Committee Documents: Standing Committee on Government Agencies - 2009-Nov-03 - Intended appointments

Intended appointments
03-NOV-2009_A038.htm    HTML   |   PDF

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

Tuesday 3 November 2009 Mardi 3 novembre 2009

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
BEN SHAYAN

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
MICHÈLE LABROSSE

LALITHA ANANTH


 
   

The committee met at 0902 in committee room 1.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
BEN SHAYAN

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Ben Shayan, intended appointee as member, council of College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Good morning. I will call the meeting of the government agencies committee to order. Thank you all for being here.

The first item on the agenda this morning is dealing with the concurrence that was deferred a week ago today, the appointment of Ben Shayan as a member of council of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario. The concurrence in the appointment was previously moved by Mr. Brown at the last meeting. There was a request for deferral of the consideration for a week, and that motion is now before us, the motion to concur with the appointment.

Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Albanese, Brown, Johnson, Naqvi, Pendergast.

Nays

McLeod.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The motion is carried.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Our next order of business is the report of the subcommittee of Thursday, October 29. Motion to accept the report?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: So moved.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The motion has been moved. Any discussion on the report? If not, all those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
MICHÈLE LABROSSE

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Michèle Labrosse, intended appointee as member, Ontario Review Board.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We will now proceed with today’s appointments. Our first interview today is Michèle Labrosse, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Review Board. I hope I said the name somewhat—

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: It’s Labrosse, thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you. We thank you very much for coming in for this brief interview this morning. We have a half an hour scheduled for the interview, the time for which will be divided equally among the three parties present. We will start with an opening statement, if you wish to make one. Any time used for that opening statement would be taken from the government time allotment. Any time that’s left will be taken up by the government side. We will start the questioning, upon the completion of your statement, with the official opposition.

So with that, good morning, and the floor is yours.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Je vous remercie pour cette occasion de comparaître devant vous ce matin.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you this morning, and let me begin by saying that I appreciate and respect the raison d’être and work of this committee. I’m pleased to appear before you this morning in relation to my intended appointment as a legal member of the Ontario Review Board.

I’ve been a practising lawyer in the province of Ontario for almost 17 years, specifically in the area of family law. In addition to appearing extensively before the various courts in this province, I’ve also received training in the areas of family mediation and collaborative family law.

Though my first language is French, I am fully bilingual and I operate a fully bilingual practice. For the first 10 years of my practice, I concentrated heavily in the area of child protection law, and it was during those years that I was first exposed to the legal and social issues surrounding mental health disorders. Many of the parents and children involved with the child protection system suffer from mental health problems. As an advocate for both parents and children, one must become well acquainted with the nature of these issues, as well as available treatment.

In addition, I served as a member of the board of the Centre psychosocial pour enfants et familles d’Ottawa, a non-profit organization which offers mental health services to the francophone population of Ottawa. My tenure on this board provided me with a unique opportunity to learn about the delivery of mental health services in Ontario.

I consider my work as a family law lawyer to be very multidisciplinary in nature. In order to provide effective legal services, I’m required to seek and acquire knowledge in a number of different areas. One day, I’m called upon to understand complex tax or accounting issues and the next day I’m required to understand the nature of a dissociative disorder or the effects of psychotropic medication. At a time when my practice focused more heavily on custody disputes, I had the opportunity to work closely with psychologists and psychiatrists and their custody assessment reports, and also having the opportunity of examining them and cross-examining them in court. In my family law practice, mental health issues, mental health disorders and their potentially devastating consequences if left untreated have required me to inform myself and gain a good understanding of them.

Though there is not a day when I don’t find my work challenging, I believe that I am ready to complement my practice with a new and different challenge. The adjudicative function of the Ontario Review Board, its federally mandated status and its subject matter are all aspects that make me believe that my work and general life experience are well suited for.

I became acquainted with the Ontario Review Board in a distant manner from time to time throughout my years of practice. However, I’ve become better acquainted with it through my father, who is a retired judge and currently a part-time member, though he no longer sits as an alternate chair. He is in charge of pre-hearings and only occasionally sits as a legal member because of the shortage of bilingual legal members in Ottawa. It was at his encouragement that I submitted my application to become a legal member.

I am not an expert in psychology or psychiatry. The board is already well staffed with those. I believe that as a legal member, if appointed, I would bring to the board my considerable experience with our system of justice, my extensive work with separating spouses and their families, and child protection, all of which has allowed me to gain a good understanding of the intersection between society, mental health issues and our system of justice.

