CONTENTS
Wednesday 3 August 1994
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
David Hopper, Fire Code Commission
Roger Owen Rowe, Liquor Licence Board of Ontario
John D. Murphy, Ontario Hydro
Francis John Jarrett, Review Board for Psychiatric Facilities
Ellen Vera Allen, Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corp
Kevin Brown, Council of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario
Leslie Ann Adams, Ontario Film Review Board
Nancy Smith, Ontario Municipal Board
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener NDP)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND) for Mr Ferguson
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC) for Mr McLean
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Waters
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Ms Carter
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Waters
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. The first order of business is to approve a report of the subcommittee, dated Tuesday, July 12, 1994.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I move that we approve that report.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? All in favour? That's carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair: Our first intended appointment this morning is Mr Gerald MacDonald. I'd like to welcome Mr MacDonald if he's here. I'm sorry; I'm on tomorrow's agenda.
DAVID HOPPER
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: David Hopper, intended appointee as member, Fire Code Commission.
The Chair: I'd like to welcome Mr David Hopper. If you wish, you may make a brief opening comment.
Mr David Hopper: No, I'd just prefer to go directly to any questions you have.
The Chair: That's fine. This was a selection of the official opposition party, so Mr Cleary.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Mr Hopper, looking through the material here, the number of increased occurrences, why would you want to serve on the commission?
Mr Hopper: I was originally approached, I think, about two years ago, and I don't know by whom or how, with the suggestion that environmental issues needed to be better addressed within the Fire Code Commission and could I provide some of my expertise to that commission. I said, "Sure, it sounds like a good idea," and I put my name forward.
Mr Cleary: What do you hope to accomplish?
Mr Hopper: I don't know. I don't exactly know how the commission works or exactly the kinds of questions it gets to respond to, but I think my contribution is to work towards having decisions that are not contradictory to basic environmental protection issues that might exist in the province.
Mr Cleary: How many are on the commission?
Mr Hopper: I don't know.
Mr Cleary: So you tell us that you don't know how many are on it, and I guess you don't even understand what your job will be.
Mr Hopper: I understand the commission's role is to respond to questions, to act almost as an arbitration mechanism to deal with questions that are more in line with the principles rather than the direct words of the fire code.
Mr Cleary: Do you feel there are any reforms needed?
Mr Hopper: Within the fire code?
Mr Cleary: The fire code and the commission.
Mr Hopper: I don't know if reforms are needed.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm sorry to be late, but what I'm getting of the drift is that you're not quite familiar with the fire marshal code or the commission itself.
Mr Hopper: That's correct.
Mr Curling: But you understand too that it will require you to look at new bylaws that will affect the community, and you're saying you're not quite familiar with that. How did you get to know about this job itself, or this appointment?
Mr Hopper: As I explained earlier, I was approached and asked to put my name forward to add some environmental expertise to the committee. For the life of me I can't remember who approached me or exactly when that approach was made.
Mr Curling: I know it's very difficult to get quite competent people on boards and commissions, so I presume that with your expertise they just grab you and tell you, you know, "You'd be a wonderful person to serve on this board." The concern we have, though, is that people are properly briefed. Did anyone brief you or bring you in and say: "Here is what it's all about. Here is what is expected of you"?
Mr Hopper: I have spoken with Mr De Carlo and he's filled me in a little bit on the essential roles of the commission as this arbitration mechanism, and I was familiar with the existence of the commission before I was called for the appointment. I knew it existed.
Mr Curling: I don't expect you to know it all, but being that you will be appointed anyhow on the board, one of the concerns is that the cutbacks of funding to firefighters, especially to the volunteer organization, and the training situation there, have been very bad. It has been very bad for a long time and they've been complaining for a long time too. Has that ever been raised? Have you ever heard that concern being raised of the lack of funds, the lack of training, and that these volunteers have to almost give out a lot?
Mr Hopper: Yes. I have a very good friend who's a volunteer fireman in Port Hope. Quite often he's brought this point up and we've discussed it. He says, "It's a really tough job given what we have to work with and the things we have to do."
1010
Mr Curling: Would that be one of your concerns, saying that funding to these organizations or commissions should be much more adequate?
Mr Hopper: Is that within the mandate of the Fire Code Commission?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Mr Hopper: If things are brought forward that it appears probably are defined problems directly related to lack of funding, then I'd have to recommend that that would be changed.
Mr Curling: Your job is, again, to advise the council of some of their needs and some of their shortcomings. How long do you expect to stay at the board? Have you had any expectations to say, "I'll be around for the next five years or four years?"
Mr Hopper: I think about three years. I think it takes a year to learn the job and a year to do it well and another year to wear yourself out. That's my experience in working on these kinds of committees and volunteer organizations.
Mr Curling: Do you feel the public would be properly served in that way, because your role on that commission also is to make sure that the public is aware of some of the new changes and the regulations that affect it in fire protection?
Mr Hopper: The Fire Code Commission isn't a well-known organization; I've certainly found that out. A friend I was sailing with last night is a fireman in the city of Toronto. He's responsible for educational efforts within the City of Toronto Fire Department, and he'd never heard of the Fire Code Commission. I found that kind of interesting and disturbing. So profile is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed somehow.
Mr Curling: You have a responsible role to play and I just want to wish you luck on this one, especially the fact that you're not quite familiar with the role they play. There's enough intelligence within you, of course, in order to gather what is needed, but there is a desperate need in funding and how one treats the firefighters, especially the volunteer firefighters, and in how the public is being informed about fire protection and things like that. I just want to wish you good luck.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I apologize for being a little late this morning. However, I welcome the opportunity to fill in this morning and thank you for coming out, sir, to make yourself available for this so-called interview.
I was just quickly reviewing, and your expertise seems to be concentrated in the environmental field.
Mr Hopper: That's correct.
Mr Jordan: Do you see that as an asset to you in applying your experience on this commission?
Mr Hopper: I think that's the reason I was approached and asked to come forward, to help to add that expertise to the commission. I found it to be a very challenging and interesting field and it's made me think a lot, so maybe I'm able to think and apply things in a broader sense as well.
Mr Jordan: Could you give me something more direct, as to your experience in the environment areas relative to --
Mr Hopper: A direct example I ran into last year: We were doing some tank removal work in Alberta, and there are requirements in the Alberta fire code directly related to tank removal where they don't exist in the Ontario fire code. Anybody and his brother can go and pull an old gasoline tank out of the ground and there are no requirements to notify fire marshals or anything of that activity, even though it's a great potential source of fires, moving gasoline tanks around.
We stumbled across it in the Alberta situation and we in fact had to sweet-talk the fire marshal to avoid him really applying the arm-twisting. So that's an example of an area where an environmental activity that's happening every day, the cleaning up of these old gas stations, has a fire implication Ontario doesn't address. I don't know if Ontario wishes to or not, but --
Mr Jordan: I notice that in the responsibilities of the position it says, "The primary responsibility...is to provide an avenue of appeal to property owners." Could you enlarge on that, as you see it, as the primary responsibility in providing an avenue of appeal?
Mr Hopper: It's my understanding of how the commission works that the fire code can't be completely prescriptive because of the wide variety of possible things it can run into, and if there are situations where the property owner and the local fire official disagree on the particulars of how fire protection and life safety protection should be addressed, then the appeal is to this commission.
I think the commission is more to look at the guiding, basic philosophy underlying the code being properly adhered to by the competing proposals that are on the table.
Mr Jordan: Once you were contacted to see if you would be interested in serving on the commission, this application, as I see it, was more or less a formality.
Mr Hopper: It was some time ago. Sorry?
Mr Jordan: It was more or less a formality to have this on file. You had already been chosen, if you wished to serve.
Mr Hopper: Not as far as I know. I received a request once and was asked to send a résumé, I think probably in the 1991 time frame, and absolutely nothing happened. Then I received another request, I suspect about a year ago, although I'm not exactly sure of the date. I filled the thing in and sent it in again, and then quite recently got a phone call saying, "Well, you've percolated to the top of the pile and we're going to do something about it now."
Mr Jordan: But the initiative came from the other side, not --
Mr Hopper: It didn't come from me. I didn't approach anybody. To be honest, I was approached, and I don't exactly know the route by which I was approached.
Mr Jordan: I see. Thank you very much.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm sure that over the course of a couple of years, you will learn your job. It's amazing listening to the Liberals and all the appointments they made over the years. They had the answer for everything, but as the people of the province found out, they knew nothing about anything.
Anyway, do you think that the fire commission could play a role in helping to prevent the occurrence of fires?
Mr Hopper: I think that's its role.
Mr Duignan: Pardon?
Mr Hopper: I think that its role is to deal with applications of the fire code which are a little more unusual or a little different or a little more difficult.
Mr Duignan: As you know, the Fire Code Commission holds hearings on appeals not granted by the fire marshal. Do you have any views on how these appeals may be dealt with, without holding a formal hearing?
Mr Hopper: I'm a firm believer in not getting to formal hearings. It strikes me that negotiation and whatever little arm-twisting can be applied to get to a solution before having to go to formal hearings is a much better approach. Formal hearings take a lot of people's time and energy and money to do and they should be a last resort, well down the road. There should be some mediation or whatever alternative dispute resolution techniques can be applied to get things forward. But in the meantime, it is dealing with life safety, with public safety, and it's a process that can't be compromised either.
Mr Duignan: So you would encourage something like that to happen.
Mr Hopper: Yes. A lot of what I do in my day-to-day professional life is negotiate between industrial clients and ministries, Environment or Consumer and Commercial Relations or whatever, to come to solutions that both can live with. Most often, the Ministry of Environment has the absolute, pristine billion-dollar idea in mind and the company has the $5 solution in mind, and somewhere in the middle is the best for everybody. Getting there, getting to that middle point, is the crux of my job.
1020
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Good morning. You have an extensive background in your résumé. Have you ever served on other boards, agencies or commissions?
Mr Hopper: At the provincial level, no. I served on the East York environmental advisory committee for four years, an activity for which I received a 125th Anniversary Canada Medal for that effort to encourage a municipal government to include environment in its thinking.
I also currently serve on the Professional Engineers of Ontario environmental task force on professional practices committees, which prepare guidelines for engineers to carry out their day-to-day activities, and on Canadian Standards Association/International Standards Organization committees on environmental auditing, so I've got a fair bit of experience at a number of levels.
Ms Harrington: Thank you. Maybe Mr Malkowski might want to talk to you a bit further about your involvement in East York.
You were talking about alternatives to the hearings and we note that over the last 10 years the number of orders that have been appealed has more than doubled, so in fact you are concerned about that, that expensive and maybe long process of hearings. What is now happening and what would you want to have happen to have the two sides -- instead of appealing, what would you have them do?
Mr Hopper: I don't know exactly, but --
Ms Harrington: A person has been issued an order and they don't like it and don't want to comply with it.
Mr Hopper: By the time it gets to the issuing of the order, though, the two sides have taken a hard position. Maybe this is a chronic problem and the local fire official's decided, "I'm going to issue this order and really get his attention," kind of attitude. But by the time you get to the real orders, I would think the local fire official's first approach would be: "Look, here's the problem and what are you doing to solve it? How can we solve this together?" If that doesn't work, then it should filter through eventually to this process.
But I think the better way for everybody is to spend the time up front in the negotiation, "Here's the problem and here's where I want you to get to," and on the other side, "Here's the problem and here's where I am and here's how much I'm willing to go," and try to get to somewhere that does the job.
Ms Harrington: Before the order is issued, you would have the firefighters actually deal with the person one on one and try to come to an agreement?
Mr Hopper: Yes.
Ms Harrington: How would your role on the commission ensure that the firefighters would do that? Would you tell them what to do or how to do it?
Mr Hopper: I don't think so. I don't know that the role of the commission would have much to do other than recommend that back and try and encourage that form of behaviour. Maybe at the end of an appeal, you say, "This is a spurious one that could have easily been dealt with by better negotiation," and sort of issue a slap on the wrist to both parties and say, "Try and do your job better next time."
Ms Harrington: One of your aims would be to get the number of contested orders down.
Mr Hopper: I don't know if the raw number is what matters. If, for instance, there is a massive increase in the number of people doing basement apartments or multiresidential things that would have lots of opportunity for conflict, then the raw number might not go down. But try to get the appeals to be really meaty appeals, something that was really worth appealing, and get the spurious ones dealt with earlier somehow.
Ms Harrington: I see. Part of your mandate is with regard to training. Do you have any suggestions to change the way firefighters are trained?
Mr Hopper: I don't know how firefighters are trained currently, so I couldn't address that exactly.
Ms Harrington: I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): It's my impression, reading newspapers over the years, that there's probably an excessive number of real fire tragedies where families get lost in more remote areas. Do you think that's the correct impression?
Mr Hopper: I think if you draw impressions of any statistical basis from the newspaper, you'll have a big problem. Newspapers tend to overreport the sensational and underreport the mundane. Like automobile accidents versus airplane crashes; I mean, automobile accidents kill hundreds of times more people, but airplanes are on the front page every day.
Mr Frankford: I have not done my homework for this, but it wouldn't be surprising if that was the case. Whether I'm right or wrong, it would seem to me that there must be real problems in dealing with fire protection in remoter areas.
Mr Hopper: Certainly the delivery of firefighting service must be much more difficult.
Mr Frankford: Yes. I was wondering (a) if you had any experience in this directly, and (b) if you had any thoughts on ways in which the board should be perhaps proactively preventing it, although obviously this is going to stretch resources and we're probably dealing with areas where the whole municipal structure is rudimentary compared with what we're used to in metropolitan areas.
Mr Hopper: I have spent a lot of time working in remote areas. I spent a considerable length of time in the Northwest Territories chasing that Russian satellite that crashed, picking up the bits and pieces of that, so I've kind of seen the remote environment, what it's like and how hard it is to get services, if you need a spare part for something and how long it takes to get it. I have some empathy or understanding of that difficulty. But, again, because I'm not really familiar -- I haven't really learned what the Fire Code Commission does -- I don't know what its role can be in promoting an improvement to that.
Mr Frankford: Getting back to our first discussion about whether it's a problem or not, presumably you will be in a position to get statistics on overall occurrences where there is a geographical bias.
Mr Hopper: I guess you should have less property damage and less loss of life in an area that's better served by fire services, but how you measure "better" might be a very difficult question to answer.
Mr Frankford: Again, purely impressionistically, I think this may also relate to people's problems with heating. They use ad hoc measures which are really not right but they --
Mr Hopper: I put out a fire on my brother-in-law's roof. He used a wood stove that was well overheated, so I've seen that.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Carter, we're out of time. Mr Hopper, thank you for your appearance this morning.
ROGER OWEN ROWE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Roger Owen Rowe, intended appointee as member, Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Rowe. Welcome to the committee. If you wish to make a brief opening comment, you may, or we will just start in rotation with questions from the committee members.
Mr Roger Owen Rowe: Good morning. Thank you. I assume everyone's received a copy of my résumé?
The Chair: Yes, they do have complete information.
Mr Jordan: Sorry, Madam Chair, I do not have that.
The Chair: Your package is in Mr McLean's office, I expect. We'll give you another package.
This is a selection of the third party, but if we could have agreement of the committee, maybe we could move to another party to start, because Mr Jordan's just received the material and Ms Witmer has just arrived.
