor is yours, Pasquale.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Thank you very much. Good morning. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present my credentials for my appointment as vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. My name is Pasquale Fiorino. My wife and I reside in the historic town of Amherstburg, Ontario. We have one son who works and lives in Toronto.

I have acquired over 20 years of experience as an adjudicator in various federal and provincial boards. As a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, I adjudicated refugee claims, both at the trial and appeal levels, for 13 years. I was also a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario. As a public member of two self-regulated health colleges, the Ontario College of Pharmacists and the College of Occupational Therapist of Ontario, I was elected to the position of chair of the discipline committees, which adjudicated claims brought against members of the college.

This lengthy experience has given me a great appreciation for the quasi-judicial role of adjudicators, a role that is meant to safeguard the just administration of federal and provincial laws and regulations. It is the independence of the adjudicators which guarantees this judicial fairness. As adjudicators, we are servants of the people, and it is our responsibility to see that every individual receives a fair hearing.

With respect to my education, I have graduate and undergraduate degrees in economics, law, theology and history. My employment history includes working in a law firm, being a university professor and serving as director of community in adult education institutions.

My volunteer experience includes vice-chair of the Amherstburg police service board, member of the drainage committee of Anderdon township, member of the executive of the Italian Canadian HandiCapable Association and a public member of the Ontario College of Pharmacists and the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario.

I believe that I’m well-qualified to serve as vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. Again, thank you for inviting me.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much for your presentation. Now we will start the question rounds, and we will start with the government side. You have seven minutes and three seconds, starting with MPP Dowie.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Mr. Fiorino, welcome. I’m glad to see Essex County represented today. I know you have extensive experience not just locally, but even at provincial boards, particularly with adjudication. I’m wondering how you might expect to be contributing to managing hearings at the appeal board.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: The appeal board is there to make sure that the citizens of Ontario receive their fair due, shall we say, under the various health acts that the board regulates. We’re there to make sure that all complaints—or if there is anywhere that the individuals feel that they have not received fair treatment that they appeal before the board and we deal with it both on the facts and the law.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Bailey, thank you. I know, I got distracted.

Mr. Robert Bailey: You should turn that off.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): That’s right—turn it off.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Fiorino, for your attendance today and your application. I was reading through your résumé; it’s quite extensive, for sure. I see you were a citizenship judge with immigration and citizenship. How do you think your experience there, your experience in rulings and that, will apply to this board, if you were to be appointed?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: It’s a different law, but the process is the same: You have to work with the facts that you have before you and apply to them the law and the regulations. When dealing with the Immigration and Refugee Board, I dealt with claims of refugees. Here, there are a number of issues related to the health acts of Ontario that I need to deal with, but the process is the same. You look at the facts and then you adjudicate according to the law, whether they have the right to appeal or whether the appeal needs to be denied.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, MPP Bailey. Anyone else on the government side? MPP Gualtieri.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: I guess I’m speaking. Can you hear me?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Yes. Welcome to our committee.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Fiorino.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Good morning.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: I’m happy to meet you. Certainly, your résumé speaks for itself.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Thank you.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: You certainly have experience in passing judgment on legal matters presented to you. How will this inform your perspective when sitting as a vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I think that the biggest trait of an adjudicator is their independence. As adjudicators, we’re not there to promote government policies, regardless of which party it is. We’re there simply to adjudicate the matter that is before us. That’s what I did in all the various tribunals and appeal boards that I was a member of, whether it was the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Landlord and Tenant Board or various committees at the health regulated colleges. You just look at the facts and apply the facts to the law. In my view, an adjudicator is not there to promote any social issues or political issues, just to apply the law and the facts there in front of them.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: Thank you. Excellent.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much. Three minutes and 13 seconds left. MPP Scott, thank you.

0910

MPP Chris Scott: Awesome. It’s really great to meet you. I got an opportunity to take a look at your résumé and background when I agreed to sit on the committee as a sub for MPP Firin—long-time listener and fan of the friendliest committee, but first-time participant, first-time question. What a great first witness to actually get to review and be a part of asking questions to you on this committee. I think it’s a testament to have somebody of your background and your knowledge stepping up in this way for public service.

I just wanted to ask if you might be able to share with this group—because you’ve definitely got the chops and I definitely want to thank you for putting your name here and making the trip in to be with us today—maybe you can talk to us a little bit about your experience in and how well you are aware of the health care needs of this province and what role you think this tribunal might play from a local perspective in delivering on that.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Again, the role of the tribunal is not to make changes to the laws or the health policies of the province. That’s your jobs. We’re there simply to adjudicate, shall we say, the complaints or the appeals of the individuals who come before the board who were denied some type of health service or payment for service. That’s our role. We basically have to adjudicate according to the law that is before us. We’re not there to make new law, to change the law; again, that’s your responsibility. We’re simply there to adjudicate with what we have before us.

MPP Chris Scott: That’s great. Thank you so much, and—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much.

We have 46 seconds for MPP—Gilchrist, is it?

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Racinsky—close.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Racinsky. Sorry. I need glasses.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Thank you, Chair. Through you: Just really quickly, how well aware are you of the mental health care needs of this province?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I’m sorry?