In addition, my inherently fair and balanced approach to my work would, I believe, lead me to strive towards finding the balance between the rights of individuals and the need to ensure the safety of the public and protection of our communities.

As an intended appointee of the Ontario Review Board, it would be my intention to take on the responsibilities of a legal member with the same degree of commitment, dedication and professionalism that I have strived to uphold in my 17 years as a practising lawyer.

Thank you for this opportunity. At this time, I would be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you very much for your presentation. We will go with the official opposition.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Bonjour.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Bonjour.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Madame Labrosse, bienvenue au comité. You seem eminently qualified for this, so my colleague and I are wondering how one of our colleagues actually wanted to call you. My colleague has a few questions for you, but we will be supporting your nomination.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Thank you.

0910

Mr. Jim Wilson: I really don’t have too many questions, either. I think you’re well qualified. I’m very familiar, as a former Minister of Health, with this board and appointed a number of people to it in the past.

I guess the only thing that disturbed me—I had a first cousin murdered in Cobourg in 1974, and every year that fellow gets to go before the board. It was one of the old Lieutenant Governor warrants. What do they call that now? I forget. Do you have any thoughts about that? It often seemed to me that if my uncle didn’t intervene and if the Toronto Star hadn’t kept track of this guy for the last 30 years, he would have been let out on several occasions. In fact, he was let out and reoffended, because of weak board members, frankly, and what seemed to be a mentality among the leadership at Penetanguishene mental health hospital to side with the crazies. Do you have any thoughts about some of these things? It’s pretty general, I know.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: It’s my understanding that these situations are reviewed annually, and it certainly seems to provide an opportunity for situations such as the one you’re referring to to be looked at seriously by a board, which, as you know, is comprised of at least five members—psychiatrists, legal members, chairs. So it certainly seems to me that there is more accountability under this system than there would have been under the old system, perhaps, with the warrant that really was very indefinite in nature and certainly didn’t have the same process attached to it. It would seem to me that this structure and this process provide better safeguards against situations like that.

Mr. Jim Wilson: My point, then, is that he gets to go on trial every year and Michelle Keogh is permanently dead. I often asked appointees before I appointed them myself how they felt in this area, because, to me, it should be every five years or something. The fact that we spend millions and millions giving these people an annual review when they’re clearly crazy—every time he shows up he says he’s going to reoffend, and sometimes they don’t believe him, and they let him out on one occasion. That’s all.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Third party?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I’m sorry, I wasn’t here for all of your statement. You’re currently practising law?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: That’s correct.

Mr. Howard Hampton: In Ottawa?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: What kind of law?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Family law.

Mr. Howard Hampton: It’s your intention to continue your practice full-time?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: You’re aware of the caseload that this board has in terms of the number of hearings?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: I am.

Mr. Howard Hampton: You’re not concerned about your capacity to carry on a law practice and sit on this board as well?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: No. I look forward to it, in fact.

Mr. Howard Hampton: My understanding is that working on the board is going to require a fair bit of travel. Were you told that?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: I think it’s possible. I understand that perhaps in my case it’s less likely because of the demand for bilingual members in Ottawa, but I am certainly prepared for the possibility and the likelihood that there will be some travel.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The reality is, you also need bilingual members in Timmins, in North Bay, in Sudbury, in Sault Ste. Marie, in Mississauga, in Welland-Thorold, in Windsor, which is why I asked the question. Are you prepared for the travel aspect?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Do you think you can do the work on the board, meet the travel requirements and still carry on your law practice?

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Yes, I do.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Good luck to you.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The government, you have about five minutes.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Thank you for putting your name forward. Your qualifications are eminent. We believe that putting your name forward will assist this tribunal in going forward, so thank you very much. We appreciate your work and, in advance, appreciate your service.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): That concludes the interview. Obviously, you’ve expressed yourself so well in your opening remarks that, in fact, there were not enough questions to fill all the time. We appreciate your attendance here today, and we wish you well as you proceed with this endeavour. Thank you very much.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse: Thank you for this opportunity.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We are slightly ahead of schedule. It appears that the next invitee is not yet in the room, so we’re checking now. We may have to recess until the time arrives for her appointment.

With that, we will recess until the time arrives for the next appointment. Hopefully, she will then be here. With that, we’ll take a break, have a coffee and a little chat.

The committee recessed from 0915 to 0919.