Mr Curling: Are they ready?
Interjection: The government's always ready.
The Chair: Is it acceptable that we go to the government members? Ms Carter.
Ms Carter: I see you have a legal background and involvement with a legal clinic, so I wonder if you could tell us something about how you feel your background qualifies you for a position at the LLBO.
Mr Rowe: The liquor licence board is an administrative tribunal, and a lot of the work I've done over the last five years since I've been called to the bar has been before administrative tribunals dealing with issues of procedural fairness and working with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which is the governing legislation for the liquor licence board hearings. In that regard I've had considerable experience.
1030
Ms Carter: It seems to me that a crucial part of what you have to do on this board is balance public and community concerns with the interests of the people who want the licence. I just wonder what feelings you might have about how you would do that.
Mr Rowe: It's always a difficult issue balancing competing interests. I've had to do a bit of that in the community work I did before going to private practice. I was involved with the Jane-Finch Concerned Citizens Organization, and invariably very controversial issues would come up between the police and the community. The police were members of the organization, so we would always have to be balancing the interests of one against the other to keep the ship sailing. It's never easy. You just have to take each case on its own merits.
Ms Carter: How would you define the public interest in this? What kind of things would you be looking for as problems in issuing a licence in a particular instance?
Mr Rowe: I think the act says the licence is to be granted unless, having regard to the public interest, there are certain objections. It doesn't really specify what aspects constitute legitimate public interest. I suppose in this context it would possibly be things like alcohol-related offences that might flow from a licensee not properly complying with the terms of a licence, whether it's overcrowding, service to underage persons, or overservice, serving people who are intoxicated. The community bears a direct impact when those people leave the bar and you have hit-and-run accidents and so on. To that extent, that might be a public interest that might come up in some of these applications.
I suppose as I get more experienced adjudicating liquor licence applications, I'll have a better sense of what are community-interest concerns.
Ms Harrington: I am concerned about my community, the city of Niagara Falls. Recently, in the last two months, we've had some front-page problems about some of our places, whether they're the strip joints or the bars, and I have had fathers in my office who have complained that their teenaged girls of 15 and 16 have been served. I have been in touch with the board to find out what it can do to help. Are there enough members and is there adequate inspection?
Mr Rowe: Are there enough members of the board?
Ms Harrington: Yes. The board actually does the inspecting.
Mr Rowe: I believe there are nine board members, two of whom are full time and the remaining seven are part time. They adjudicate on different liquor licence applications and at the hearings and at the public interest meetings, when the public objects to a prospective licensee's application, but I don't know that the members do the actual onsite inspection. I think there are staff and employees who do that, and I don't know what the staff composition is.
Ms Harrington: I'm concerned that there be adequate staffing. Over the last while the number of licences revoked per year is maybe 100 or so. I'm wondering if there shouldn't be more, if there shouldn't be closer inspection and tighter adherence to the rules. Would that be one of your concerns?
Mr Rowe: I think you've outlined a very legitimate concern. We would want to take each case on its own merits and apply the legislation accordingly and apply the policy of the board accordingly.
Ms Harrington: How would a case come before the board that you would be on? How would it get there?
Mr Rowe: A prospective licensee applies for a licence and then the board gives notice of it to the public and invites an objection or comments. If there are one or more written objections, then a public meeting is called --
Ms Harrington: That's in order to get a licence. What if that licence then is at question, if someone says this establishment should not have a licence? How does it get to that point?
Mr Rowe: Then the person is applying for a renewal. My understanding of it is that the same procedure can kick in, which is that a person is applying to renew and if there's any written objection from the public, then a public meeting is called. My understanding of it is, though, that on transfer applications, the public interest issue is not an issue that is considered.
Ms Harrington: Can the public bring the licence up for review?
Mr Rowe: Right, by filing their objection to the renewal or to the granting of new licence.
Ms Harrington: But only at the time of renewal, is what you're saying.
Mr Rowe: That's my understanding of it. I suppose that politically they can contact their MPPs or involve the press or protest directly to the owners, but in terms of the liquor licence application, the public gets their shot at it when an application for renewal is made and one or more members of the public file an objection. That's my understanding of it.
Mr Frankford: I realize you're not going to be setting policy, you're just going to be operating under the regs, but I'll just try this out on you. I've just recently spent a little time in la belle province, where you're allowed to bring your own bottle into a restaurant, purchased at the corner store. Do you have any thoughts on whether we should be exploring options like that?
Mr Rowe: I think they have a more relaxed regulatory scheme than we do here, and that's been their tradition. We have to follow the regulations and the legislation we have in Ontario, and that's what we will do. If they change it and make it like Quebec, then we'll do like Quebec. If not, then we'll stay how we are.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Rowe, for coming in, and serving on what I feel is one of the most important boards in the province. As you know, alcohol is one of the biggest killers, and the most expensive in our drug plan. Governments completely ignore it, as it's one of the biggest revenue reapers. As a matter of fact, the onslaught that went on with cigarettes is almost a farce compared to what goes on with alcohol. It ruins families and really creates a lot of havoc in our society, which most politicians won't talk about, of course.
Do you see the laws being toughened up about alcohol because of the cost to society, the destruction of family? Do you see this regulation being toughened up more?
Mr Rowe: I guess that's a decision for the MPPs to make concerning the direction of the law on alcohol-related crime and alcohol-related issues. In terms of what my prospective role might be with respect to the legislation, I implement; I don't set the policy.
Mr Curling: You're a lawyer, and you know that sometimes laws are created by input of the public or boards. You deal with a lot of statistics about what's coming in and how it's going, and your recommendation will be listened to very attentively by the government or even by the opposition. Maybe I'll put the question back to you: Would you see yourself in the role of making some recommendations from time to time to the government as you see these statistics come across, for the board to say, "I think we should be doing something more about this"?
Mr Rowe: My understanding of it is that there is a mechanism in place at the board for input from all the board members on a monthly basis on different policy issues, and I believe through interaction between the board members and the chair, a uniform policy is formulated. I'm a team player. It would seem premature for me to comment on that without having a chance first to consult with my prospective colleagues on the board.
1040
Mr Curling: I know you'll do a good job there; there's no doubt about that. Some of the tough questions will have to be dealt with, and I see these emerging.
Let me get to some of the regulations: the special permit licence. As you know, even in the papers there's talk about cutting down on those house parties that are causing a lot of havoc within the community. Some people feel that the special permit licences are so difficult to get and some people feel they're too easy to get. Have you any feeling on that, about the special permit and house parties that should be shut down?
Mr Rowe: I think we have to take each application on its own merits and look at the prospective applicant -- what sort of track record do they have, or criminal record, or what sort of reputation do they have in their community -- and look at it on a case-by-case basis, consider what is the overall policy of the board with respect to the particular sort of application that's being put forth. You combine all the different variables and then apply the law to the particular facts of the case.
Mr Curling: It's a bit difficult there to say case-by-case, as you know. One group will get a licence in somebody's name and then goes back and gets it under another name and they perpetuate the problem itself. They feel it's much easier when they can get around the laws anyhow. People are concerned about how easily these special permit licences are given. In some communities, they feel it's rather difficult because it's so discriminatory, selective, and some groups don't get the access to those special permits.
Would that be one of your concerns sitting on the board as one of the watchdogs to watch how they are? Maybe I could ask you, when you get there, to look at those special permit licences, how discriminatory they do those selections. Would that be one of your concerns? Could I depend on you to take a look at that while you sit on that board?
Mr Rowe: I'll certainly do whatever the task is that is assigned to me.
Mr Cleary: Do you feel that the circulation list for an application for a liquor licence is sufficient?
Mr Rowe: Circulation list? Can you clarify?
Mr Cleary: We had talked here about the fact that the list has to be circulated to the municipality and probably the utility and a number of others.
Mr Rowe: I'm not aware of that circulation list.
Mr Cleary: For a new liquor licence? You didn't know about a circulation list?
Mr Rowe: I know that there's a means by which the public is notified when a person is applying for a new licence or applying to renew a licence. I'm not aware of a circulation list.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, what are the main reasons to suspend a licence?
Mr Rowe: If the person hasn't been paying their retail sales tax, if they have not been complying with the terms under which the licence was granted, if they've been serving underage drinkers, if they've been allowing overcrowding, selling illegal liquor; these sorts of things.
Mr Cleary: In your opinion, how many times should an establishment be inspected -- a month, a year -- by the liquor inspector?
Mr Rowe: I think the answer to that depends on what the current policy of the board is, what the staff complement is, what the resources are and what the priorities of the board are and whether that is one of its priorities, so it's a difficult question to answer.
Mr Cleary: Complaints are one thing, but there must be so many times a month or so many times a year that the inspector has to inspect an establishment, is there not?
Mr Rowe: I suppose they have some sort of schedule they follow in terms of the numbers and the frequency with which they conduct their inspections. At this stage, I don't know the specific stats. Perhaps if I'd had some notice of your question, I could have come with a better prepared answer in terms of statistics and so on.
Mr Cleary: I'll pass.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As you know, we have a casino in the province of Ontario and we may have more. We'd all be surprised, of course, that the city of Detroit has now voted to have a casino after Windsor was approved; that was a real surprise. What do you think should be the restrictions placed on individuals within a casino context? Initially we thought they were not going to be able to drink any alcoholic beverages and gamble at the same time. Have they changed that now? I think that's been changed. Do you think there should be restrictions on people who are squandering their money in gambling casinos?
Mr Rowe: I'm assuming you're speaking of restrictions in the context of alcohol consumption.
Mr Bradley: Yes.
Mr Rowe: I don't know if the restrictions ought to be any different than they are in any other bar or any other licensed establishment.
Mr Bradley: I guess I asked it in the context of the fact that people whose judgement may become impaired by the excessive consumption of alcohol may well be squandering even more of their life savings at the roulette wheel or whatever they have in a gambling establishment, whereas if they were sober they might not spend quite so much. Is there not a danger there?
Mr Rowe: I understand the point you're getting at, but the flip side of that is that there are people who compulsively gamble who are not under the influence of any sort of substance, so putting a restriction on alcohol may not necessarily curb compulsive gambling.
Mr Bradley: So they should be allowed to fire back a rum and Coke or something at the same time they are gambling?
Mr Rowe: To be honest, I don't know. I don't gamble. I've never been inside a casino and I'm not really an expert on how the combination of alcohol and gambling interrelates. I don't see myself coming into this as having a role of setting policy in that regard. That seems like more of a question for you guys.
Mr Bradley: Well, we would certainly be interested in your observations as a member, perhaps a year or two down the line, of how it is working out.
Should there be dry areas allowed in Ontario? You used to have dry areas, and I think there still are. Do you think there should be dry areas or should one rule last right across Ontario and affect all of Ontario?
Mr Rowe: I think there is provision in the act for municipalities to have a process where they have an election to determine if they want to have their municipality as a dry area. I think that is a sufficient sort of mechanism to allow for that kind of choice by a community. If you're asking me if I think we ought to unilaterally impose dry areas, I don't know if that's the way to go. However, it could be that the government has the power to do that.
Mr Bradley: Some people have advocated that there be one rule for all Ontario in terms of no dry areas and others have said we should retain them. That's why I was interested in your comment.
The next question I have is something Ms Harrington dealt with. I'm going back to transfers. Perhaps it's as much a request as it is a question, that with your colleagues you give serious consideration to making recommendations to the government on transfers. We had an instance with a strip joint, I think Margaret referred to it as, in downtown St Catharines. The city council was up in arms and the neighbourhood and so on, and there was talk of the licence being simply transferred somewhere else. You know how people can transfer to friends or maybe someone else in the family. I ask that the board give very close consideration and careful observation of the transfer of licences simply as a ruse to get around a bad reputation that one owner had at one time when really the same owner is involved in the project.
Mr Rowe: That point is well taken, but I think also that the Legislature can amend the act to place the sorts of restrictions that you seem to be suggesting or implying might help prevent a situation where a bad licensee avoids the compliance requirements by transferring the licence to someone who has a better reputation.
1050
The Chair: We're out of time, Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: I was just going to ask about the drinking age.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Welcome, Mr Rowe. I think it is important to recognize that the responsibility you're preparing to assume is a very important one. I think you've heard now from various individuals that there are some concerns about the process and how the applications for licences are handled. How many members are there on the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario?
Mr Rowe: I believe there are nine.
Mrs Witmer: In the research document we've been given, I notice that from time to time there are municipalities and individuals throughout the province who are very concerned about the manner in which the LLBO grants liquor licences to bars and to restaurants. They feel that in many cases they're given far too liberally.
This has just occurred in my municipality of the city of Waterloo. Again it was a situation where an individual applied for a licence. It was in a residential area. I can tell you there was quite an uproar; there was tremendous objection from the community. Lo and behold, there was a little meeting held, and at the end of the meeting the two people went out into the parking lot, took a look around and said, "Okay, folks, how many of you are in support of the licence for the new bar?" They took a straw vote out in the parking lot.
I would hope you would take your responsibilities more seriously than these individuals from the board did. Subsequently, a lawyer did appeal that decision and a public hearing was held. But it's rather frightening to think that the type of responsibility that you're going to be assuming and that others have assumed -- individuals obviously don't see the job as being too serious, because they take little straw votes out in the parking lot. I found that very appalling, to think that was going on.
It is a serious responsibility, and there is concern throughout the province that perhaps things are not being handled with the seriousness and the investigation necessary. I certainly hope you will be committed to ensuring that the process is properly followed as laid down.
What do you believe needs to be taken into consideration when individuals in a community object to a licence because they feel it will impact on their quality of life? What questions would you be asking to determine whether that would indeed happen?
Mr Rowe: The legislation requires board members to determine what aspects of the community's objections relate to actual alcohol consumption, because invariably community members come with concerns, some of which are properly within the purview of our consideration but some of which aren't. For example, issues of garbage or of parking are not really issues directly related to the issue of abuse of alcohol consumption.
The task of the board member, as I understand it, is to try to sift out which concerns are legitimately within the purview of our consideration and which ones aren't. I think you have to try to be as inclusive as possible and show the community residents that you understand their concerns, and at the same time you have to apply the legislation. It's not a question of doing what the individual board member wants to do, it's a question of applying the legislation to the facts in a fair way.
Mrs Witmer: I hope people do give more consideration to the impact on the quality of life, because I will tell you that for these people it's a nice downtown neighbourhood where people are attempting to raise their children; they're trying to live downtown. But what's happened now is that you have noise till well into the morning, you have people coming out of the establishment and urinating all over the front lawns of people, and there's graffiti, there's garbage. This is the type of impact that I don't know is always is taken as carefully into consideration as it should be.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Rowe, for coming this morning. Do you have some reforms in mind as a member of the board?
Mr Rowe: At this stage I don't really have anything in mind. When I become a board member and I've attended a couple of the monthly board meetings and seen a little more of what the issues and concerns are and have had a chance to chat with my colleagues, I might have a better sense of what's to be reformed and what's not. But I don't know that it's properly a function of the board to reform and set policy. My understanding of the board is that it implements the policy the government sets and from time to time makes recommendations to the government.
Mr Jordan: So you don't see the board making recommendations.