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: How well aware are you of the mental health care needs in the province?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Well, I have to be honest with you: It’s not something that I am deeply involved in—just what I read in the news and listen in the news. But again, as a member of this board, whatever issues come before us, we just have to adjudicate with the facts there are before us. My own personal convictions with respect to any issues of health in this province, those are put aside—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right. Thank you very much. We’re just going to have to take it at that.

We’re moving over to the NDP side with MPP Gates. Take it away—10 minutes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Ten?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Ten.

MPP Wayne Gates: Perfect. I see that you’re actually originally from Windsor or you sat on some boards in Windsor. Is that accurate?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: No. Amherstburg, just south of Windsor—we give credit to Windsor.

MPP Wayne Gates: South Detroit, right?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: I appreciate that.

What do you think are the biggest challenges facing the appeal and review board, and how would you address them as a vice-chair?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I know I’m sounding like a broken record here, but I think that the biggest challenge that we have as adjudicators is always to be fair, always to make sure that we read and adjudicate on the facts that are before us. We are not there, again, to change the laws. We are simply there to adjudicate whatever issues come before us.

Some of those issues may be straightforward, whether yes or no, and some of them would be very complicated. I’m not saying that every issue that comes before the board is going to be a walk in the park. Some of them will be quite complicated, and most likely they will also impact the way that health services will be delivered in this province. But again, that’s based on the interpretation that we give to the law, not on any social or personal convictions.

MPP Wayne Gates: I appreciate you sound like a broken record, but I’ll ask this question and then we can continue the broken record: What background do you have in health care?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: In health care? Well, I did serve 12 years on the Ontario College of Pharmacists and the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario, and that gave me a great insight into the way that the health care system works in this province. Obviously, I did not get a very broad view of the health care system, but in those two colleges I certainly had an inside view of the health care system.

MPP Wayne Gates: So you’re aware that the government is moving towards the privatization of our health care. So how do you think that the trend will affect the kind of appeals brought before the board—and in this case, if you’re voted on—and are you prepared to navigate that shift while protecting the public interest?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Well, first of all, I don’t have any say on what the government will do or will not do. As a member of the board, we have to work with the law that is given before us. Whether it’s the present law or if the government brings changes to the law, then we work with those changes. Whatever law is there before us, sir, that’s what we work with. We may not like what the government does or we may even like what the government does, but that’s irrelevant. We have to work with the law that is in front of us.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’m not going to agree with you, but I’m not going to get heavy into it.

I’m going to go back to a health care question, because this is what’s going on in the province of Ontario, and that’s why this particular board is so important. I firmly believe that the number one issue in the province of Ontario for us, including yourself—I’m not guessing your age, but you’re probably closer to a senior than you are to—

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I just turned 25, sir. Yes, sir.

MPP Wayne Gates: So our hospitals are overcrowded, our long-term care is in crisis. This is the reality of what’s going on in all our communities, whether people in all parties want to admit that—but that’s what’s going on. Everything is stretched thin. So what I’m trying to find out: With the raising appeals from Ontarians who feel abandoned or denied essential care, how do you think that not having a lot of knowledge around the health care sector is going to affect you being on the board and doing the adjudication?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Well, sir, my knowledge is with interpreting the law. It’s not with policies or social issues. My knowledge is with interpreting the law. Yes, I realize that the hospitals are overcrowded, but as an adjudicator, I’m not there to change that. I’m there to listen to the complaints and the appeals of the people of Ontario who feel that they have been denied some form of health service in the province. That is what our role is.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’m going to ask you a question. Now, this is not a question that I’m just asking you; I feel it’s extremely important to this committee. As we saw in our last committee meeting, some people don’t come to this board, for whatever reason. A lot of it has to do with—they’re hand-picked by the particular government in party, whether it’s the Conservatives or the Liberals. It’s been a while since the NDP has been in power.

So I’m going to ask a question: Have you ever been involved in a riding association?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: No.

MPP Wayne Gates: Have you ever voted in an election?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Have you ever donated to the PC Party?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: And do you remember how much that was and how often?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I donated this past February to the provincial party and to my local candidate.

MPP Wayne Gates: And do you remember how much it was?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I think it was $50 to the provincial and $100 to the local candidate. You’ve got to remember, I’m on a pension, sir, so I don’t have millions to donate.

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, I guess that’s a good thing, that you’re on a pension. We can get into pensions and how important pensions are to seniors and how we need to increase our pensions for our seniors who are struggling with today’s economy, so I can appreciate you’re on a senior—have you ever campaigned for any campaign? Have you ever knocked on doors or done anything like that for the PCs?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Yes, I’ve done that for the PCs, I’ve done that for the Liberals and I’ve done that for the NDP. Once I finish my term on the board, I’ll probably do that for the Green Party, so I’ll have covered the full political spectrum in this province.

0920

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, that’s good, but did you donate to the Liberals?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Did you donate to the NDP?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Because it was such a long time ago, I cannot recall, sir, if I did donate, but I did work for the NDP when Mr. Lewis was the leader of the party. I don’t know if you remember him or not.

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, I’m not going to tell my age.

I will say that you have donated to the Conservatives, but the more important issue to me is that you have worked on a campaign. You have spread yourself around all the parties. I believe the Greens have a pretty good leader now, so at some point in time, maybe you’ll donate to the Greens as well as the rest of the parties.