LALITHA ANANTH

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Lalitha Ananth, intended appointee as member, Board of Funeral Services.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We’ll call the committee back to order. I believe Ms. Ananth has arrived. Thank you very much. We realize it’s starting just slightly ahead of the scheduled time for your appointment, but the last one didn’t last quite as long as time would have allowed, so we will carry on with your appointment. Ms. Ananth is intended appointee as member, Board of Funeral Services.

We will give you an opportunity to make a presentation to the committee as to your qualifications and your reasons for your involvement. Then we will divide the time equally, 10 minutes for each party. The time that you take for your presentation will be taken off the government side. We will begin the questioning upon completion of your presentation with the third party.

With that, thank you very much for joining us this morning. You may make your presentation.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Good morning. I would like to thank all of you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you in connection with my intended appointment to the funeral services board.

I am self-employed; I run a small business offering bookkeeping, tax services and mortgages to individuals and small businesses. My interaction with my clients has strengthened my knowledge, analytical skills and professionalism. I’m also involved with the Hindu community of Hamilton and region through a local temple. I volunteer there and help new immigrants and Canadians who have a problem with the English language to integrate easily with the community.

0920

One of the areas where they need help is to coordinate with funeral homes for funeral arrangements for their loved ones. I do not know if all of you are aware, but Hinduism does not allow performing the last rites for the deceased person inside of the temple. Therefore, we have to arrange this in a funeral home. While trying to help these people, I’ve always wanted to get more involved so that I have can have first-hand knowledge about the way funeral homes operate and the rules governing them so I will be better equipped to help these people. This made me look into various websites to see how I can get involved. I noticed that the funeral services board had public members and I applied online. If selected, I will work hard to serve my community and the public in a way that will make a difference.

Thank you once again for giving me the opportunity.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you very much for the presentation. With that, we will start with the third party. Mr. Hampton?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have a very basic question. Maybe you can elaborate on this. Why did you apply for this board?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: As I told you, I’ve been greatly involved with the Hindu community, trying to arrange funerals. We have a unique way that we cannot do the funeral services in the temple, and the last rites have to be done elsewhere. Most people, new immigrants especially, have financial constraints and they really don’t know how to go about the whole thing, so we sort of help them to do that. We get the priest from the temple to go, and in trying to find that—we always have problems with people trying to understand what we want to do because our rites are totally different. I wanted to see what I can do to get involved, to know better. They wanted someone from the temple to be involved in the funeral services board, and no one was really willing. So just to know something, I applied, thinking that by knowing more, I’ll be able to do something for these people.

Mr. Howard Hampton: When you say they wanted someone from the temple to apply, whom are you referring to?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Anyone from the community. There are a few of us who are volunteers, who have a good knowledge—the language is also a problem, so we have to have somebody who can coordinate very well with them. There were members of the board in the temple, and we gave the option, and nobody seemed to be really interested. So I applied to see if I can help them better, because I really don’t know the rules that well. I went to the website. I always used to read to see what we could do, and I thought that maybe this way it will help them better. But that’s the most important place where they need help.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Just so I’m clear: When you refer to “they,” you mean—

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: The board members of the temple.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Of the temple.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes, and the volunteers who come and help out at the temple too. We tried to select somebody and—

Mr. Howard Hampton: And it came back to you.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: All right. Do you know that there is a fair bit of legislation involved in terms of this board and the decisions that it makes etc.?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes. I’ve gone through the website and I’ve tried to read as much as possible to familiarize myself with all the regulations and stuff like that.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Okay. And you understand the responsibilities of a board member? The work is—there’s more than one aspect to this.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Okay. Could you describe to me, given that there’s more than one aspect to this board, what you think will be the most important aspect for you?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: For me the most important aspect, I believe—I really don’t know—just to coordinate things. This funeral service—do you want to know pertaining to the Hindu community or generally? Pertaining to the Hindu community? I want to go into the regulations to see what will suit these people better so that they can make their plans better. I’m not on the board; I’ve just gone and read that the board is responsible for all the regulations and for the licensing of the funeral board and all those things. I just feel that it would be easier for me to regulate, for example, when we go to the funeral board. First of all I have to explain everything to them—right?—what we want them to do that they are not totally aware of. I’m just thinking that if we could do something so that these people can do something at a lower cost. That is what is my main concern: within the regulation, whatever I could do to make this simpler and cost-effective for them. Now when they get a priest from outside, they pay extra and all these things. Even if that is possible, how to make it very simple for them, that is my main concern, and that’s why I’m there. But I’m willing to work within the regulations and try my best to do what I can.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you. To the government.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Thank you, Chair. Good morning.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Good morning.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Tell me how you pronounce your first name?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Lalitha.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Lalitha—beautiful.