Mr Rowe: Yes, that is part of the role of the board, to make recommendations, but not --
Mr Jordan: We recently met with the hotel association and tourist industry, the different hospitality groups relative to the general tourist industry, and their concern is overregulation and overtaxation. Could you comment on that?
Mr Rowe: My understanding of it is that the board is essentially following the legislation. Perhaps the hotel owners ought to take their concerns up with the Legislature, because my understanding is that the board is merely following the law in terms of requiring compliance and doing the collection of the retail sales tax and so on. I don't believe the board has the jurisdiction to modify the legislation the way it appears the hotel owners would like.
Mr Jordan: Perhaps the board doesn't have the jurisdiction, but surely, as a member of the board and from being in the legal business and the business of dealing with other businesses in the public generally, you as a member and the other members would be coming forward with amendments to the act that would make it more competitive for the tourist industry and the hotel association. You can't leave it all to the government. It would be the government's decision whether to amend the act using your suggestions. In coming on to the board, from your general experience, do you have areas you would like to see amended and changed?
Mr Rowe: At this point I don't feel familiar enough with all of the complex issues that are involved to be able to say that I have any recommendations or suggestions, but I expect that if I'm appointed, and as I become more involved in what's going on, I'll have more of an intelligent opinion about it. But as to the point you make that we can't leave it all to the government, I guess the flip side is that we can't leave it all up to the hotel and the business people either. There is a community interest that has to be balanced as well. In terms of where I'm coming from, it would be a question of trying to, in the fairest way, balance the private interest with the community interest.
Mr Jordan: For example, do you realize that an individual can go to the liquor outlet and purchase a bottle of wine cheaper than the owner of a restaurant?
Mr Rowe: I didn't know that.
Mr Jordan: That being the case, would you be in favour of that being changed so that it would at least --
Mr Rowe: Before I would comment publicly on policy of the liquor licence board, I'd want to first have an opportunity to consult with my colleagues on the board and certainly with the chair as a team player.
The Chair: Thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning, Mr Rowe.
1100
JOHN D. MURPHY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: John D. Murphy, intended appointee as member, Ontario Hydro board of directors.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr Murphy, and welcome to the committee. We will start this rotation with the third party, which made the selection.
Mr Jordan: Good morning, Mr Murphy, and congratulations on being chosen to serve on the Ontario Hydro board. How were you chosen? Was it a bargaining item?
Mr John D. Murphy: No. What we discussed in collective bargaining was an agreement between the Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro that we would recommend to the government that a member of the Power Workers' Union be appointed to the Ontario Hydro board of directors -- that was the agreement between us -- but that the government would retain the right to chose whom it saw as appropriate as appointees to the board of directors.
Mr Jordan: So the same procedure for you being chosen for the board has been applied as to all other --
Mr John D. Murphy: I believe so, although what we agreed to in collective bargaining was that we would submit two names. This was between us and Ontario Hydro. We agreed that we would submit two names to the government. When we did that, we were informed that we had to actually submit three names, that that was the standard procedure, so we did in fact submit three names for consideration, my own name being one.
Mr Jordan: In your union, when you were deciding on three people to serve on the Hydro board, what were the real concerns on the abilities of these three people, where you wanted to make sure you were going to have those qualifications on that board? What were the concerns that you and the executive of the union had about the operation of the corporation that you found it really necessary that someone from your group serve on that board?
Mr John D. Murphy: One of the things we looked at is the fact that most of the progressive companies have recognized the value of worker involvement in decision-making and that the decisions made within companies that involve workers are probably a lot better than those companies that exclude workers. That was kind of the thinking we had. We looked at a lot of models out there where there wase worker involvement in boards and felt that this would be an appropriate thing to do.
In terms of who the person should be, we felt that as president of the union and therefore accountable back to the people who perform the elections, the president would be in a position of having broad knowledge of the issues within Ontario Hydro and would be able to bring that practical perspective to the decision-making at the Hydro board of directors, because if good decisions are made at the Hydro board of directors, it certainly helps us, but if bad decisions are made at the board of directors, it can come back to hurt us.
Hydro's deficit has a direct impact on the job security of the future of Ontario Hydro. Hydro's rates in the future have a direct impact on us because the amount of electricity we sell is tied into the rates. That was the kind of thinking we had. We wanted to get in and help the company steer a better course in the future in terms of its decision-making.
Mr Jordan: Just to follow up on your comment about "the amount of electricity we sell," what's your opinion on this more or less negative marketing approach that we've had for the last period of time?
Mr John D. Murphy: A lot of it was perhaps unpredictable because of the recession and that, that we fell into. I think that some of the shift in industry because of things like free trade, some industries uprooting and moving out, perhaps has had an impact, but I think overall it's mainly the recession that has really sort of got us into this surplus situation we are currently in. What I think is that hopefully that's not going to continue on, that the future looks brighter.
One of the concerns I have about decision-making within Ontario Hydro is that we don't make decisions with respect to the multibillion-dollar power plants and distribution system that Ontario Hydro has that are based on something that is going to be short-term, but that we're really sure that we're making decisions that cover off the future. In other words, I think it would be a mistake to be shutting down plants if in fact we're going to have to replace that energy at a higher cost in the not-too-distant future, if it doesn't make economic sense in the future.
Mr Jordan: What about the plan to discourage, if you will, the use of the product, to, say, have to replace existing or come up with new generation?
Mr John D. Murphy: With respect to energy conservation, we think that should be the first approach. If we don't have to consume energy, if we can reduce energy consumption, we think that makes an abundance of sense. If you can reduce energy consumption and by doing so prevent the need to have to build additional generating facilities, that makes eminent sense. Where it becomes problematic is if you have a company that has a large surplus of power that is trying to balance the needs of keeping rates down to 0% and reducing its deficit. Then it becomes very difficult for the company to do everything. I think the company has sort of social responsibility, if you like, for want of a better word, to the province in terms of leading the whole issue of demand management and should set an example. But there are limits. There should be practical limits in terms of what they can do around energy conservation.
Mr Jordan: To be a little more technical about it, we have the Ontario government, through the Ontario Housing Corp, going through my riding removing baseboard heaters and other forms of electric heat from the Ontario Housing units. They're switching over to gas, and that includes the hot water tank. There's no effort being made to use the technology available to control these heaters at peak time so that they don't come on during the peak and therefore don't affect the demand for new generation. This technology is not being used. The whole system's going to the garbage by the truckload and I don't hear too much from you as a leader of the employees.
Mr John D. Murphy: To be honest, I wasn't aware of that particular situation you're referring to. All I can do is give a general comment in terms of the approach that should be taken, I think, by --
Mr Jordan: Are you in favour of a proactive marketing scheme?
Mr John D. Murphy: I'm in favour of a proactive marketing scheme that encourages people to become more energy-efficient in the province because I think that's what will secure the future for industry in this province and the future of the province. What I'm not in favour of doing is some of the energy management initiatives that we got into in the past, such as paying industry to become energy-efficient, paying it to put in new high-energy-efficiency motors if in fact it was already going to do that.
I think most business people in the community would tell you as well that they would much prefer to see the focus of Ontario Hydro around keeping rates down and not necessarily paying them to do things they were going to do anyway. But I certainly think there's a need to encourage people to do the right thing with respect to energy conservation.
Mr Jordan: But most businesses that have a surplus of the product concentrate on either getting involved with other uses of the product or a wiser use of the existing product. I don't see much of that going on.
Mr John D. Murphy: Our union has spent a considerable amount of money trying to advocate exactly what I think you might be suggesting, about trying to find alternative uses for the surplus of power that we have. I don't think what we would want to do is advocate environmentally irresponsible use of that power, that, in other words, let's go out and start advertising people to leave their lights on in their homes and that kind of thing.
Mr Jordan: Oh, no.
Mr John D. Murphy: But what we do believe is that if there's an opportunity to take that power and use it for some other purposes, then we should be doing that. Some examples are that we think Ontario Hydro should be more aggressively looking at export sales of electricity. We think there are markets there that can be exploited more. We think that within the power plants in the province that Ontario Hydro has there may be an opportunity to get into what a lot of industry has got into, of having the plants be not just these huge facilities that produce electricity, but having the massive amount of waste energy, heat energy, converted and used for some constructive purpose, turning them into sort of cogeneration-type plants.
Lennox, down near Kingston, is a really good example of that, where there are a number of private sector proposals for companies that would be willing to come in, set up businesses on the massive amount of land Hydro has down there and have the steam that Lennox would produce used to fuel that industry. We think those types of initiatives would be helpful to get into.
1110
Mr Jordan: What about the transportation industry, the electric train from Windsor to Quebec City? Lennox is in an excellent location there to provide a supply of generation. What about the electric car, all these areas, and reduce the CO2 around this city and all the other cities? It would seem to some of us that there are many uses for the product but we're very reluctant to market the product, that we'd sooner invest in Peru or some other form of out-of-the-province investment.
The Chair: We're out of time. Mr Murphy could answer your question, but don't go into another one.
Mr John D. Murphy: Just answer the last question?
The Chair: Yes, if you would, please.
Mr John D. Murphy: I certainly think that there is an opportunity to look at investing more in the future of this province. While Ontario Hydro is under short-term pressures and with a large utility like Ontario Hydro you can't ignore the short-term pressures, you have to also plan for the future. That's really what's needed within Ontario Hydro, some more longer-term strategic planning as well as some of the short-term initiatives that have been taking place. It needs a long-term strategic plan to look at how it can in fact be a more effective company, and a more effective company is one that doesn't have a surplus of power, as an example.
Mr Jordan: How many employees --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Jordan, we're out of time.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Murphy, you've got yourself a position, most likely, that certainly has been recommended by the Ontario Hydro board. This is a unique selection process, of course. It's not politically involved at all, but it is a situation where traditionally that board of directors has been composed of a large number of very powerful business folks in this province. I've known you for a long time, Mr Murphy, and we've had discussions about Hydro and trends in Hydro. You certainly have the sophistication and the knowledge of the overall business, but you'd be one person on that huge board, a board which could in years to come be again composed entirely of very powerful business folks. How could you sell your membership on that board to your membership in the union?
Mr John D. Murphy: In terms of our membership, there certainly is no problem or concern from our membership in terms of the president of the Power Workers sitting on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. I would say perhaps five years ago we didn't think that way; we thought like a traditional union; all we concentrated on was the next round of collective bargaining.
But most of our members now recognize that the only way we're going to survive in the future is if we're concerned about issues much broader than the basic things around collective bargaining, if we're concerned about the decision-making within Ontario Hydro, if we're concerned about the deficit, if we're concerned about the rate structure within Ontario Hydro. We think that bringing a workers' perspective forward to the board will help achieve that.
As one person sitting around the board, in addition to a practical kind of worker perspective to the issues that are going to be discussed, one of the things we hope to bring as well is sort of an inside perspective. With the exception of the chairman of Ontario Hydro and the president of Ontario Hydro, most of the people who are sitting on the board of directors bring a lot of excellent skill, but perhaps the skill that they might lack would be an internal understanding of some of the practical workings within Ontario Hydro. If selected as a board member, I hope to bring that sort of practical perspective forward so that will hopefully stimulate debate among the other board members.
Mr White: As you know, Ontario Hydro has a huge amount of power in terms of setting of rates and setting of the whole economic thrust of our economy with the hydro rates. The hydro rates are the things that everyone understands, what their power is going to cost them, how much is going to come out of their bill.
Locally, in my area, I've got of course two perspectives: one, having so many Hydro workers in my riding but, secondly, everyone pays for the cost of hydro. How would you deal with that? What's your stance on the Hydro rate freeze?
Mr John D. Murphy: As an example, Ontario Hydro is proposing a 1.4% rate increase next year on electricity, and our union has taken the position that the rate increase next year should be 0%. When we were in contract negotiations we signed a contract of 0% for the workers that we represent, and our argument has been that because the Power Workers' members have accepted, freely through collective bargaining, that they should have their wages frozen for two years, Hydro should apply the same sort of standard to themselves.
As an example, one of the things, had I been a board member, that I would have wanted to question was why it was that management saw it as being appropriate for them to introduce a pay system for themselves which would effectively give them an increase, give them more money, when the workers were accepting 0%, that kind of thinking.
I'm certainly driven by the desire to keep rates down, preferably if we can keep them to 0%, but to keep them in such a way that we're not also harvesting the assets. We have multibillion-dollar power plants, we have a massive electrical distribution system whose integrity has to be maintained, and trying to balance those.
Ms Carter: Welcome, John. I think we'd all agree that there should be a labour representative on the Hydro board and that it should be you. I'm just wondering how you basically see yourself as a potential member of the Hydro board, whether you will see yourself as a labour rep or as somebody serving Hydro as a corporation or serving the people of Ontario or the manufacturers or what. How do you see yourself there?
Mr John D. Murphy: I think if you take on the responsibility of being appointed to a board of directors, there's a certain amount of expectation that goes with that. I think I would simply be myself. My values and principles I don't think will change. What my objective would be is not to be seen as being somebody different within the group of people sitting around the Hydro board of directors, but really as trying to be an advocate around issues that I passionately believe in, trying to get other board members to come on side.
Ms Carter: What would those issues be?
Mr John D. Murphy: Those issues would be things around making sure, in my view, that Ontario Hydro focuses its direction -- it is, from my perspective, a little bit too scattered right now -- that it focuses internally, at home, before we fix problems abroad and that we focus in a way that what we say is that Hydro has gone through massive restructuring and there needs to be a stabilization of the workplace.
I think that's critical, that's number one. Having gone through cutting 10,000 jobs, in any organization there's going to be an effect of doing that, and the major effect is some effective management, making sure that the organization is stabilized as a result of doing that. That would be number one.
I think the second thing would be concentrating on the rates. If in fact there is, and we believe there is, an opportunity to have rates at 0% next year instead of 1.4%, we believe that will be a good kickstart in terms of the economic recovery of the province, and also that it will be a help in terms of dealing with the surplus of power that we have within Ontario Hydro. So that should be the second objective.
I think the third objective is the whole issue of reliability. One of the reasons, we believe, why General Motors is positioned out in Oshawa and why industry has invested in this province in the past has been that we have an extremely reliable electrical distribution system in the province. We want to make absolutely sure that's not harvested, that it doesn't decline to the point whereby any decrease in the level of reliability costs a lot of money for industry and discourages industry investment.
That's what I'd like to see, those three areas tackled.
1120
Ms Carter: I think we would all agree certainly that it has to be reliable, and that's very important.
Hydro is in a very difficult position, I think. I think there are a lot of contradictions there, and in a sense I'm glad it's your problem. Well, it's a problem of all of us, but it's certainly a very thorny one. If it was a private corporation, it would just be selling as much as it could and putting the price up as much as the traffic would bear and getting rid of its deficit that way, but for various reasons it can't do that.
I'm just wondering what you do see as the long-term picture. For example, if export becomes a means of using up the surplus, we then become committed to that, and certainly under the free trade agreement, in times of shortage we become fixed in the amount we've been selling previously, so that could be a danger in the long term. I'd like your comment on that.
Mr John D. Murphy: We have always sold a significant amount of electricity; Ontario Hydro has. I guess what we're saying is that if you have multibillion-dollar plans that have been already paid for by the ratepayers in the province, rather than simply shutting them down, opportunities like saying, "Let's try and get a better return for the ratepayers by getting some contract sales," probably make more sense than simply shutting them down. That's the kind of concept that we have.