Something that’s really concerning to me is that a lot of people who have these issues and need to appeal are seniors, some with disabilities. Some of them are denied essential care, and we’ve seen that during COVID, where we had a lot of long-term-care facilities where the care—some of it was because of the lack of funding; some of it was because the owners of those facilities put profit before care. As they try to go through this process, a lot of them don’t have the resources to go through those.

How do you plan to make sure that the work that you do is equitable and compassionate as well?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Well, if they come before the tribunal, sir, we will listen to every complaint and we will accommodate any issue that the individuals have, whether it’s with respect to health, language or any other form of accommodation that needs to be done.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): One minute and 18 seconds. Welcome, MPP Begum.

MPP Wayne Gates: How will you maintain the independence and impartiality in your decisions, particularly when reviewing actions taken by powerful institutions like hospitals, who have lots of appeals right now? My office gets lots of calls on some of the care that’s happening in hospitals across my riding. Care coordinators are making decisions on long-term-care placements under Bill 7, which we voted against and thought was one of the worst bills we ever put. That was the bill where they could ship seniors like yourself out of the area, away from your family—or the Minister of Health itself. How do you think you can handle that as an independent?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: When I write my decisions, sir, I don’t call the hospital or the health care providers and ask for their advice. I do my own independent research. I look at the facts, and I adjudicate based on the facts and according to what the law is. I don’t try and get outside individuals to give me a hand in writing my decisions. That’s something that I do independently of all those institutions.

MPP Wayne Gates: So what you’re saying is, you don’t believe that a hospital or corporation would have any more power—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right.

MPP Wayne Gates: Am I done?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Just park that thought, maybe, for off-line in the hallway.

MPP Wayne Gates: It’s all good. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you, MPP Gates.

Over to the Liberals: MPP Smyth, take it away.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Good morning, Mr. Fiorino, and thank you for being here; nice to meet you.

The question I always like to ask of the candidate is: Can you tell us why you’re interested in this particular board and how you found out about it?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I’ve been retired now for about three and a half years. My first six months of retirement were great, but then, I’ve got to be honest with you: I got tired of doing “honey do.” So I put together my profile on the secretariat webpage, and I received all the notices with respect to my preferences.

Last fall, I saw that there was a vacancy on this board. I applied in the fall. Then, I believe in March, I was invited for an interview and a written test, which I did. Then, I received a notice of my approval.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: When you got the opportunity and considered this position, considering you’ve been on multiple boards which have required all kinds of decision-making, did you have in your mind anything that you think might be most challenging for you? I know you say it’s about the law and the facts and you adjudicate as such, but we know that the law is open to interpretation always.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Sorry, ma’am?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: We know law is always open to interpretation. I understand you want to work in that framework, but is there anything that stands out to you as most challenging as you move forward to adjudicate in the health care sector?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I can answer your question with an example. At the Immigration and Refugee Board, there were a lot of individuals who came before the board that—well, let me put it this way: I did not adjudicate those claims based on my personal feeling with respect to those individuals.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: So you might have had compassion, but you—

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I may have felt some kind of compassion towards those individuals, but at the end of the day, if their profile did not fit the law, then I felt it was my responsibility to go with the law and not with my own compassion.

There were a lot of families who came before me at the Immigration and Refugee Board. There were children there who had been in Canadian schools, in Ontario schools for two or three years. When I looked at them, the first thought was, “How can I say no to these individuals?”

If their profile met the definition of a refugee in the law, then yes, I approved them, but if it did not, then I rejected them, even though I felt compassion for them.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Did you ever have to recuse yourself from a situation?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: No.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Moving into the health care sector, and appreciating time here, one of the most common appeals that you’re going to be dealing with is OHIP service coverage. How would you approach a case where an individual’s looking for funding for a non-listed medical procedure?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Again, how is that treated under the law? It’s not the way that I feel.

I could say this individual has waited for two years for a hip replacement, for example. Then they had to go to Detroit and get a hip replacement, and they come back and say, “Well, I need to be reimbursed.”

There are certain procedures you need to follow under the law in order to meet the requirement. So even though I may feel compassion for that individual because they waited two years—and that’s not right—if they did not follow the right procedure under the law, then I cannot accept it. But if they did and they were denied, then certainly I will accept that.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: What do you see as the biggest challenge for you going forward when you’re dealing with publicly insured health care?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I’m a member of the health care system. There are times when I’ve gotten pretty upset at the way that services are provided in this province. So I’ve got to be honest with you: The challenge for me would be to put aside the emotional aspects and to really concentrate on the way the law needs to be applied.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Long-term care and eligibility for placement in long-term-care facilities is a huge issue for people who are in that sandwich generation, looking for long-term-care homes for loved ones. I think my colleague alluded to the fact that people could go anywhere. There’s going to be more and more pressure when it comes to long-term care, and that is part of your decision-making here.