The board mediates conflict and has that side of it. This morning I’m most interested in something you said in your opening statement. You said you will help the board to become better equipped to help grieving families. I’m interested, this morning, in having you articulate for this committee what skills you bring with you from your volunteer work in your community. Obviously, you have a background in math and skills in accounting, but talk about that other side of you, those human skills that you bring to this board, please.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Okay. I have a very diverse—I know the diversity in our community. I’m aware of all the different backgrounds. Our temple in Hamilton got burned down after the September 11 attacks. We have now a plan. We have a lot of interfaith programs in the temple to educate people about different religious backgrounds and stuff like that. I’m quite aware of how ours is different from the other religions and stuff like that. So I think I’ll be able to sort of understand the diversity in the different religions and the different practices better, and that might help me to work better within the regulation, to help the board in whatever. I can bring that part of my experience.

We have really focused on this interfaith right now, because of the burning down of our temple because they thought it was a mosque. We haven’t found the people yet who burned the temple. After that, we became more interfaith, so I have a lot of experience about other religions and other cultures. I think that will be a great asset to what I bring to the board.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Mr. Naqvi.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Ms. Ananth, for coming before the board. I think you’ve hit on most of the issues that are important. Ontario is far more diverse as a province than it has ever been before. When it comes to funerals, these are moments of significant grief but, of course, respect as well to the person who has passed away, to make sure that their wishes are fully met based on their faith.

Can you speak a little bit about your background in the Hindu community, your involvement with funeral services within the Hindu community and how you think that you’ll be able to assist in bringing those diverse values within the board to make sure that our regulations and rules are not just specific to the Judeo-Christian traditions of our province—which are important, of course—but to other faiths as well, be it Hinduism and others in the province?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: The thing is, Hinduism—I can speak a little bit about Hinduism. There are lots of things that people just follow. We have to separate two things. People just follow because it has been a tradition for a long time, and then we have to educate the people, too, about certain things that we shouldn’t be doing; for example, the ashes. They put all the stuff in the water. There is lots of stuff along with the ashes. There had been a problem earlier with pollution and stuff. It’s difficult to tell them not to do things, because we have stuff like this in the temple too. They want to put all the stuff on the deities, and it blocks things and that.

I think we have to educate the public first. Then the board also—I will tell the board what is the significance of certain things and what we can do to make it easier for the people to understand the two things: the actual culture, what they have to do; and what they should not be doing.

0930

I don’t know if that’s answering your question. That’s the only thing I see as pertaining to the Hindu culture. There’s lots of stuff that we teach them not to do, but most people think it’s there in the religious books and they have to do it, otherwise their loved ones will not go to heaven or whatever they believe in, but sometimes that does cause problems even in our temple. We are trying to educate the people first, and then I think maybe my expedience there will help me help the board sort of understand—I mean, to bring a medium between the two, right?—what the regulations are and what they believe they should do.

We are trying to work around that even in the temple, trying to educate our people coming there, telling them that we can do something different which will have the same effect, because they strongly believe in those values.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: While the dignity is maintained of the faith and of the person who’s deceased.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much for taking the time. We sincerely appreciate it.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you very much. Official opposition, Ms. MacLeod.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ananth. It was a really great presentation that you did. When we see somebody with such strong Liberal connections as a donor and organizer, it generally raises a red flag, and that’s why you’re in today. But having listened to you and your genuine concern for your community, we have no problem supporting your appointment today and your nomination. You’re obviously very qualified.

I guess the question that I’m left with is, is there any particular committee or team that you feel that you’d like to be part of? Because you came in here very well prepared, understanding the funeral industry in this province and how it impacts your community and your religion, and that’s very valuable, as Mr. Naqvi said. I guess the question is, once you’re appointed, how do you intend to make the most of this?