Ms Harrington: I want to wish you well. It's a very important position you've taken on. I believe the workers do need that voice. I'm glad to hear you're committed to cost control.
I have three questions. First of all, are you committed to continuing as a public corporation? Secondly, I want to let you know how important it is to my riding of Niagara Falls that the Hydro tunnel twinning project go ahead. Thirdly, I would ask you to consider the concerns of your construction union, which is Local 1788. Would you have any comments on those?
Mr John D. Murphy: I'll simply take them backwards. In terms of the 1788 problems, it's sort of an interunion problem. I don't see that necessarily being a topic -- I can't envision it being a topic that would be dealt with at the Hydro board of directors. It's a dispute between two unions within Ontario Hydro as to who has jurisdiction over work, and it's kind of dealt with at the labour board. There's a process that is flowing out of that at the labour board that hopefully will come up with a resolve rather than having to go to labour board disputes on those jurisdictional issues.
With respect to the capital projects, again, the driving force has got to be, in my view, both looking at short- and long-term impact on rates and looking at rate equity and reliability. If none of those are going to be adversely affected, then I think we should be going ahead with a priority with projects such as -- hydraulic is obviously the most desirable source of generation that we have. But it's a question of changing the mentality in Hydro from one of the past whereby they simply did everything they wanted to do and didn't worry about the size of the pit of money. It's now a question, I think, in terms of survival in the future, of being very conscious that it's not a bottomless pit, that there are lots of really good things we need to do, but just making sure that they're the right things to do and that they're affordable and that they don't adversely affect rates, reliability or the debt-equity ratio reduction target.
Mr Bradley: I shouldn't really ascribe to the government any ulterior or sinister motives, but there would be people out there no doubt who might think that one of the motives in the government agreeing to your appointment to the board would be to try to shut you up, since you've been such a critic of the government, and that's probably impossible, so perhaps more realistically to temper your criticism of government policy and of the chair of the board.
Mr John D. Murphy: That won't stop me.
Mr Bradley: Do you think that is perhaps one of the motivations the government would have in appointing you to the board?
Mr John D. Murphy: I don't. I'm trying to speak here for the government -- I probably shouldn't be doing that -- but if I were to guess and try and answer your question or try and speculate as to what the motive might be, I think it is probably more of a commonsense motive. If in fact you have a union and you have an employer like Ontario Hydro and if what's happening, as has been happening up to now, is that everything is reactionary -- we find out, having lost thousands of jobs, that Maurice Strong is thinking about investing, buying a rain forest in Costa Rica -- then we respond to that publicly and we get into a debate. I'm hoping what the government's motivation in supporting a nominee going forward to the board like that would be to give us an opportunity before those decisions are made to try and influence the board as to whether or not such decisions are healthy decisions.
I don't think the government thinks for a second that an appointment to the board is somehow going to stop any criticism that I will have of decisions I believe are not in the best interests of the people I represent or in the best interests of the ratepayers of the province.
Mr Bradley: So we can count on some of those excellent commercials continuing to appear on our television sets if you are unhappy with government policy.
Mr John D. Murphy: Absolutely. I think my responsibility as president of the union is going to be, if I'm going to do my job effectively, to make sure that I continue to try to inform the public around the issues that I think are important to them.
Mr Bradley: Many members of the present government, including members of this committee, are openly anti-nuclear. I was looking at your background. You come from that particular area. You've worked in that particular area. Do you think that nuclear generating in Ontario for the purposes of electric power does have a future, that we will continue to see it used, and do you believe that we will be building any further plants?
Mr John D. Murphy: I don't think we'll be building any plants for the immediate future, because of the surplus situation and the state of the economy in the province, but I do believe passionately that Candu nuclear power will be an ingredient in terms of our energy mix, new Candu nuclear plants. I don't think they'll be large-scale projects; I think they'll probably be single-unit projects.
For one, I would much rather see a Canadian product, like the Candu nuclear reactor, meet some of our future energy needs, to replace existing nuclear power plants, than see the province of Ontario purchasing a French or American-type reactor. I also think that the success of the Candu nuclear reactor is important because export of Candu nuclear reactors creates a lot of jobs, particularly in Ontario as well as across Canada. I think it's an important ingredient in our future energy mix.
Mr Bradley: You have provided for the people of this province some very informative television commercials indicating the opinion of the union on some government policy. Do you think that the commercials we have seen produced by Ontario Hydro, which are about six seconds long and seem to appear every six seconds, that say, "The new Ontario Hydro," and show somebody with a balloon or something, are a wise expenditure of Hydro funds in the context of the financial situation facing Hydro? Would you, if you were sitting on the board, recommend that they not engage in that kind of propaganda?
Mr John D. Murphy: I've said repeatedly that that whole commercial, which is in every magazine I pick up, is constantly bombarded on TV, on bus stands -- I don't understand those commercials. I think most people don't understand them. I think they're an absolute and total waste of ratepayers' money in the province. If given the opportunity, I would certainly be an advocate for calling for the elimination of those commercials.
Mr Bradley: I like you on the board already, you know, if I hear that.
The third is that the chair of Ontario Hydro seems to be very interested in investments offshore -- the Peruvian investment, for instance. Do you believe that such investments are wise at this time, when Ontario Hydro has an already heavy debt and some difficult economic circumstances to face? Do you consider the Peruvian investment to be a prudent one at this point in time?
Mr John D. Murphy: I certainly don't support the Peruvian investment because I see the Peruvian investment as an equity investment, borrowing money to invest it in a Peruvian utility. The type of foreign investment that I do support strongly that I think would be advantageous would be to pursue the exporting or the selling of the skills and technologies we have within Ontario Hydro. But simply borrowing money to invest it in a utility like the Peruvian deal? It seems just crazy to be doing that.
1130
At the Ontario Energy Board hearings recently, Ontario Hydro admitted that in its transmission system across the province it was significantly cutting back on the amount of maintenance it was going to do. As a result, they were anticipating that the reliability was going to decrease, was going to get worse. But they were saying the reason they were doing that was driven by the need to reduce the deficit and keep the rates down. I can partly understand why they're driven by that in terms of wanting to accept that perhaps there might be a shift in reliability, but what I don't understand is, at the same time you're doing that, there somehow seems to be, according to the newspapers, anywhere up to $200 million available for foreign investment. I think the priority has got to be to keep our own house in order.
Certainly I'm an advocate, as I said, of selling our skills and our expertise abroad, but I'm not an advocate of borrowing money in the province of Ontario, guaranteeing it by the Ontario government and using that money to help the Peruvian government privatize the utility in Peru. No, I don't support that.
Mr Bradley: Environmentalists, and indeed many members of the present administration at Queen's Park, have long been critics of the potential of Ontario Hydro building capacity for the purpose of exporting on a long-term basis. You will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard you say that you are in favour of long-term export of our power. It would seem to me that to do so, at least in the medium run, would take the construction of further nuclear capacity or stoking up the coal-fired furnaces in Ontario. Do you still advocate that, which was considered to be almost a cardinal sin just a few years ago?
Mr John D. Murphy: Yes, I do. The economy in Ontario and Ontario Hydro I think are absolutely tied together. I think Ontario Hydro can in fact be an effective engine in terms of driving recovery within Ontario.
For example, the Darlington nuclear power plant probably should not have been built with the design it had because it was too expensive. If we were going to build 20 Darlingtons, Ontario Hydro probably should have got into that, but when they didn't have that sort of demand, they should probably have simply photocopied one of the existing nuclear plants they had and built that type of plant, which they could have built a lot cheaper.
Despite the criticisms of Darlington -- the new design, the excesses in terms of money that was spent on it -- I really think that what sometimes gets overlooked or lost is that during the 10 years it was being built, it employed thousands and thousands of people in the province who spent a lot of money that kept thousands of other people employed. Unemployment is a fairly significant issue we still have in the province, and we have to look at impacts in terms of employment as well.
If there is an opportunity to keep an existing plant that's been paid for by the ratepayers open, employing people, paying taxes, helping a community that would otherwise be perhaps severely adversely affected, that seems to me to make a lot of sense in terms of pursuing these long-term contracts for the sale of power.
Mr Bradley: Are there any circumstances under which you would support the privatization of Ontario Hydro as a whole, or certain components of Ontario Hydro?
Mr John D. Murphy: I would support the privatization of Ontario Hydro or components if somebody could convince me and show me that it was going to be in the interests of ratepayers in the province. Everything I've looked at and have got consultants' reports on that we studied -- it isn't as if nobody has ever done this and somebody thinks it's a good idea -- everything we've seen from the experience in Great Britain and the American utilities indicates it's not in the best interests of ratepayers.
Even from a simple, commonsense perspective -- everybody agrees that we've got to keep rates down, that that's key -- the idea is telling ratepayers in the province, which is what privatization means, that on your electricity bill you're now going to have to pay somebody a profit because the private sector doesn't take over the production of electricity to operate as a non-profit enterprise, and in addition to paying somebody a profit, the tax-free status that Ontario Hydro has disappears, so the tax that has to be paid now gets translated back to the ratepayers who are paying the cost of electricity as well. The net result is higher rates, and I'm opposed to anything that's going to result in higher rates for the people of the province of Ontario.
Mr Bradley: Should Ontario Hydro --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Bradley, and I apologize to Mr Cleary. There isn't any time left. Thank you, Mr Murphy, for your appearance this morning.
FRANCIS JOHN JARRETT
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Francis John Jarrett, intended appointee as member, Review Board for Psychiatric Facilities.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Jarrett. You and I both grew up in the same small town in England. Hardly anybody I've ever met in Canada came from Wallasey. That aside, this was a selection made by the official opposition party, so we will start the rotation of questions with them.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Doctor. First, I congratulate you for being selected -- sometimes we say for being appointed -- to this board. The board is going through some changes, as you know. While it's going through the changes, there are some staffing concerns, how the transition will be handled. I just wonder what impact this will have on the board -- I'm not quite sure how familiar you are with the board in the past -- what the new board will do without sufficient staff to serve this board. What impact would it have on the efficiency of the new board coming in?
Dr Francis John Jarrett: I must confess I'm not all that familiar with the new act. I assume you mean the consent, advocacy and substitute decision-making which will be added to the board's review process early next year.
Mr Curling: That's right.
Dr Jarrett: I would imagine that there will be many more hearings. For instance, I'm sure there'll be hearings, which right now are often confined to psychiatric facilities, in general hospital wards, in emergency rooms, possibly nursing homes. There'll be a great deal more work for the boards. I think it's difficult to say exactly how much, but I'm sure there will be a great deal more.
Mr Curling: So you do anticipate some additional work to be done. In any kind of transition period, governments especially have a way of believing that the same staff can do it when you need twice the amount of staff, one that goes out and the other coming in, to be efficient. Furthermore, as you know, I sat through the changing of the legislation, with the Consent to Treatment Act, the Consent and Capacity Statute Law Amendment Act and all that. It was quite complex to handle all these three balls in the air at the same time. You as a psychiatrist understand the process patients go through or the families of patients go through; the community will have a very difficult time in trying to understand how it works. If there's a message you are giving to the government of the day, and maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, would you say you would need some additional staff, especially now, in order to have that transition time?
Dr Jarrett: It's very hard to say because I think it depends on how it's going to be applied. I can't see how you could possibly have anything but an increase in the number of hearings. There'll be something quite new, for instance. As far as I know, the review board at the moment doesn't have hearings for people in general hospital units. Consent is handled there without the need to refer to a review board. It's the same with the emergency room. But once the new act is proclaimed, there will inevitably be people in general hospital wards, surgical units, internal medicine units, the emergency room, who will be incapable of giving consent and who may very well need a full judicial hearing.
1140
Mr Curling: Governments in the past have handled this matter very poorly. I think this government is trying its best to handle the situation of outpatients, especially people who have mental problems. Many of them are on the roads or many of them feel they are not a danger to themselves, really, or a danger to anyone else, "danger" meaning in those categories.
As you watch this, and I'm sure you're concerned about this kind of procedure, do you think the new legislation will bring about any improvement to that -- there is evidence walking on the streets every day down in the Parkdale area of the people with mental problems -- about accommodation and whatever service they need? Do you feel an improvement will come about by this new legislation?
Dr Jarrett: I think, as with many other jurisdictions, when the Mental Health Act legislation is changed, what it tends to do is to narrow the criteria by which people can be detained. What that inevitably means is that more people are released from psychiatric facilities. If there's capacity to care for those people on an outpatient basis, say in community agencies, then I don't think it's inevitable that you get people wandering the streets. But unless capacity is put in place to care for people once they are released, then it's inevitable you do get people who are unable to care for themselves and yet are not considered to be a danger to themselves or a danger to other people. It's a very difficult balance.
Mr Curling: And that's the balance; I think you have identified that. Even though there are accommodations out there for them to go to, as soon as they "act up," or their behaviour becomes questionable, it's so difficult for the homes which are accommodating them, whether through the Habitat process or whatever process that puts them in that home. Those who are proprietors or care givers, those individuals, find it rather difficult to monitor, to administer, because of that cooperation. So when I say they are wandering on the roads, I was using the term itself. Yes, there seems to be a home, but the people are causing so much distress and problems for those individuals.
My long rambling here is saying, do you think there should be better cooperation with this new board and the care givers there, because those homes are then receiving some of the decisions you'll be making or are unable to make? I don't see any link there. Maybe I'm not reading it right. Do you think there should be much more cooperation so people don't find themselves wandering on the road because of lack of coordination?
Dr Jarrett: As I understand it, the members of the review board have, at least up until now, fairly strictly interpreted the law. If a person, for instance, is released because he or she doesn't fulfil the criteria, members of the review board probably have very little knowledge about what happens to the individual after that time.
Mr Curling: I know one of the definitions you wrestle with is the definition about "potentially dangerous" persons. With your discipline, each individual is different; as they say, one never can tell if that person will react or act to be dangerous to oneself or the others there. Do you think that concept of the definition should change or should be reviewed more closely? I've known many, many cases where the police will not act because they are acting within that kind of a direction. The doctors will say, "I see no evidence." The doctors are not really living -- you're doing a medical assessment, while these individuals are talking about an in situ assessment, really, seeing these individuals acting out.
Do you think that one should be addressing much closer about dangerous individuals usually reacting after the act, that more emphasis should be placed on what we call dangerous situations or dangerous individuals?
Dr Jarrett: As doctors, we're not asked to assess dangerousness per se. What we're asked to assess is whether somebody is suffering from a mental disorder and whether he or she has threatened to do harm to himself or to somebody else, or if somebody is apparently frightened that such dangerous behaviour will occur. But we're not asked, at least in the provisions of the current act, to assess dangerousness.
Mr Curling: My last question then, and I presume I've mentioned it before: Do you feel that it is working out there, where these individuals, mental patients who are outpatients, are adequately served with the structure they have and the accommodation that is being provided? Do you know anything about that? If you do, do you feel they are adequately served?