Placement for long-term-care facilities: You’ve have got two families at the review board. They both have urgent situations in terms of long-term care for a loved one. How do you make a decision between two, where one goes or one doesn’t go, if one is 70 kilometres or 100 kilometres away and one is next door? How do you make a decision on a review board case like that, especially when it comes to long-term care and the lack of long-term-care beds?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Again, I would have to analyze the facts that are presented to us by the board. Why is one person being able to move to A and the other person going to B? I’m sure that there will be reasons for those decisions that were made, and we have to adjudicate and see if those decisions are fair and they fall within the ambit of the law.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: I guess my final question, looking at the time here, is: What about your efficiency as an adjudicator? These systems are long and drawn out. You wait for months or years—I don’t know. But what was your average time to release a decision when you’re dealing with multiple cases in all the other areas you’ve worked in?

0930

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: At the Immigration and Refugee Board, we had, I believe, 15 days to complete our—

MPP Stephanie Smyth: There’s a time limit?

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: There was a time limit, yes.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: You’re welcome.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much. Those are all the questions we have for you today, Pasquale.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: I’m free?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): You’re free, yes. You can kindly take a seat and remain here if you like, and we’re going to consider another intended appointee, and then we will make our decisions.

Mr. Pasquale Fiorino: Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you so much.

Mr. Mark Priddle

Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Mark Priddle, intended appointee as member, council of the College of Opticians of Ontario.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): We now will move to the review of the second intended appointee. He will be appearing virtually today. Welcome, Mark. Mark Priddle is nominated as a member of the council of the College of Opticians of Ontario.

You may make an initial statement at your discretion, Mark. Following this, there will be questions from the members of the committee: the government side, the NDP side and the Liberals. Each side has ten minutes allocated. Take your time to give your statement. Any time you speak will be taken away from the government side.

You have the floor. Welcome.

Mr. Mark Priddle: Thank you. I do have a short opening statement. My name is Mark Priddle. I live in the lovely town of Almonte, eastern Ontario. I want to thank the committee for inviting me here as a possible appointee.

My professional background is in environmental geosciences, and I am a professional geoscientist. My specialties include groundwater supply, clean-up of contaminated sites and environmental management monitoring, primarily in Ontario.

For nine years, I sat on the council of another self-regulating organization, Professional Geoscientists Ontario, and that included a term as president. This was a very rewarding and interesting experience with self-regulation. I’m also involved with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta and Geoscientists Canada, which is the umbrella organization for geoscience regulators.

In my experience on the PGO council, I felt that non-members contributed significantly to the council in decision-making, and they brought an important outside perspective, which helped prevent the sort of echo chamber happening which can occur with only like-minded professionals on a council. I’m hoping to be able to contribute to the council of the College of Opticians of Ontario in a similar manner.

In my paying job, I work part-time for a large engineering firm, Egis Canada, and I do have an interest in filling up some of my spare time with other volunteer opportunities. I’m also presently the president of a local agricultural society, and I feel I bring a different perspective as I’m one of the few non-farmers involved with that society.

Just on a personal level, I’m married with three kids and four grandkids. My wife works part-time, as well, and we’re sort of on the same schedule which is nice. We’ve always been involved in volunteering and helping out in our communities.

I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity, and I really look forward to our discussion.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, Mark. The world is a better place when people get out and volunteer, so thank you for your service.

We’re going to go to the Conservative side, and you have eight minutes and two seconds.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Priddle, for appearing here today. I want to applaud you, as the Chair said as well, for your volunteer work. It’s very important. I come from a small community, and I don’t think the county would run without volunteers on fair boards and Boy Scouts and you name it. So I applaud that very much.

I read your resume—very extensive and very impressive. How do you feel that your experience in environmental management and remediation—how do you expect to be able to contribute to the college council as a business?

Mr. Mark Priddle: I definitely bring an outside perspective. In my work, I’ve worked with everybody from an individual farmer with an issue with their water supply to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and Public Works and Government Services Canada. So I’ve covered the full range of types of clients, both public and private sector, with different needs. I would just feel my background, both business-wise and what I’ve experienced, will provide benefit to something completely different from environmental geosciences.

Again, I mentioned that we had non-members on the PGO Council from the legal field, accounting and so forth, and their perspective was very valuable, talking about things that relate to mining, let’s say. I feel I can talk to the same thing about the medical profession and eye care and what people need in various parts of Ontario. I’m very blessed to have worked from the farthest-north spot in Ontario to the Quebec border to Niagara Falls, and I’ve met a lot of people in a lot of different professions.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much.

MPP Denault?

MPP Billy Denault: Well, thank you, Mr. Priddle, for joining today. As my colleague MPP Dowie mentioned, it’s good to see eastern Ontario represented today. Now, I’m from Arnprior, so I won’t hold it against you that you’re from Almonte.

I appreciate your background as well as reading about it. Can you share an example of a situation during your role as a senior environmental consultant at Egis Canada that would translate to valuable experience towards effective governance on the college council?

Mr. Mark Priddle: I’ve dealt with a number of issues over the years where both private and public sector clients have asked me to do something which I honestly considered unethical, and it sounds a bit strange, but it was easy for me to say, “As a professional geoscientist, I have a code of ethics and I actually can’t do that for you.”

I feel the same way with any regulating profession, whether it’s eye care—things like that. Things will come up where you’re pushed in your ethical boundaries. You know, I’ve been asked to change reports, things like that; say, “Can you change a statement in a report?” and I said, “As a professional, I cannot do that.”