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: I will work in any way—whatever way the board wants me to, but I would prefer to be more involved in the regulation part because I can give ideas about our community services and stuff, trying to do that, but I am willing to work in any capacity, in any way the board wants me and they see me fit. But I would like to have a little bit of say in the regulation. If they’re making changes or anything like that, I would like to be a bit involved because that is the exact place where we have a problem with dealing with these funerals in our temple.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Great. And just to pick up on my colleague Mr. Hampton, he mentioned that there are a lot of regulations and legislation that you’ll be responsible for here in the province. One of the big issues that’s affecting the funeral industry right now is the upcoming and impending imposition of the harmonized sales tax. I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts right now on the funeral industry and how it’s going to be impacted, because certainly we’re hearing from that industry that that’s a critical concern for the bereaved.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Yes, but I haven’t given too much thought to that aspect and I haven’t read a lot—all I know is that will affect the pricing. Of course it’ll cost more, but other than that I really haven’t done a lot of reading or anything about how much or specific numbers as to how much it’ll increase, or anything like that. So I’m not really in a position to give you too much information about that because I didn’t read too much. I know they said that after July 1, anything it’s going to affect—but really I don’t know how much and I didn’t really go into that.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s something for you to look to. I won’t keep you much longer. Mr. Wilson, my colleague, has a question for you. Thank you.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Yes, thanks. I thought Mr. Brown might have asked you more questions, given his expertise in this area.

I just buried a couple of family members, my mom and dad, in the last year, and one thing that strikes me is how vulnerable people seeking funeral services are in terms of price or the lack of information there is out there with regard to price. It’s pretty hard to shop around, especially in a small town.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: I know.

Mr. Jim Wilson: So I was wondering if you could give any thought—and you don’t have to really answer this today, but take it with you when you are on the board—to some sort of guidance out there for consumers or information out there for consumers of what an average funeral should cost. The only figure you ever hear is when you see an insurance commercial on television, for goodness sake, that tells you the average funeral in Canada is $13,000 or whatever. I found with just my own research that prices varied dramatically in the industry, and you really don’t know.

I’ll use my own riding: In parts of my riding it’s $600 to pick up the body, in another part it’s $1,800 to pick up the body, and sometimes the body’s only going—in the case of my father, it was going about 50 yards. I made the joke that I should have wheeled him over in the middle of the night and saved $600, and he would have appreciated that, actually—wouldn’t have minded at all. Anyway, just take that with you. I think that they need to be a little bit more transparent and a little bit more competitive out there in terms of—

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: I appreciate that, because that’s the main concern we have—they don’t have too much money and we’re trying to work with very—we have a crematorium there; we just take the body, do the last rites there and do the cremation right away. That’s all we can do for them because they don’t have a lot of money to spend, so that’s—

Mr. Jim Wilson: As you know, the board has an education committee, so I think all of your concerns would be—not only on the regulatory side, but you’d be well to try and get yourself on that committee, I would think. Thank you.

Ms. Lalitha Ananth: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you very much for coming out this morning and making the presentation; we appreciate that. Since the question time is over, thank you very much for being here and you can take your leave and you can be out of here, even before you anticipated. We wish you well in your future endeavours.

For the committee, that concludes all the people to interview, so we will now proceed with the concurrences. We will consider the intended appointment of Michèle Labrosse, intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Review Board. We need a motion to deal with that one.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I move that we appoint Michèle Labrosse as a member of the Ontario Review Board.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): “We concur” with the appointment.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Okay. Any discussion?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Albanese, Brown, Hampton, Johnson, MacLeod, Naqvi, Pendergast, Wilson.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Seeing no opposed, the motion’s carried.

Our next move is to consider the appointment of Lalitha Ananth, intended appointee as a member of the Board of Funeral Services. Can I have a motion?

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I put forward a motion that Lalitha Ananth be appointed as a member of the Board of Funeral Services.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): You’ve heard the motion. Discussion?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): No further discussion?

Ayes

Albanese, Brown, Hampton, Johnson, MacLeod, Naqvi, Pendergast, Wilson.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Seeing no opposed, I declared the motion carried.

With that, that concludes the appointments and the business on today’s agenda. The meeting will adjourn to Tuesday, November 17, in committee room 1, when again we will be conducting more appointments. Thank you very much for being here this morning.

The committee adjourned at 0939.

CONTENTS

Tuesday 3 November 2009

Intended appointments A-661
Mr. Ben Shayan

Subcommittee report A-661

Intended appointments A-661
Ms. Michèle Labrosse A-661
Ms. Lalitha Ananth A-663

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Président

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean–Carleton PC)

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma–Manitoulin L)

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora–Rainy River ND)

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr. Rick Johnson (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock L)

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean–Carleton PC)

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre / Ottawa-Centre L)

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast (Kitchener–Conestoga L)

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe–Grey PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Douglas Arnott

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Larry Johnston, research officer,

Legislative Research Service

Committee Documents