Dr Jarrett: I think the answer is there are many people who are not adequately served. I think there's a difficult link between discharge from hospital and follow-up care. I think that the capacity to care for people who are discharged, particularly from chronic care psychiatric facilities, is probably inadequate and it inevitably results in people slipping through the cracks. If they don't show up for appointments, then there may not be enough people to follow them to seek them out, and so inevitably there are many people who get lost to the system.
Mrs Witmer: It appears, Dr Jarrett, you are certainly well qualified for the position. You've had extensive training and experience in several countries, and certainly we appreciate that. It says here that you are a psychiatrist and you're also registered as a psychologist in Ontario. Can you just explain for me the difference?
Dr Jarrett: I'm sorry. If it says I'm registered as a psychologist, it's a mistake. I'm not a psychologist. Does that appear on my résumé?
Mrs Witmer: The summary that's been done does say that you are.
Dr Jarrett: No, I'm not a psychologist.
Mrs Witmer: So you're not registered as a psychologist in Ontario.
Dr Jarrett: No, I'm not.
Mrs Witmer: You're a psychiatrist.
Dr Jarrett: Yes, I am.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. I thought there might have been a problem, and obviously that needs to be corrected on the record then, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. We've talked a little bit about the Mental Health Act and the fact that it's certainly been amended over the last 20 years or so, taking a look at the right of the patient, the consumer etc. Do you think that at the present time the balance, as you perceive it, between the need for effective treatment against the individual's right to be protected from potential abuses by psychiatrists -- is it the right balance at the present time?
Dr Jarrett: The short answer is yes, I think it is. But the longer answer is that it depends tremendously on how individuals interpret the act. One of the things that I think physicians have to do is they have to recognize that in an act it's very difficult to account for every individual who will come before us. I know that I and most of my colleagues make individual interpretations of what the act means. I can give you examples.
Mr Witmer: I'd appreciate that.
Dr Jarrett: For instance, one of the things that we have to determine is, what does "mental disorder" mean? If we look at the definition in the act, it means "any disease or disability of the mind." That's really very difficult to get hold of because it doesn't correspond to our professional or scientific understanding of the vagaries of human behaviour. So each of us, when we are confronted with people, say, in the emergency room, has to make some sort of personal interpretation of what "mental disorder" means.
Similarly, there are words such as "apparently" and there are words such as "likely," that a person will likely cause harm to himself or somebody else, and again, that has to be interpreted. I know for a fact that it's interpreted individually. So how the act works depends to a certain extent on the wording but I think to a greater extent on how it's interpreted individually.
Mrs Witmer: By the individual practitioner.
Dr Jarrett: By the individual physician, yes. I think my observations over the years are that, in general, physicians have been very conscientious in interpreting the act, taking into account the balance of the freedom of the individual and yet the need for the person to be detained. I think the issue of treatment is a different matter, but the need to be detained, I think, is balanced against freedom.
1150
Mrs Witmer: I know from time to time I will have families contact my offices -- I'm sure the other MPPs do as well -- who sometimes question the detention of a family member and what have you. Do you think there are sufficient safeguards then?
Dr Jarrett: I think there are safeguards. My impression would be that there are many more complaints about not detaining family members than there are about detaining them unjustifiably. I work with the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics. As you perhaps know, they're very concerned about how narrow the act is and how it inevitably results in many people with serious mental disorders being allowed to leave hospital because they don't fulfil the narrow criteria.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. How do you think that can be improved? I actually dealt with a family whose son did end up committing suicide simply because there were not the restrictions there. What can we do? That's a very serious problem. What more can be done?
Dr Jarrett: I don't know. I think it's very hard, because what you would have to do is write something in legislation. When I think of my experience, I hope that what would happen is that physicians make their own judgement. I think they should be allowed to make their own judgement. I'm not aware that there's a great deal of a problem with physicians deliberately detaining people for their own interest. In fact, there's very little interest in detaining people against their will. What advantage is it to physicians? There isn't any. So I would say if possible, and this may not be possible, to have physicians given more discretion.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. There's concern from time to time about the ability to identify potentially dangerous persons. Obviously, psychiatry is not a predictive science. How accurate can you as a psychiatrist be, or any other individual, as to whether or not the individual is a potentially dangerous person? That appears to me to be very difficult.
Dr Jarrett: Well, it is. I'm more familiar with dangerousness to self; that is, about suicide. I've done several reviews of suicide and the risk of suicide. I think the short answer is that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, people in the mental health field, are really not that much better than a layperson, a person on the street, at predicting individual capacity or individual dangerousness. What we do know is we know a lot about statistics, we know about risk factors. But when you put together all of the risk factors, you might have 1,000 people who are judged to be at extremely high risk; only a very tiny, tiny minority of those will go on to commit anything dangerous.
I think it applies to all sorts of professions. In economics, for instance, we try and predict what people are going to do, but we are very unsuccessful at doing it. So I don't think it's possible to predict individual human behaviour.
As far as I know, with both suicide and harm to other people, the most reliable predictive factor is whether or not something dangerous has been done before by the individual. But if you're dealing with people who have never committed dangerous acts before, the predictive rate for professionals or non-professionals is extremely low, very difficult.
Mrs Witmer: Talking about suicide, have you done any study at all of teenage suicide?
Dr Jarrett: I'm aware of some of the literature, but I usually don't deal with people under the age of 16.
Mrs Witmer: Certainly it's been brought to my attention recently that there seem to be more young people who are looking at that as an option.
Dr Jarrett: Well, if you look at the trend in suicide rates over the past 25 or 30 years, there's been a remarkable rise in suicide in teenagers and young adults. For many, many years, there used to be a linear increase of suicide rates with age, but if you look at the curve over the past five or 10 years, there's a big bump from 15 to 24. Indeed the rate for people in that age group has actually exceeded the rate for older people, which would have been impossible to contemplate many years ago. So it's a major problem.
Mrs Witmer: I know personally it concerns me. Do you have any ideas as to why this may be so?
Dr Jarrett: No, I don't. I know that several explanations have been given, such as the possibility of alienation, of greater demands, of lower employment opportunities, of teenagers coming out of school and finding that they have nothing to do, perhaps devalued, not considered to be useful in the workforce. One would have to assume that maybe some of those factors are operative, but I don't think anybody really knows.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'd like to congratulate you on your selection. I have a couple of questions. As you know, some psychiatrists have commented that the Mental Health Act is a worthless tool, or something like that, and I was wondering how you feel about that and what you feel about those comments on the act.
Dr Jarrett: I assume you mean the current Mental Health Act.
Mr Malkowski: Yes.
Dr Jarrett: I don't think it's worthless. I think there has to be a Mental Health Act. I don't think we could work without a Mental Health Act. Over the years it's been modified. As it is right now, I think it represents a reasonable compromise between freedom and the ability to detain people for their own safety and for treatment. I assume it will continue to be modified. I think we have to work with the Mental Health Act. I can't think of major modifications to the current act.
Mr Malkowski: Can you give me your personal opinion on patients refusing treatment such as electroshock therapy?
Dr Jarrett: Yes. I'll deal specifically with electroshock therapy. Electroshock therapy is now reserved almost entirely for people who have severe -- that is, psychotic -- depression, and by the very definition of "psychotic" it means that they are incapable of understanding reality. There are circumstances under which people are in literal danger of their lives if psychotic depression is not treated. Under those circumstances, I think it is fully justified that those patients can be given electroshock treatment, even if they don't appear to consent to such treatment.
Mr Malkowski: Tell me what you feel the serious side-effects are of electroshock therapy.
Dr Jarrett: There are risks in electroshock therapy. The most serious risk is the risk of the anaesthetic; that is, a non-specific risk of giving somebody a general anaesthetic. Other than that, we can document that there are short-term -- and I stress these as short-term -- memory losses, usually in a patchy fashion, for the day or so before the treatment is given and maybe for a few hours after the treatment. Other than that, I would say dozens and dozens of studies of people who have had electroshock treatment have failed to demonstrate any lasting adverse effects of electroshock treatment. In other words, I am quite convinced that there are no lasting adverse effects or side-effects of shock treatment.
Mr Malkowski: How would you handle a situation where a patient actually refuses treatment and it is evident that they have the ability to understand and they have supporters from legal support or from survivors or whatever? How would you handle that, if a person refuses shock treatment when they are capable?
Dr Jarrett: There's no question. If a person is competent, there is just no question that we cannot give any sort of treatment, whether it's electroshock treatment, medication or anything else. There's no problem when a person is competent and refuses treatment.
1200
Mr Frankford: You've presumably had dealings with the board itself already from the other side.
Dr Jarrett: Yes.
Mr Frankford: I wonder if you'd like to make any general observations about how you feel it works or which ways you would like to change things.
Dr Jarrett: Actually I haven't had that much experience. I work in an acute care general hospital. Most of the patients who are committed under the act come in on a form 1, which is a 72-hour order. It's really unusual for us to then extend that to a form 3 and if we do, it's again extremely unusual for those people to appeal to a board. I've only appeared, I believe, twice before a review board. The last time was at the end of last year when I was involved on a person who we deemed to be incompetent and we wanted to administer treatment to. That was my last experience. In actual fact, that particular hearing worked out extremely well. The board found in the physician's favour. The patient later said that she had followed the proceedings and now thought that she would agree to have treatment anyway, even if the findings had not been in favour of giving treatment. So I've had limited capacity in appearing before the board.
Mr Frankford: I am a physician in my other life, but haven't practised lately. Can you comment on differences, if any, that newer drugs are making?
Dr Jarrett: Yes, I can comment on the drugs used for schizophrenia, for instance. We used to rely on phenothiazines and other neuroleptics, and there are two important drugs which have come along since, clozapine and risperidone. The value of those drugs is alleged to be that not only do they control the acute features of schizophrenia, but they're effective in treating the so-called negative features, such as withdrawal, indecisiveness and poor social skills. So, in a sense, these drugs, I think, represent a real advance. As I'm sure you know, they also have -- at least, clozapine has -- some dangerous side- effects which have to be looked for carefully.
As far as anti-depressants are concerned, we have a whole new range of so-called SSRIs. They're no more effective than the old anti-depressant medication, but they have such a low side-effect profile that I think they're preferred by many people. They're also safer, so that if you're worried about giving a person anti-depressants who is potentially likely to die by suicide, it's much safer to give the newer anti-depressants because they're so safe that a lethal dosage has not been established, in many cases. I think they represent a real advance, not so much in their effectiveness but in their safety.
Mr Frankford: So one can only say they've made a striking impact on the mental health mobility out there.
Dr Jarrett: They have indeed. It means we can often treat people on an outpatient basis whom we used to have to admit to hospital. So yes, I think that they're a real advance.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr Frankford. Thank you also, Dr Jarrett, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Just before we adjourn for the noon break, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee a small housekeeping matter, which is that there were three selections approved by the subcommittee whose status I want to advise you of.
One selection was for Mr William (Bill) Glennie to the Muskoka District Housing Authority. He has since withdrawn his application for and interest in that position. Another is Vivienne Poy, University of Toronto Governing Council. She is out of town on vacation from July 29 till August 8, 1994, inclusive. Ms Poy was a selection by the government party. Another selection, also by the government party, is Veronica Sims, to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. She's out of the country on vacation from July 21 to September 11, 1994, inclusive.
I would like to ask the government members, since they were both your selections, if it would be acceptable to you that those two appointments go forward to be confirmed by the secretariat, since the committee can't schedule them within the time frame that we had planned to. We have the option of scheduling them later or just letting the appointments go ahead as confirmed.
Ms Harrington: Madam Chair, on behalf of the government members I would ask that their appointments proceed without this committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much; that's excellent.
The committee recessed from 1206 to 1403.
ELLEN VERA ALLEN
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Ellen Vera Allen, intended appointee as member, Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corp.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Allan K. McLean): The first review this afternoon is Ellen Allen. You have the opportunity, if you would like, to have a few opening remarks or to go right into questions.
Ms Ellen Vera Allen: I'd like to go right into questions.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Marland, you will be the first, for 10 minutes. If we can get the clock going, we're in Biscuit City.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Ms Allen, I'd like to ask you at the outset what knowledge you have of land trusts.
Ms Allen: I became aware of them a number of years ago, through, actually, my connection with the co-op housing sector. There is currently a land trust that's been formed called Colandco or Codevelco, which holds lands in trust on the co-ops that are being developed in Toronto, and that was probably my first direct exposure to it. I have heard of other land trusts, such as the one in Burlington, Vermont, and so on where there are municipal land trusts and things like that. So I've heard of the concept before.
Mrs Marland: It's not an area you've worked with, though?
Ms Allen: I personally haven't developed a land trust or anything like that, no.
Mrs Marland: Are you a resident currently on the Toronto Islands?
Ms Allen: No.
Mrs Marland: You're not. This address -- I don't want to read it into the record, for your privacy purposes -- the appointments information form has a phone number. The first three digits are 260. Is that your office address?
Ms Allen: No, that's my home address. I live down at Harbourfront, in that area, so that's why it's similar, I guess.
Mrs Marland: Okay. I have it here, but I don't want to read it into the record.
How do you feel, as an architect, about the future of the Toronto Islands? What do you see as the future of the Toronto Islands? Obviously, as an architect, you also have a lot of knowledge in land use because you design structures to go on land, so I just wondered if you could tell us what you feel about the future of the Toronto Islands. Do you see them as a local resource or a provincial resource, and do you see them as recreational parkland?
Ms Allen: I see them as all of those things, basically. That's the way the islands have historically been. I can remember my father telling me about how he used to do ice boating on Toronto harbour when he was a young man and went over and visited people who had cottages on the island. That kind of connection between people who either summer or live on the island and people who are living in Toronto itself is part of the richness of what we have as a city, that there is this amazingly adjacent parkland which is available for the whole city and, for that matter, for the region, for anyone throughout.
Also, it's gone into some of the cultural aspects of our -- I wouldn't really call it a myth, but for example, there was a movie that came out I guess in the 1960s. It was a very small movie called The Violin, which told the story of a young boy who went over to the island, to these mysterious little houses on the island, and had violin lessons from a man who lived there. I think everyone has that kind of mythology of a very special community there.
It would be spoiled, I think, if it became too large, because it would just become another suburb and so on, but I think that if it's large enough so that it can maintain itself as a community, then it will continue to add to the richness of Toronto as a whole and Toronto as a part of the overall Ontario region.
Mrs Marland: I agree with you that it is an amazingly adjacent parkland.
Would you describe yourself as an environmentalist?
Ms Allen: Yes, I would say I definitely am interested in it. I try to apply its principles.
Mrs Marland: I'm asking these questions as an environmentalist. As an environmentalist and as an architect, how do you feel about building on environmentally sensitive areas in the province in general?
Ms Allen: As an architect, we have occasionally had sites that were adjacent to, for example, a creek or something else like that where we have had to work in great partnership with the conservation authority or the Ministry of Environment and so on, so that we become aware of the kinds of things you can do and the kinds of things you can't do when you are in an area that's sensitive. You have to be aware of the possible effects and be aware of the effects during construction of anything that's new, as well as the overall long-term effects of that construction.
Mrs Marland: So you're used to working in partnership with conservation authorities, as you've just said.
Ms Allen: Yes.