I think that’s one of the overriding things with self-regulating organizations, that the idea of ethics is instilled in all the registrants and that it’s applied no matter what your profession is, and we stick to that because we’re here to protect the people of Ontario.

MPP Billy Denault: Perfect. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much.

MPP—don’t even tell me—Racinsky.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Priddle for coming today. I was reading your résumé—very impressive, clearly big attention to detail and hard facts. That’s important to you. How will that perspective help you as a member of the regulatory college?

Mr. Mark Priddle: So I know all regulatory colleges have complaints and discipline committees and so forth to understand what members are doing and have a process whereby the public could be protected. I’ve seen that, and I’ve been involved in situations with PGO. The same things might come up with the College of Opticians and members. I feel I could provide good insight into whether a member has been acting ethically or not, maybe with a little bit of a different perspective.

There are bigger issues at stake. You might know that PGO was sort of founded after the Bre-X scandal where there was unethical behaviour related to gold mining. That was a massive multi-billion-dollar scam. Part of the reason for registering geoscientists was to protect people against that.

I think every profession has the potential to have issues with members if ethics and accountability are not held to a high standard, and I will be able to bring a slightly different perspective to this college.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Scott?

MPP Chris Scott: Thanks so much, Chair.

Mark, I really appreciate the presentation you gave and your résumé. I love that you kind of leaned in a bit on the fact that you do bring a different perspective and a fresh set of eyes. I think when we cross-pollinate and bring a different perspective—

Laughter.

MPP Chris Scott: Yes, it’s a funny little joke. Thanks for getting that one.

Anyway, like I was saying, I think it’s great you’re bringing in a different perspective. I think that’s important to round out the decisions and the processes that happen on the board. I just wondered if you could maybe talk about what your vision is, what your plan is on how you can contribute to the college council’s business of developing bylaws, guidelines, regulations, that sort of stuff—just get your background.

0940

Mr. Mark Priddle: So I really look forward to looking into the present bylaws and policies and so forth as to how the operations run, and of course meet and get to know the members of council and exactly what their role is on a day-to-day basis and how their members operate.

Just an example from working on PGO council, where there was a member who was in the HR business: She provided good insight where we had a lot of small—believe it or not, a lot of companies that are registered with Professional Geoscientists Ontario only have one to three geoscientists, so they’re quite small, which, in my mind, is similar to a lot of opticians and optometrists, where they may have only one or two professionals. She gave some really good insight on dealing with the large number of members who are practising with very small private businesses, and I think I can bring in some of her perspective to that, talking about the challenges with a regulatory body with people all over the province doing different things, being in the public sector, private sector and so forth. So I do want to find out where the practising members do practise and their backgrounds and look into bylaws—I guess it would be new bylaws or amending bylaws—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thirty-nine seconds.

Mr. Mark Priddle: —and policies that will enhance public protection, and I do have some experience with that on the PGO council.

MPP Chris Scott: Yes, 100%, you do. Thanks a lot for that, Mark. Really appreciate it.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right. Twenty-four seconds: Can you do it?

MPP Billy Denault: Very quickly, Mark, can you just share how well aware you are of the eye care needs of the province?

Mr. Mark Priddle: This might sound silly: Myself, wife and all the kids have glasses and been wearing them since we were 12 years old, and so we dealt with a lot of them, and I do understand that there are challenges when people get up in age and don’t have coverage and so forth.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right. That is super succinct. Good job.

All right, we’re now moving over to the NDP side. Welcome, MPP Begum. Would you like to take it away with 10 minutes?

Ms. Doly Begum: Good morning, Mark. Thank you for appearing before this committee. It’s one of the ways we get to know you better and how you can serve the appointment, and it allows us to ask you a few questions. Forgive me if I do ask anything that—it’s just for the committee to know you better, and if anything is sort of uncomfortable, it’s to make sure that we have an assessment of having the best person possible for this position as well. I just wanted to put that out there.

So I see that you actually have a very illustrious career in environment, in chemistry—an amazing résumé that I’m looking at, actually. So I wanted to ask what prompted you to seek a position with this board specifically.

Mr. Mark Priddle: Interesting enough, in my last year on the PGO council, the executive director resigned, and I was on the team to hire a new executive director. We hired a gentleman, and he left a few years later, but we stayed in touch. He works at the Ministry of Health now, and he did mention that there are openings and opportunities in other self-regulating organizations in health, and he just set me on the path to look into that. It worked out well; I just switched to 24 hours a week at work.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you for that. Do you have any experience in any of the health professions or patient-care-related work?

Mr. Mark Priddle: Not really. I have a daughter who is an RMT—a massage therapist—and another daughter who is a registered nurse. That’s mostly what I know, plus regular visits to the emergency room.

Ms. Doly Begum: Yes. It’s similar, but the College of Opticians regulates a profession of opticianry in the public interest by establishing, monitoring and enforcing mandatory standards and practices for its members. It monitors some of those standards through peer assessments, remediation, investigations. It investigates complaints against opticians on behalf of the public and disciplines opticians who may have committed an act of professional misconduct or may be incompetent.

Given your experience in—I think you have a wide range of experience in many of the other fields but not so much in the health care field or opticianry. What do you believe qualifies you to establish and maintain standards of practice in this profession?