1410
Mrs Marland: The responsibility of conservation authorities, as you've also said, is to be aware of the effects of construction close to environmentally sensitive areas. So how do you feel, having that viewpoint, about Bill 61, that excludes the Toronto Islands property from all the requirements for development elsewhere in the province in terms of environmentally sensitive areas? For example, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has very strict requirements for development in wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas within its jurisdiction, and yet Bill 61 excludes any further development on the islands from any of those requirements. How do you feel about that personally?
Ms Allen: I was under the impression that the conservation authority was being consulted closely with this, that they were able to bring their input and have it on the table, so I think that's still part of the process.
Mrs Marland: But you know that there is a $4-million sea wall being built in order to stop the flooding in the low, wetland areas on the islands so that they can -- I mean, a road, for example, that floods right into August is now to be protected by this $4-million sea wall in order that they can build houses in that area.
Ms Allen: I was under the impression that the sea wall actually had to do with a much larger area and a much larger effect than just the area where the housing -- the area of the housing is a relatively small area relative to that whole extent of seawall.
Mrs Marland: Are you familiar with the site plan?
Ms Allen: Yes, and I've seen the parts that have been published in the paper and so on, of the extent of it, yes.
Mrs Marland: If you're going to sit as a member of this Toronto Islands trust, I would have hoped that they would have told you what that commitment meant, because you're obviously going to be dealing with a pre-existing controversy because of the fact that houses are being built in ESAs, land that has been designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as environmentally sensitive areas. What I'm trying to extract from you is what your role will be based on the fact that you are an architect and an environmentalist. What's going to happen to those areas with the addition of 120 new homes?
Ms Allen: I think that being in a position of having information about it, what I would want to do is to make sure that everyone was being circulated, that the information was coming in, that the site plans were being reviewed so that the expertise that's available was being integrated with the design.
Mrs Marland: You said you've been aware before of being part of a partnership with conservation authorities. Would you have a concern to know that the MTRCA has been blocked from input to express its concern about building in wetlands? Would you agree with building in wetlands and ESAs on the Toronto Islands when you can't build in wetlands and ESAs in other places in the province?
Ms Allen: I'm not an expert on this so I would want to get more information. I would want to find out what their opinion was. I would say that as a member sitting on the Toronto Islands land trust, I would want to make sure that information was coming forward, and if there was some kind of problem which could not be resolved, then that kind of information is what has to come before that committee to be able to look at all the information that's there.
Mrs Marland: Do you think the Toronto Islands should be treated differently?
Ms Allen: No. I think the Toronto Islands are a part of our heritage and so on. I think they deserve to have all of the expertise that can possibly be brought to that development.
Ms Harrington: I believe that the Toronto Islands are a very special community. I very much enjoyed going out there last summer for a day. My daughter went out there just last week to Caribana and also to do rollerblading.
Mr Bradley: Did she get a chance to buy in, or no?
Ms Harrington: What strengths do you think you would contribute to this board?
Ms Allen: I've been an architect for however many years. I think it's in the résumé there. I've done a lot of development in co-op housing and development of that kind of scale of project, where you have up to 150 units of new things that are going in, how they are integrated, how the community can develop as a whole around it and to be able to look at the land development issues as well as the design issues and so on that all must be taken into account.
Ms Harrington: I want to get back to the planning process that was raised. Do you believe there should be some streamlining of the planning process, of the approvals process across this province?
Ms Allen: Yes, if at all possible. I appreciate the reasons why the planning process has developed the way it has. I know I have spent a lot of time and a lot of various clients' money appearing before the Ontario Municipal Board about planning processes that took time and money, when in fact if the process could have been streamlined the conflicts that needed the board to resolve could have been resolved a lot easier.
Ms Harrington: While we are trying to streamline the planning process for the good of our economy and many other things, how would you see that we could ensure that environmental issues are a very valid part of that process, maybe the most important part of that process?
Ms Allen: I think what Ms Marland was talking about is true, that those agencies that have the expertise that must be brought to it should be circulated, their comments should be brought into the process. It should be possible that all of that expertise is brought in, as it is in any other development. Admittedly, in an ordinary planning process it's handled by the municipality, and in this case it's handled by the minister, but the same sort of thing happens in that the information comes in and your professionals integrate it with the design.
Ms Harrington: Information can be brought in and not listened to. I want to assure that it's brought there.
Ms Allen: That's part, I guess, of what the land trust should be looking at as well, trying to make sure that stuff is dealt with properly and that if you are taking responsibility that way, then you have to live up to the responsibility.
Ms Harrington: So it must be an integral part of this process, and you would push for that or ensure that?
Ms Allen: Sure, yes.
Ms Harrington: I just want to say, finally, that I know of one building at least that you have designed in the city of Niagara Falls. I'll pass to my colleague.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Ms Allen, just a few statements I want to make before I ask you a question or two; one has to do with the Planning Act that Ms Marland has raised. We discussed this at length during committee. I think Mr Curling was there at the time, and I'm not sure who else was there. Mr Stockwell spoke at length on this issue and many other issues. Part of the comment that was made is that in order to facilitate speedy resolution of this issue, we in a sense transcended the Planning Act as a way of speeding it up, but it was not intended to avoid Planning Act principles.
I support that. I don't think we should be taking something over that says, "We will undermine the Planning Act." If that was the intent, I'm not sure that many of us would simply say, "Yes, that's what we should be doing," because that sets a terrible precedent in general.
1420
We've understood everyone to understand that the ministry would be working hand in hand with the planning people of the city of Toronto and that the principles in general under the Planning Act would be abided by. You probably would agree that no province has the right to simply say, "We'll take that over and we'll simply disregard the Planning Act rules." Would that be your opinion as a member?
Ms Allen: Yes, definitely.
Mr Marchese: I would think so.
In terms of the sea wall, I know Ms Marland again says that there's a $4-million sea wall that is being built. Money was set aside for many things, and part of it is the sea wall. The sea wall, when we spoke of it, was not necessarily to make sure that we prevent flooding for the new housing or that that was its purpose. Part of it is that, yes, it may need repairs. I don't think anybody's yet been convinced or that there has been evidence to show that the sea wall needs to be torn asunder and something rebuilt. Repairs probably should take place. But I simply wanted to make the point that it's not a $4-million sea wall we're building, and also to make the point that the land areas are not in a floodplain. Reference has been made to that by Mrs Marland and many others, and I think it is for good political reasons that they raise this because it makes sense to do so politically, but it's simply wrong. They're not on a floodplain.
Mrs Marland: A point of privilege, Mr Chairman. I hate to do this, Rosario.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Marland, what's your point of privilege?
Mrs Marland: My point of privilege is that you cannot impute the motives of another member. In your last two sentences, you are imputing my motives for raising the concerns I have, and I would appreciate if you would not continue to do that.
The Vice-Chair: Good point. Carry on, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: When I make the statement that the land areas are not floodplain, that is the statement I make. When others make other statements, you and others will have to judge them on that basis, but that's my information. I suppose once you're there as a board member you'll have a better idea of what it's all about and you'll be able to use your judgement as to how to deal with some of these issues.
The question I want to ask you is -- I'm not sure whether Ms Marland had asked -- are you familiar with land trusts in general, and if you are, can you speak to some of your knowledge around land trusts, some of the benefits that you think can accrue to the public?
Ms Allen: The most obvious benefit is that it's a tool which is now being explored and has been used in other instances. It's a way of controlling speculation, basically, on land, and I would think that in an area like the islands it would be ideal, because it would be so easy for the land costs and so on to escalate beyond the scope of the existing community to continue to live there. By using the land trust as a means of ensuring that the land itself is held as a common resource, basically, for the city, for the province, you're preserving something while allowing people the possibility of housing and living at reasonable rates.
Mr Marchese: I'll move on to a different question. There are a lot of conflicts on the island between islanders. This is a very new concept as well, and that in itself will bring about many problems that have to be resolved. What is your experience in conflict resolution and how do you think some of your skills can benefit them there?
Ms Allen: As an architect, you usually end up having to mediate or be able to deal with large groups and committees, to deal with municipal officials and other government regulatory agencies, the client, the neighbours, the works departments and so on, who all have what might at one level seem to be conflicting desires and aims. But if you manage to get everyone to sit at the table, you can eventually build consensus. It's a more time-consuming process, but it's worth it in the end, because people feel they've all won in that situation.
Mr Curling: Welcome, Ms Allen. I want to correct the record. You were saying I was there for the discussion of the Toronto Islands. I wasn't there. I think you sort of presumed. I just want to make the record clear.
How many people now is the population of the islands? There are about 640, they say?
Ms Allen: Something like that. I'm not entirely sure.
Mr Curling: And they intend to expand.
Ms Allen: Yes.
Mr Curling: And the manner in which they intend to expand is what you, as a member of the board, will be responsible for, what type of buildings go up. I understand there is a co-op type of buildings.
Ms Allen: Yes, I think it's called Flying Toad Co-op. I understand that one of the design criteria would be that it conform to the scale and type of building which is currently on the island, so it would be very much a low-rise.
Mr Curling: Would there be any other type of building put there, housing concepts?
Ms Allen: No. I would think it would probably be the type of building -- and I know that it's been proposed on the island in the past -- where each building looks as though it's a house even if it has several units in it, so that it doesn't look like row housing that you would find in a more urban setting. It would look more in keeping with the style that's there now.
Mr Curling: I wasn't thinking of the style of housing. I was just thinking about the concept. Is it co-op, or will the private sector be given an opportunity to build on the island?
Ms Allen: As far as I know, the only thing that's happening right now is that there are, I think, a few pieces of land that are being brought forward as part of the development as well, which would all go into the land trust and would be leased to individuals, and then there'd be the co-op.
Mr Curling: My understanding of the role of a member would be those who will approve the co-op housing to be built there. That's why I was wondering if there is any other concept of buildings from the private sector, but it seems to me it's only co-op.
When the co-op is built, who selects the individual residents who shall live there? Those residents will be ones who will be coming from outside the island, of course, who would be living there. Who will do the selection? Would that be the committee here?
Ms Allen: Normally when a co-op is formed -- I'm speaking from my experience with other co-ops -- the selection is done by the founding board of the co-op. The co-op is made up of its own members, so the founding board is part of the co-op, and they begin a selection process to select people who would live with them as part of the co-op.
Mr Curling: So the co-op members will be solely members who live on the island.
Ms Allen: Or who plan to, I guess.
Mr Curling: Firstly, the membership here are all residents of the island.
Ms Allen: I'm not sure if the co-op is currently formed of -- it wouldn't necessarily be people who are now living on the island. It could be people outside the island even now, because the co-op has no physical form yet. It could be people from anywhere who would form the board.
Mr Curling: The reason I'm asking you is that of course the island's population will increase. If it's increased, it will be people from outside the island.
Ms Allen: Yes.
Mr Curling: The people who are selecting them would be the members on this board --
Ms Allen: I assume.
Mr Curling: -- or a section of the board who are members of the co-op. I'm just assuming that's the process it will be. They would not be one and the same. In other words, the membership you are being placed on now and the co-op would be two different types of membership.
Ms Allen: Yes, as I understand it.
Mr Curling: And the co-op membership would be those on the island, but you say you're not quite sure about that.
Ms Allen: The people who live on the island currently are one group and they would continue to live in their houses and they would not be part of the co-op. The people who would be living in the co-op may or may not currently live on the island, but they would be the founding board who would be selecting people who would live there.
Mr Curling: I understand that, because if you're going to expand it, it couldn't be people who are actually living on the island. They would coming from off the island. But I just wanted the selection process.
My concern too, you see, is that even co-ops today, which serve the community, seem to become rather élite clubs now and are hard to get into and all of that. There are lots of complaints in that regard. I know many people would love to live on that island and I just wondered if that co-op membership board -- who would be the members there, whether or not it is solely people from the island who will be forming the co-op, or if it will be people outside.
Ms Allen: I'm sorry, I don't really know the answer to that one.
1430
Mr Curling: You don't know what extent of growth of population they're estimated to have on the island?
Ms Allen: There are 100-odd units that are being built in the co-op, I believe, so 300, 400?
Mr Curling: Yes, so that would average about three or four per home.
Ms Allen: I would think.
Mr Curling: So the growth might be about 400.
Ms Allen: Yes. There are figures available somewhere. I'm not quite sure what the actual numbers are.
Mr Curling: You don't know if they ever pursued whether or not building the co-op would be less expensive than having a private sector building there?
Mr Duignan: This is a new philosophy here.
Mr Curling: No philosophy; it's a matter of fact.
Mr Duignan: Sorry, I apologize. You don't have a philosophy. I shouldn't offend --
The Vice-Chair: You're out of order.
Mr Marchese: Yes, let Alvin have his time.
Mr Curling: You don't even have a fence to sit on.
I'm sorry about that. That's apart. You may not be able to answer that too. It's not really your fault.
Ms Allen: The private sector actually does build the co-op. The co-ops are built by the private sector. Their mortgages are held by the private sector. They are developed with the assistance of the Ministry of Housing and with ongoing subsidy to the housing charges to the individual members, but the private sector is what does it and it is done under a competitive bid process, so that all those things go into that development process.
Mr Curling: Do you have any comment at all about how fast the island should grow, how many people? I know it's going to have about 110 new homes on there. Do you have any comments about that? Do you see this as a positive move?
Ms Allen: I think it's probably the only way that kind of development can reasonably take place. There are many different models. You could say, "Perhaps only a couple of units every year ought to be built," but I don't think that would be a very practical way of doing it, of increasing the population of the island. A co-op becomes a process which does help the integration, because there's a lot of community development that's part of that, so that would probably help the process.
Mr Curling: You see the government is quite supportive in giving -- they woke up as I said that. The fact is that as you increase the population there, you have the transportation back and forth. Is there strong reassurance that this will happen as we develop, that transportation back and forth to the island will be there, or is that still under negotiation? Or is anything in place?
Ms Allen: I'm sorry; I don't really know.
Mr Curling: Are you confident that will take place itself?
Ms Allen: I think it would be very amusing -- well, it wouldn't be amusing, but I can imagine that the people who are on the island would probably want to have the services they would need in order to be able to live there.
Mr Curling: Quite a few things the things the government has done are quite amusing anyhow. I just hope, as we impact or increase the population on the island, that the services are there to support that.
I want to wish you well on the committee. Some of the challenges are there, and the ongoing kind of interest you've shown in the island will be watched very closely. Thank you for coming.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee.
KEVIN BROWN
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Kevin Brown, intended appointee as member, Council of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario.
The Vice-Chair: Next we have Kevin Brown. You have the opportunity to make an opening statement or we can go right into questions, whichever you would desire.
Mr Kevin Brown: I would like to thank everybody for allowing me to stand in front of you today.
Mr Frankford: Good afternoon. What has interested you in taking up this position?
Mr Kevin Brown: I think the simple answer would be for professional and personal advancement. From a professional standpoint, from my résumé, I'm with the Workers' Compensation Board now. I've always been very interested in policy issues and investigations and teamwork in developing regulations -- in this case it would be regulations -- or being part and parcel to the development of the regulations. From a personal standpoint, for the last while I've been rather interested in the turn of events that have been taking place with the Ministry of Health and the changes that have been taking place. I currently believe there are further changes that do have to take place, and I'd like to be part of that.
Mr Frankford: Have you looked at chiropractic, and can you tell us any sort of problems or characteristics or things that you think should be looked at?