Mr. Mark Priddle: I think with all self-regulating professions—I’ve looked at the disciplining cases within PGO and other organizations. Sometimes they’re for technical incompetence, but often they’re for ethical issues and things where someone is just being derogatory and mean to someone over racial terms. There was this one case in PGO where they were banned from a Ministry of the Environment office for harassment, and that led to a disciplining case. That is something where I could be involved, if there’s a case that’s not related to technical competence.

I think it’s important to have a second set of eyes and a different perspective with possible professional discipline. What I’ve seen in a few of my engineering geoscience positions is that a lot of the issues related to professionalism are not necessarily technical incompetence. It’s other ethical violations—monetary or harassment; things like that—which are very important.

Ms. Doly Begum: Do you have any experience or any examples of your past work that related to disciplinary action or dealing with incapacity or incompetency?

Mr. Mark Priddle: Yes. I was in senior management at my company, and we had to let people go both for harassment and technical incompetency. I was fully supported by management at the company. It was a tough thing to do, but it did relate to the fact that, in some cases, they were professionals. We said, “That’s violating your code of ethics, plus the company policy,” and all sorts of things.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you for that. The college’s 2023-25 strategic plan has three goals: to foster safe and more inclusive patient care; to be relational, accessible and responsive to technological changes and evolving patient expectations; and to demonstrate regulatory leadership through governance excellence. You do have 40 years of experience in environmental geoscience and chemistry, and we just talked about some of the lack of experience in health professionals or patient relations.

You may understand where I’m coming from. It’s a very tricky situation in terms of where we’re going with our health care and the possible privatization of our public health care system, but obviously, with eye care, there have been issues. We’ve had protests in front of Queen’s Park with eye care issues, a lot of opticians and optometrists who have protested the government. So it’s very important that we have people who understand both sides of the issue.

What knowledge and skills do you think you might need in helping the college achieve these goals that they have right now, that they have set, that I just outlined? And how do you plan to gain the requisite knowledge if you may need to?

Mr. Mark Priddle: If I’m appointed, I definitely would like to get to know all the members of the council and dig into more what they do on a day-to-day basis—again, I have experience going to opticians and optometrists personally fairly regularly, but more of an understanding about what the patient needs are and what are the big concerns with the patient, where they need eye care and they don’t have the money for it—things like that.

My wife is involved in a liaison committee, and people can bring forward situations where they need something like a CPAP machine and they can’t afford it and things like that. We’ve been involved in pooling money together to help people pay for that, and that is sort of a volunteer thing that maybe should be done by the government. That’s part of the things I’d like to look at.

I do really want to understand what happens on a day-to-day basis. Believe it or not, as a consultant I do sometimes feel like I have patients. I do have a gentleman who I’m trying to get an approval for who does call me two or three times a day, almost every day. So I do understand people’s needs and their feeling pressured with different things they’re required to do, and lack of money and all that kind of stuff. So I do have a sort of empathy for people in that situation as well.

But I do want to delve into, again, the day-to-day lives of opticians and optometrists and keep up to date about what their pressures are and, of course, their patients’ pressures.

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you very much. I think the way we care for others really highlights the type of people we are, and I appreciate your response for that. It goes to show how much you care.

Now, I do have the uncomfortable questions that I am required to ask: Were you ever approached by a member of the Conservative Party for applying to this position?

0950

Mr. Mark Priddle: Louis Kan, I believe, is a member of the Conservative Party. He mentioned it to me, and I declare that as a—that was what happened.

Ms. Doly Begum: Perfect. Can you describe your affiliation with the Conservative Party, provincial or federal, over the past 10 years?

Mr. Mark Priddle: For one year, I was a member of the federal-provincial Conservatives. I’ve never donated or been a member of the provincial Conservatives.

Ms. Doly Begum: Perfect. Thank you very much. These are all the questions I have. I really appreciate you appearing and your answers. Thank you.

Mr. Mark Priddle: Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much.

Now, is it the best for last? MPP Smyth from the Liberals—10 minutes.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you, Mark, for being here today. There have been all kinds of questions about the position, your background and everything. I’m still trying to square highways, bridges, transit and opticians. And look, as I’ve said before, on this board, life has a number of chapters. You never know where you could go, but each chapter could bring a whole new story. So you’re endeavouring a new chapter here.

As we heard from the previous candidate, there are certain things, when you’re working for a regulatory body, that are standard. We understand, with this board, the standards of practice—you’re going to be dealing with the entry-to-practice requirement standards of professional ethics and standards for continuing competence among the members.

I’m just wondering, besides being challenged in the eyewear department—you said your whole family—what do you see as the greatest challenges here with this committee or the council, and how can you promote change for the better for Ontarians?

Mr. Mark Priddle: I think the biggest challenges, like a lot of things, are related to financial things—the amount of money that an optometrist gets for checking someone’s eyes versus what they’d like to bill and things like that. And also, on the other side, the cost of eye care and glasses is quite expensive. There should be some happy medium, and I’d like to try to look toward that.

I know I understand the importance of making sure that the candidates have the experience and the training to do their job to their best and to protect people’s eye health.

Again, as a geoscientist, we’re sort of in the same boat. I get a lot of pressures. There are a lot of proposals I put into the government and elsewhere, where they want us to charge less. That does occasionally lead to ethical lapses, when you don’t make as much money. We did a survey with the Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, and they said one of the biggest challenges to ethics is low bidding.

So I want to make sure that—again, with eye care, it’s extremely important that you don’t cut corners in the process of checking someone’s eyes because you’re not getting paid as much as you feel you should. I think that’s a key thing.

My experience has been looking at ethical issues that are aside from technical competence, and I think I can provide insight into that.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: So how would you advocate for more equitable, ethical etc. with the council?

Mr. Mark Priddle: I’ve been told that self-regulation organizations have to be very careful with advocacy, so we’re supposed to make sure the professionals who are doing the work are competent and be careful to advocate.

But there needs to be some understanding that if a professional is not paid adequately, there is a tendency to ethical lapses. Something needs to be done about that. I don’t know if the college is in discussions with the government—I’d like to check into that—about rates and so forth, but that would be something important.

I know, just thinking of doctors, there are a lot more nurse practitioners. In geoscience you can get a limited licence to practise only in certain areas, and it’s easier to get. That’s an alternative to provide services to Ontarians more economically.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Looking at your professional experience in engineering and the sustainability aspect, how does that inform health care regulation?

Mr. Mark Priddle: Sustainability affects everything, as you know. As a professional geoscientist, we’re involved in many cases of taking things out of the earth which is required for everything from making glasses to iPhone batteries and things like that. It’s important that we understand that things all go in a circle.

It sounds crazy—if there is too much dust in a mining site, it can affect people’s eye health. When we’re doing projects now, we have to look at doing an environmental assessment which looks at absolutely everything, from ecological to human health. That does affect everything, from eyeglass manufacturing to making cars and paving roads.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Going back to your other profession and what you’ve done before: I know you did a lot of community outreach at Egis Canada, so how would you apply that skill to help the college be more relational and accessible to the public?

Mr. Mark Priddle: Yes. So, I’ve done a fair number of public meetings where people are upset, and I’ve tried to give scientific answers and facts. I like to go on facts rather than feeling, but a lot of stuff is driven by emotion. I think it’s important that people do understand the facts, whether it’s optometrists speaking to the public about their eyes or me speaking to someone about the quality of water in their well. I’ve done that many times: to try to explain complicated numbers about arsenic in water and things like that. I think that experience can be brought forward to something like explaining what 20/20 vision is not.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: You’ve talked about your unique perspectives. Are you aware of any others on the council who you might be working with—there is probably lots to learn too with health care regulation, right? Are there any concerns you see here about—you do have that other perspective, a whole other body of work—making that transition to something, as I said, I still try to see—

Mr. Mark Priddle: I’m looking forward to it. When I joined PGO council, I only personally knew one of the people on the council. I didn’t know the executive director or anything.

Just to give you an example, I joined the local agricultural society and I didn’t know anybody on the board. I joked when I started that I’m very unique in that I’m not a farmer, I’m not related to anyone else on the board and I wasn’t always living in Lanark county, but for everybody else, that was their situation. I think it brought quite a different perspective, and I was able to question things when they said, “We’ve always done it that way,” and just bringing that outside perspective. I’m not saying I’ll have all the right answers, but I can say, “Maybe we could do it a different way,” or “Just because you’ve always done it that way, it may not be the right way.”

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Mark Priddle: You’re welcome.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, Mark. That concludes your hot seat, so you can take a breather for a minute.

All right. We will now consider the intended appointment of Pasquale Fiorino, nominated as vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board. MPP Dowie.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I move concurrence of the intended appointment of Pasquale Fiorino, nominated as vice-chair of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by MPP Dowie. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed? That carries. Congratulations. Woohoo! Are we allowed to clap?

Now, we will consider the intended appointment of Mark Priddle, nominated as member of the council of the College of Opticians of Ontario. MPP Dowie.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mark Priddle, nominated as member of the council of the College of Opticians of Ontario.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by MPP Dowie. Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries. Congratulations, Mark, way up in Almonte. Maybe we’ll see you at the plowing match to celebrate.

You have a skip in your steps today, both of you.

Committee business

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Gates, I believe, has a motion.

MPP Wayne Gates: I move that the committee meet to review intended appointments during the summer the summer adjournment; and

That the committee be authorized to meet from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 10, July 17, July 24, August 7, August 14 and August 21.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any debate on that motion? MPP Gates.

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the help of the Clerk in putting it together.

I think this is a very important committee. I know, when you talk to people around the four walls here, that it doesn’t really get what I consider the importance sometimes, on how important it is—because who sits on our boards and our agencies, I think, is very, very important.

I also think it’s very, very important that citizens who want to sit on the board want to see this process. They want to come to Queen’s Park. They want to have the opportunity for the Conservatives, the NDP, the independents and the Liberals to ask them questions. I think that having everybody come rather than during the summer months that are just automatic—you get on boards and agencies—I think it’s the wrong way to do things.