Mr Kevin Brown: I know that for a long time now the chiropractic profession has not been considered at the same level as other medical professions. I do realize that there's a lot of thought and research that has been going into this recently. I think that's good. I know there's also a lot of talk and thought going into the billing practices, what OHIP pays for, what they don't pay for, the separate billings, stuff like that.
My own belief is -- quite recently with my work at Workers' Compensation, I find the sports medicine outlook is much preferred to the conservative medical dealings, such as, "Take some Aspirin, rest in bed." The sports clinic methodologies are more, "Get active, do this, do that." The chiropractor involves, with the spinal manipulations, the active recovery as opposed to the passive.
Mr Frankford: I guess we're going to see competing philosophies of health and health care. Do you think that's a good thing or do you think there is something which can be done to change it so that it's a more cooperative model so that it's clear what a physiotherapist does, what a chiropractor does, and we can get rid of or minimize the competition and the potential turf battles?
Mr Kevin Brown: I'm not sure that competition is a bad thing. I think competition probably keeps a lot of people on their toes, so to speak. I think actually competition is quite a good thing, to be honest. I don't see a problem with the competition as such. I don't think there should be duplication of services. I think with further enhanced competition, and depending on how it all works out in the end, hopefully it'll end up saving money as opposed to costing money.
Mr Frankford: Maybe one should have some sort of unified payment system. If there's competition relating to how payment is made, perhaps that would have some deleterious effects.
Ms Harrington: I note in our briefing here that the College of Chiropractors has the duty of ensuring that appropriate standards of practice are maintained for the profession. Does this mean that you would sit in a judgement capacity if people were accused of not performing their duties up to a certain standard?
Mr Kevin Brown: Yes, it certainly could, depending upon which committee I was on.
Ms Harrington: Do you think that OHIP should pay the full cost of the service?
Mr Kevin Brown: The council doesn't have really anything to do with that. It's not directly responsible for that. Before answering that, though, I would have to do a lot more research. I do know that there are pros and cons to OHIP paying the full cost. The downside obviously is the increased cost for OHIP. However, if -- and I say "if" -- by paying the full chiropractor's cost it reduces the number of people requiring general practitioners, therefore offsetting the costs, and if they do balance or lessen the overall costs, then it would be beneficial. That, though, I don't have the numbers or the figures to support. It would have to be reviewed further.
Ms Harrington: Has your experience and your background with the Workers' Compensation Board led you to believe that chiropractors are a very valuable service? What's your opinion?
Mr Kevin Brown: For certain modes of treatment, most definitely. Spinal manipulation: Not personally, but from my clients I have seen some tremendous results. I recognize that there are other elements that chiropractors treat as well. The impact, I haven't really formed an opinion on. I do have the opinion on the spinal manipulations, though, and I'm quite convinced that there definitely can be some short-term improvements with injuries.
1440
Mr Malkowski: Just a follow-up: Could you outline your work with the WCB and also your VR services and perhaps other work with other agencies and how you think this would be helpful for the council in this public position?
Mr Kevin Brown: Outline my work with the WCB and other agencies? I'm sorry, do you mean medical agencies?
Mr Malkowski: Yes.
Mr Kevin Brown: As a vocational rehabilitation manager right now, any of the vocational plans and objectives that we set are directly impacted by the medical conditions of our clients. In many, many cases, my involvement with our clients, our injured workers, also has involvement with their physicians, chiropractors, psychologists, physiotherapists or occupational therapists. Through that involvement, I feel that I would be able to offer something to this committee.
My own experiences, my own skills that I've developed, whether they be team playing, leadership, communication skills etc, I believe also would be an asset if I were to be accepted to this position.
Mr Bradley: Perhaps you could help me out. I'd heard a rumour that you might be able to help me out and I don't know if it's true or not. It's hard sometimes to comment on them. Have you heard whether or not one of your fellow appointments will be Dr Morton Shulman?
Mr Kevin Brown: I have no idea.
Mr Bradley: You hadn't heard that?
Mr Kevin Brown: None whatsoever.
Mr Curling: You said chiropractors do have some worthwhile treatment. You know they're not paid their full payments under OHIP. Would you ever recommend that the government should be looking at paying full payment for treatment through OHIP?
Interjection.
Mr Curling: What about Liberals? Liberals want to go to chiropractors too, yes.
Mr Kevin Brown: I'm sorry. I heard the first part, not the last part.
Mr Bradley: It's an aside.
Mr Kevin Brown: As I said earlier, I have the opinion, as a member of the council, that we have no impact on that decision, on whether they bill OHIP. That's something completely outside the council's authority.
Mr Curling: They would not make any kinds of recommendations at all?
Mr Kevin Brown: That's done through OHIP.
Mr Curling: But wouldn't the billing procedure and how it is done -- would there be some role that the council plays? They make no recommendations at all to the government?
Mr Kevin Brown: It's my understanding that opinions may be asked of it. If you're asking me for a personal opinion on it --
Mr Curling: No, no. Once you're appointed, your personal opinion becomes -- that's why they're putting you there. They think that as someone from the public -- I think they sort of describe you here as something like that -- they expect you to contribute in that sense, and that you will be listened to.
Mr Kevin Brown: Absolutely.
Mr Curling: Do you feel that your contribution will be listened to then? Maybe we can start from there.
Mr Kevin Brown: I would hope so.
Mr Curling: Yes. Having been listened to, the government will take it seriously? The council then reports to the government. You feel that the recommendations -- talking about full payment to chiropractors -- would never be something that would be discussed.
Mr Kevin Brown: My understanding is, that's outside of their realm. However, were that to be something that was discussed in the council and that an opinion was asked of us on, as I mentioned earlier, there would be a number of factors I would want to look at. I would want to look at the impact on the OHIP costing and how much it was going to cost by paying the full benefits, because we're already in a deficit. It's not something where you'd want to add on another cost. However, I'm aware that when midwifery came out, there were substantial savings to OHIP, because obstetricians cost approximately $500,000 a year whereas a midwife costs $50,000 a year, so accepting midwives into OHIP reduced expenditures substantially. If something similar with the chiropractors was to occur, then I would be for it.
Mr Curling: I think I'm hearing you. I'm having a little bit of difficulty. With the acoustics in here, it's very difficult for me to hear you.
Many students have come to me in my constituency office. They want to get into chiropractic college and they've had difficulties. I have not looked into it with any intensity at all, but I've had quite a number to be of some concern. Have you been hearing that at all, that people want to get into chiropractic college, quite a few people, women and some visible minorities? Have you ever heard that concern at all?
Mr Kevin Brown: To be honest, I have not heard the concern but I can appreciate the concern.
Mr Curling: You see that concern is there somehow, though, so you can understand the concern.
Mr Kevin Brown: Yes.
Mr Curling: Do you think it exists?
Mr Kevin Brown: I'm sure it would exist in certain sectors, yes.
Mr Curling: I just pass that on to you, and again, want to wish you the best in your position on the council.
Mr Malkowski: Excuse me. Could you just repeat what you were saying. I wasn't able to hear your last comment. Could you repeat that?
Mr Curling: I was just thanking him and for being selected to serve on the chiropractic council.
Mrs Marland: Mr Brown, you said something a few minutes ago in one of your answers that really concerned me. When you were being asked about the role of the council vis-à-vis what services were available through OHIP, you said it was outside its authority.
Mr Kevin Brown: That's my understanding, yes.
Mrs Marland: I'm looking at the public appointments secretariat form. It's an information form that defines the responsibilities of the position to which you have been appointed. It says, "The council regulates the profession of chiropractic in the public interest by ensuring that individuals have access to services provided by competent health professions of their choice, and that individuals are treated with sensitivity and respect in their dealings with health professionals." Would you not agree that to ensure that individuals have access to services provided by competent health professionals of their choice, those patients are going to have to need access through OHIP in order to have that service ensured?
Mr Kevin Brown: I think my original answer was probably poorly stated. What I was referring to is that the billing practices and the regulating of the billing is outside the realm of the council. It is in all likelihood that opinions would be sought through the council regarding some changes. Are you asking me if covering fully by OHIP would be in the public interest? Is that your question?
Mrs Marland: The responsibility of the council is to ensure access to services. I'm asking you how you could ensure that access if somebody can't afford to pay for it other than through the government health insurance.
Mr Kevin Brown: That certainly is one way of looking at it, definitely, but there are many other factors I would have to consider prior to coming to a definite opinion.
Mrs Marland: How could you ensure their access in some other way, other than them having to pay for it themselves? What other way is there? Either they pay for the chiropractic service or the government health insurance pays for it.
Mr Kevin Brown: There's a mixture, as there is right now. There's a split costing, as there is right now, OHIP paying part of it, just as it does with some physiotherapy or sports clinics or psychologists.
1450
Mrs Marland: What I'm concerned about is you're being appointed to a council whose responsibility is to ensure access. If the patient can't afford it, how are you going to ensure their access except by the health insurance providing it for them?
Mr Kevin Brown: I'm also being appointed to the council where I'm looking at what's in the best interests of the public as well. If OHIP goes broke because of paying for everything, then it wouldn't be in the best interests. I'm not saying that I'm against it, by any means. What I am saying, though, is that I would have to look into the various factors. I would want to have more information prior to coming to an opinion that OHIP should pick up the entire cost.
Mrs Marland: But you're not being asked to look at this as though you're the Treasurer of Ontario; you're being asked to look at it to provide competent health professions of their choice. The responsibility of the council is to ensure that individuals have access to those services. It's not the responsibility of the council to decide who can afford it.
Mr Kevin Brown: No, it's the responsibility of the council to determine what is in the best interests of the public, correct.
Mrs Marland: I would say that for persons, individuals who need competent health professional treatment, that is what you have to ensure. I am asking you how you would do that, and you said there are others way of doing it. I'm asking you, what are the other ways?
Mr Kevin Brown: What I was referring to there is that there are other treatment modalities that are available.
Mrs Marland: Other what?
Mr Kevin Brown: Treatments that are available, whether they be through chiropractors, through general practitioners, through physiotherapy or occupational therapy.
Mrs Marland: But it's a profession.
Mr Kevin Brown: That's right.
Mrs Marland: You said it's outside their authority as to who pays for it. I'm just asking. Anyway, I guess I'm not getting through.
Mrs Witmer: First of all, you've indicated here, in summarizing your credentials, that you have been able to effectively deal with some complex medical and vocational rehabilitation issues. I'd just like you to explain what type of issues those were.
Mr Kevin Brown: As a vocational rehabilitation manager, one of my counsellors, as an example, has a very specialized case load. His case load is compiled of injured workers who have multiple injuries, for lack of a better term. They may come to us with a broken arm or an injured back but since the injury they've also developed a chronic pain disability, for instance, or some psychological factors that are barriers to their re-employment or barriers to their rehabilitation.
What I've done is set up a project or a process wherein the practitioner, psychologist, occupational therapist and physiotherapist, as well as the work-hardening program, for instance, obviously with our client and the counsellor, all combine to rehabilitate the individual.
With workers' compensation, if it's a broken arm, you can take an X-ray and there's the break and it's very easy to determine what the medical problem is and how long the healing process will take. With other, more subjective injuries that involve pain, for instance, it is a lot harder to determine and becomes a lot more complex. Therefore, by bringing together all the different personnel, the different physicians etc, as I've mentioned, we can hopefully come to, and we have, very successfully come to some positive conclusions, returns to work.
Mrs Witmer: What are you presently doing?
Mr Kevin Brown: Right now, I'm a vocational rehabilitation manager.
Mrs Witmer: With?
Mr Kevin Brown: Workers' Compensation Board.
Mrs Witmer: Actually, that's the area I deal with and I'm not sure if that's complex or not.
I'd like to take another look at your desire to become involved as a public member of the council. What do you think are going to be the difficult issues that you're going to face during the period of your appointment? We've talked a little bit about the OHIP coverage, but what are the real issues that are going to be facing this council that you're so keen to become a part of?
Mr Kevin Brown: It would greatly depend on which committee I was part of. The disciplinary committee -- it's going to be a great challenge going through the disciplinary functions --
Mrs Witmer: Why would that be a challenge?
Mr Kevin Brown: Because of all the investigations that would be required to get to the bottom line, to get to the determining factor as to whether or not someone was guilty of anything, whether or not the person was guilty of what they've been accused of.
Mrs Witmer: Do you think that's going to become more serious, the disciplinary side of things, in the future?
Mr Kevin Brown: That, I think, will depend greatly on the number of chiropractors. And, as we've spoken of the access to chiropractors, the greater the numbers, the more complaints.
Mrs Witmer: What other issues do you think will be important?
Mr Kevin Brown: If we were to become involved in the billing aspect, that certainly would be, although we still have that. Sexual abuse is certainly one that would be of high profile and, I'm sure, extremely difficult to deal with. It would be a challenge.
Mrs Witmer: What do you think your greatest contribution can be as a public member of the council?
Mr Kevin Brown: My greatest skills with my job right now are policy interpretation and policy implementation. Cutting through the bureaucracy, I think, is something that I have a flair for. Working with the Workers' Compensation Board, there is a great deal of bureaucracy involved with it. A number of the policies that have come out have been out for a long time and need revision, need to be changed. I've been involved in a lot of the changes in some of the local policies. We have some changes that are going through with Bill 165 in the near future; those changes certainly as well.
Mrs Witmer: You've only been with workers' comp since 1993.
Mr Kevin Brown: Since 1984.
Mrs Witmer: Well, it says here you were an instructor as well at Algonquin College.
Mr Kevin Brown: That was a part-time evening course that I was teaching.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Your time is exhausted. We want to thank you for appearing before the committee and wish you well.
LESLIE ANN ADAMS
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Leslie Ann Adams, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Film Review Board.
The Vice-Chair: Our next selection is Leslie Ann Adams, Ontario Film Review Board appointee. You have the opportunity to make an opening statement or we can proceed right into questions.
Ms Leslie Ann Adams: I'd like to say that I am interested to hear what your concerns are and your questions in terms of the Ontario Film Review Board. I understand I am entitled to speak at the end as well. I think I'd prefer to do that rather than going into anything in any particular depth at this point, if that's okay.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome. My question relates to some recent information that has been brought forward that indicates that psychologists now, albeit reluctantly, are admitting that there is a relationship between the violence and the pornography that children are exposed to and some of the violent actions that are being carried out by children. Certainly we know that the case in England was influenced. As I say, they are reluctantly admitting that there is the correlation.
In your new position, what can you do to ensure that children are not exposed to violence in films and pornography? I would certainly concur with the individuals who say there is a link. I think there's been enough data come forward recently. I don't see the Ontario Film Review Board recognizing that fact. They certainly haven't in the past. What are you going to do about it in the future?
Ms Adams: First off, I'd certainly recognize violence as one of the important areas for the film review board to be looking at. My understanding is that a number of the board members are particularly concerned themselves and are wanting to look at the guidelines and what perhaps should be changed or added or expanded upon. So the consciousness is there. I think certainly we're seeing that in terms of society, that there is a concern about violence. When each person screens a film or video, there has to be that kind of awareness, obviously, to even meet the considerations of the guidelines that are there.