So I’m hoping that I get the support of all parties. Let’s make sure that everybody is coming to this committee, maybe even heighten the awareness of how important it is, our agencies and our boards. We saw today you’re dealing with health care. You’re dealing with long-term care. You’re dealing with so many important things. I just think it’s important for people to come before this committee—and I think it shows more respect for the committee, quite frankly.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Further debate on this motion? MPP Smyth.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: While I don’t disagree with what MPP Gates is saying, I think that to vote on this motion as it is might be difficult, considering prior commitments for people during summer. Are we able to possibly take it date by date, and somehow, if certain dates don’t work for the whole committee, then—rather than miss an opportunity to hold to account?

MPP Wayne Gates: I’m open to however we do the dates. I just think that it’s important that we sit. I think it’s important that we show how important this committee is to the House and, actually, to my colleagues as well.

How we work out the dates: I think we could all work together on finding what’s convenient for everybody, but I had to put some dates down, so it’s part of the motion. I’m certainly open to dates, and whatever we can do to make it happen I think is really great.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Is that an amendment you would like to move, MPP Smyth?

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes, that’s fine. We’ve got to put an amendment forward that I’m open to whatever dates that are of convenience for all parties.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Can we recess for two minutes? All right. Take a breather, everyone—a yoga breath.

The committee recessed from 1004 to 1007.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Back in session. MPP Smyth, you’re moving an amendment, is my understanding, to MPP Gates’ motion.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Would you like to read it?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: I don’t have it in front of me.

I move that the motion be amended by deleting the second line and replacing it with, “That the subcommittee on committee business be authorized to select dates and times for hearings.”

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any debate on that? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Sorry, MPP Begum. Go ahead.

Ms. Doly Begum: I spent my previous term in this committee—a lot of experience in doing these hearings, so I know what it means to not have these kinds of opportunities where you actually get to meet the individuals who are being appointed and ask important questions that allow us to know who we are selecting to be in these really critical roles. It’s really important that we have the opportunity to call these individuals to come here and make sure that we do our due diligence as best as we can in the opposition. I know, at the end of the day, the government has a majority, so you have majority votes to vote down any of the motions, any of the amendments, any of the asks or requests that we have for appearance.

What happens is, if we do not have a long period of sitting days for committee, what you will see is you will have appointments continuing. So it’s not a matter of whether these appointments are put at pause because we’re not meeting, and that’s very important.

I know some of my colleagues are new members who have been just elected a couple of months ago. I hope you understand that the process that we just had won’t happen, but the appointments will continue. So that means we will be appointing people in tribunals that are making decisions for people’s livelihoods, whether it’s health care, whether it’s the police service, whether it’s the opticianry, whether it’s agriculture—whatever it may be. You will be making those appointments. Those will continue. However, we won’t have the opportunity to have a hearing where we get to assess and find out anything about that individual through any questions here in committee.

That is a very important issue for me to raise, because when the House rises, we don’t have any way of having this dialogue here. That’s a huge problem, because we’ve had that happen over the past years and years. We’ve had very important appointments with big payouts for these individuals or big positions where they’re making really important appointments, but we don’t have any way for the opposition to make any sort of hearings. And there’s a deadline, so when the deadline passes, the appointment automatically takes place. It’s not that the appointment doesn’t take place, or it gets delayed. It actually just takes place.

Tribunal Watch Ontario has been fighting back and forth. Over years, they have made multiple submissions. They have talked to the media. They have come to us. They have talked about how flawed that method is—how flawed it is of us, who are elected officials, to come here and to just let that happen without any sort of accountability. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that we are doing our best to select the best people.

I hope you think that you’re the best person that was selected from your riding to represent, and I hope you have the task that you carry with all seriousness to make sure that you select the best people for these positions in all of these boards and the appointments, where people have the ability to do everything possible. I hope that everyone will consider this and consider the motion and the amendments, and make sure that you give yourself the opportunity to do that.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, MPP Begum. Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, put up your hand. All those opposed? The amendment is lost.

We’ll just vote on the motion now.

MPP Wayne Gates: Can it be a recorded vote, please?

Ayes

Begum, Gates, Smyth.

Nays

Bailey, Denault, Dowie, Gualtieri, Racinsky, Chris Scott.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Unfortunately that does not pass, MPP Gates.

We will go on to the deadline to review the intended appointments selected from the May 9, 2025, certificates set to expire on June 8, 2025. Is there unanimous consent to extend the certificate by 30 days? I’m hearing a no.

That concludes our business for today. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1013.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon (Beaches–East York L)

First Vice-Chair / Premier Vice-Président

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Second Vice-Chair / Deuxième Vice-Président

MPP Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

MPP Billy Denault (Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke PC)

Mr. Andrew Dowie (Windsor–Tecumseh PC)

MPP Mohamed Firin (York South–Weston / York-Sud–Weston PC)

MPP Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)

MPP Alexa Gilmour (Parkdale–High Park ND)

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon (Beaches–East York L)

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

Mr. Sheref Sabawy (Mississauga–Erin Mills PC)

Ms. Laura Smith (Thornhill PC)

MPP Stephanie Smyth (Toronto–St. Paul’s L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Doly Begum (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest ND)

MPP Silvia Gualtieri (Mississauga East–Cooksville / Mississauga-Est–Cooksville PC)

Mr. Joseph Racinsky (Wellington–Halton Hills PC)

MPP Chris Scott (Sault Ste. Marie PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Vanessa Kattar

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Lauren Warner, research officer,
Research Services