1500
One of the things that's very important about what the review board does is classification. We have family classifications and we've got restricted classifications and the ones in between. I think at some point, in terms of children, parents have to take some responsibility in terms of where their kids -- when you say "children," being sort of under 12 or 10, I guess -- are actually going to be going. I think one of the things that's key is for that information to be out there and to be clear, and perhaps there are ways that it could be put out there more clearly.
Mrs Witmer: I think we all agree parents need to take some responsibility, but the reality is many people dump their kids in front of the TV or in front of the movies. They have the VCRs, and they're not in control, for reasons that you and I probably don't fully understand. I don't think we can assume that parents are as responsible as we would like them to be. I think the Ontario Film Review Board needs to take a very serious look at what's happening.
One of the suggestions that has been made by Pat Herdman, the co-founder of Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, is that we appoint some professionals in child development to the board. They're individuals who obviously understand young people. What do you think of that suggestion, that that type of an individual might be included within the composition of the board?
Ms Adams: Well, sure. I think the board is to reflect the diversity of the province, and that's one important person. I think the other reality is that the board is able to bring in people to their board meetings to advise them, to inform them, to discuss some of these issues, because they're not easy issues. If there are people who have experience, then that is certainly a valuable resource that's out in the community at large and can be an asset to what the board is doing.
I also understand that some board members are interested in perhaps getting the stickering program going for videos. I think that's something which conceivably could help in terms of kids at home. I think what you were saying in terms of television -- in some ways perhaps fortunately, television isn't the responsibility of the review board. But with films I think it's much easier for parents to take that responsibility. In terms of videos, I think if there was clearer information, that would be helpful. If there is a common feeling among the board that something should be done along that line, I think it's certainly worth considering and would assist with the kinds of concerns that you're raising.
Mrs Marland: You've just said, Ms Adams, that the board must reflect the diversity of the province. I'd like to ask you about a particular area known as sado-masochism. First of all, would you agree that sado-masochism does not depict a normal, loving sexual relationship?
Ms Adams: I think, in terms of the guidelines that are there that the board is working with, what for me is one of the most important words is "consensual" when we're talking about things that are apt to get into the S&M category of things, and I think when we're talking about that, when there is violence or power over another individual, then that's problematic and has to be looked at very closely.
Mrs Marland: But would you agree that sado-masochism isn't a normal, loving sexual relationship?
Ms Adams: Yes.
Mrs Marland: So would we then have the assurance that you would also agree that it wouldn't be appropriate to have members on the board who openly support S&M as a behaviour and in fact have led seminars in those practices?
Ms Adams: I don't know the backgrounds of -- I know the backgrounds of some of the people and not --
Mrs Marland: No, but just as an example. I'm asking you, do you think board members who openly support S&M and take part in seminars for that particular kind of practice are appropriate members of a public film review board in this province in 1994?
Ms Adams: I would hope that when an individual is appointed, they're appointed for the wholeness of who they are and what they are. I would hope that there are other dimensions to them that are important contributions to the board, that it would be a known perspective that they would have in terms of things. It's a democratic process. When something's looked at, as you know, there are three people who initially screen it and I suppose it can go as many as 12. If there's a concern in terms of a program --
Mrs Marland: So you're saying you have no difficulty with a board member being someone who gives seminars and takes part in S&M behaviour?
Ms Adams: I would think, if that's the main priority of a person's lifestyle, I do have a problem with that, but I think they must have other dimensions to what they're about if they've been appointed to the board.
Mrs Marland: If they're involved in that and a whole lot of other things, do you think that's an appropriate board member to review the kinds of materials that we now know come before the board?
Ms Adams: If they're wanting reappointment to the board, I think that's something that would be important to look at.
Mrs Marland: Do you believe in outright prohibition, that there is material that doesn't fall under the Criminal Code but should be prohibited by the board with regard to a community standard?
Ms Adams: When we're looking at guidelines in terms of banning films or videos, I think first of all it's important to give the guidelines so that we're informing people about the kinds of things that are there.
Mrs Marland: What do you mean by that?
Ms Adams: When you look at restricted films, for example, or adult sex products films, how the criteria are described, I think it's fairly clear that there are things that somebody may choose not to go to. Okay? I think that's probably the vast majority of films and videos that are out there. I think that one of the things that's important for us to keep in mind is the really important, fundamental societal values which matter to a community like Ontario.
Mrs Marland: But how are you going to assess those community values?
Ms Adams: I think it comes from two routes. I think what we've got in terms of the process is that there are approximately 25 people who come from all walks of life who hopefully are able to have a sense of community standards. From my end of things, I have experience as a journalist and I think one of the things that's really important as a journalist is to be out there with your antennae really trying to get a handle on what matters and what doesn't matter to people. I think if fundamental values of a culture are offended, that there is room for saying, "This particular production should not be out in the mainstream of society." That's where it gets tough for the board and they really have to be looking at things.
Mrs Marland: One of the questions that Dorothy Christian raised was that because she had -- and you just referred to 25 people -- such a low number of resources in terms of members of the board, she had to fast-forward the films and the films are reviewed at seven or eight times the normal speed with the sound turned off. I'd like to know whether you approve that kind of review of the material before the board and whether you're going to ask to at least double the number of people who sit on the board so you don't have to fast-forward with the sound turned off.
Ms Adams: Okay. I think one of the things that's important is that the process be as thorough as possible. I work in television production and, as I understand it, the screenings that go on are at double speed, not seven or eight times.
Mrs Marland: She said seven or eight times.
Ms Adams: Okay. I have checked that and I understand it's double speed. I watch at triple speed and I'm pretty accurately able to say, okay, there's a change in mood, timing, whatever, and stop and make whatever editorial decision I'm having to make at that point. As I understand it, the board members, when they screen the films, do routinely stop and look at the programs to listen to what's there. There's always the opportunity to go back as well.
1510
I guess that's a shade-of-grey answer in the sense that there's a fair amount of information that is picked up from there. When I meet with the board members, and I'm going to be meeting with them all very shortly, it's one of the questions I'll ask them in terms of how they feel it affects their viewing. But I do think that there's a possibility -- I mean, the plot lines aren't very sophisticated on some of these -- that there is some merit in considering going on a slow fast-forward, which is, I understand it, what it is. It's something I will be discussing with them.
Mr Duignan: Following along on some of the similar questions, given the fact that we know the violence today on television, in the movies and on videos -- we indeed referred to the whole question of slasher films. The problem with those is that the Criminal Code needs to be changed.
But to be truly effective, to deal with some of the problems that we're seeing and the whole question of movie violence or slasher films, whatever it may be, we need to tackle the problem as a national issue. We need to change the Criminal Code. We need to put in some national standards. We need to get the provinces all in line. For example, if you go to Alberta, they don't bother doing anything with videos; you can sell anything you want in a video store. We have a hodgepodge approach to stickering or whatever the case may be in this country.
Do you agree that we need to actually approach a lot of this on a national level, putting some national standards that could be applied in each province?
Ms Adams: I think something like that would be very helpful. I know there are discussions between the boards of the various provinces to some extent. The opportunity to learn from each other and also to simplify things would be good and would also make it much easier in terms of dealing with federal legislation, because that's one of the difficulties there.
I understand that there's a case going to the Supreme Court in the next few weeks which is there partly because of the difficulties between the provincial and federal scenes. If more effort were there, from my own end of things I think that would be good. I can only imagine that a lot of the board members would be interested in that kind of thing as well.
Mr Duignan: Is that something you would like to pursue?
Ms Adams: Sure. I would be very interested because I think it could facilitate things considerably.
Mr Duignan: Because the problem is that if you set a certain standard for viewing here in this province, no matter what it is, for videos etc, if you don't have it in the other provinces -- someone can get in a car and go to Quebec or go to Manitoba or wherever it is and bring it back anyway. Given the fact that a very small, limited number of videos go through this viewing process in this province at this particular point in time -- I'm talking about adult sex films right now. Most of the stuff when you go to the stores doesn't even end up in the film reviews. We need something as a national standard rather than a hodgepodge approach as each province has right now.
Ms Adams: I do think that something like that would be very helpful on a number of levels.
Mr Duignan: Getting back, how do you think the whole question of graphic sex activity in film, and indeed violence, should be handled?
Ms Adams: I think there are various levels of graphic or explicit sex. The Butler case was helpful in identifying the different levels of what we call pornography.
Mrs Marland: Which case?
Ms Adams: The Butler case. If we're looking at, as I mentioned earlier, situations where it's explicit sex, where it's consensual and they're adults who are clearly there by their own choice, I think that's something which is a comfortable level of acceptance within society. If there's a lot of violence, torture, abuse which exists within an explicit sex scene, I think that's cause for great concern, and I think that's the kind of thing the board has to look at.
Mr Duignan: Given the fact of the explosion of technology, that the cable systems are going to have very soon the launch of what they call the death stars, where you have 500 channels receiving out of the air and you'll be able to buy a dish for less than $1,000, do you think that what we're putting in place in video, what we can do here, is ineffective when you have all that technology out there and you can get anything you want anyway?
Ms Adams: I think it still matters. What you mentioned earlier in terms of the possible nationalization of things would be helpful, to have that kind of commonality there. I think people are still going to go to movie theatres, they're still going to rent videos. Those kinds of things are very key to what the review board does and I think that will continue to happen.
I think the challenge to the review board is, what indeed are these technologies going to do? In the Globe yesterday was an article which referred to the combining of the work of film producers and video game producers. Well, what's going to happen with that, and what can be done about it? Really, that's an important topic of concern and the policy committee within the board really has to look at it.
Mr Duignan: As well as the computer technology, to the ROMs.
Ms Adams: Exactly. Computer is tougher, actually. Computer, maybe because it's more one-to-one -- I don't know -- is one that may have to be let go of. I hate to say it, but that may be the reality.
Ms Harrington: We didn't have time to really get into your background that you bring to this job, but I think we can tell from the way you're speaking that you will be an outspoken person and will carry forward the concerns of the community right across Ontario. You have a broad background in films, as well as knowing a bit about our society.
I want to briefly deal with the violence and pornography issue. I see violence against women as part of the inequality of women in our society. People like Rosemary Brown have spoken out about society's effect on young women as they're growing up, in their own self-esteem and their self-image. This is not just pornography. It's much more pervasive, whether it's advertising as you're walking down the street which objectifies women -- it's everywhere in our society, but certainly I see pornography as part of that. So I think it's important that there are people on the board who realize that pornography is in a sense linked to violence against women and are very aware of that.
Ms Adams: From my end, Margaret, I certainly feel that there are links. I do also think we have to be careful in terms of very precious, hard-earned rights of freedom of expression too. That's a balancing-off thing. As you probably well know, the feminist movement is split in terms of anti-censorship and anti-pornography. I think it's something which has to be very carefully looked at in each situation.
You mentioned advertising, and that's one of the things that I think certainly is a responsibility within the board when it looks at the ads, to keep that kind of thing in mind. It's not just the videos and the films, and I'm sure they do that.
One of the things that's really important to me is that it's not just the film review board that watches out for these kinds of things. Some of the public interest groups have already been mentioned here today, but I think there is a lot of room for media awareness programs and that kind of thing. That may be necessary to happen within the board as an internal education thing. All of you, in your various jobs in your constituencies -- I mean, it's something which can be encouraged at different levels in terms of media awareness programs.
Mr Marchese: My sense is that a lot of the board members leave with a great deal of deep scars on their backs, or deep teeth marks. Given what you have to screen, which can be very painful, and given the board's having to deal with the interpretation of community standards and the jurisdictional problems with the police and the board, what makes you want to go for this job?
Ms Adams: To answer that specifically, I suppose I'll spend some time screening, but there's a lot of other time which will be spent on administration kinds of things and also policy things, some of the things we've been talking about today, which I feel are important and I think changes that can make a difference can happen there.
1520
One of the things, in terms of watching tough programs to watch, that I'm aware of, is that the board members screen three to four days a month, as a sort of typical time --
Mrs Marland: A week.
Ms Adams: No, three to four days a month.
Mr Marchese: That would be a full-time job.
Ms Adams: Well, yes, it becomes that. I'll get clarification on that, obviously; I'll know in September.
If it is the three to four days a month, the desensitizing and the hurting that can be there, I know it can affect things, but it keeps it in some kind of perspective.
Mr Bradley: The Ontario Film Review Board activity sheet indicates, and I'm going to ask you if you're concerned about this, that in 1990-91 the number of R-rated films or videos was 41% of those reviewed. In 1992-93, just two years later, 60% of all films and videos reviewed were in fact rated R. Does that concern you as a person who is very familiar with and experienced in the whole area of filmmaking and in the media? Does that concern you, that now fully 60% of the films and videos being reviewed are rated R?
Ms Adams: Yes, it concerns me, but those are also the products that are being produced. I'd almost like to ask you a question, in the sense that I'm not sure what the film review board's responsibility is in terms of the percentages. I really think it's trying to give an accurate call to what is and isn't out there. It's a sad comment that lots of violence makes lots of money, and I do wonder if society is getting to a point of changing on that as well. But, Jim, if there's anything more that you're thinking about there, I'd be interested to know.
Mr Bradley: Just a comment on it, because that seems to be a trend. Particularly parents and -- I hate to categorize -- perhaps people in an older generation tend to be somewhat shocked now when they go to the theatre and listen to the language they listen to, for one thing, and see what they see. You often get the question asked by either the parent or that person of that generation, "Aren't they making films any more that I can enjoy or," if it's a video, "sit down in the living room and watch with my son and daughter without having a red face or having to leave the room at the language and the activity in the film?"
I'm just wondering whether it's healthy, unhealthy, whether it's having an adverse effect, in your view and from what you've read, on our society.
Ms Adams: Probably ultimately it's unhealthy, but it's really what the producers are producing. It would be great if somehow more family viewing things could be encouraged. I'd love to think that the review board could pull that off, but I just think it's a reality there.
What is excellent about the review board is that the classifications are given so that people do get some direction. Maybe clearer information could be given. I've seen other provinces that do it more effectively than Ontario. Maybe there's room for sharing some of that kind of information.
Mr Bradley: Things have come a long way since about 1978, when I was sitting before a committee and the former Ms Brown, who was the chair of the board at the time --
Mr Curling: Mary Brown.
Mr Bradley: Mary Brown. There were different kinds of films coming before us and a different approach of the committee, which was then called the censor board, I believe.
That gets me to the next question. My understanding is that the board has an opportunity to do one of three things: one is to classify films; one is to cut films where it deems appropriate, or recommend cuts; and the third is to perhaps not allow a film to be shown at all in public theatres in Ontario, and if they did, they'd allow it only where film festivals or something of that nature took place. Do you believe the board should only classify, or do you believe the board has a role to play in both cutting and completely disallowing films to be shown in Ontario?
Ms Adams: As I mentioned earlier, when there are films that really offend basic fundamental values of society, we have to look at prohibiting them. One of the qualifiers on the Restricted guidelines is that if violence, the other things that are mentioned, are integral to the plot -- and I think that's very important. It's interesting. We look at violence, we think of Shakespearean films or biblical films, Schindler's List, films like that, where it's not great to watch the battle scenes but there may be something to be gained from it. It's tricky, but I'm sure it was well discussed within the review board, and I think that's one of the things that's key.
When it's gratuitous and it's really violence for violence's sake, I think a really hard look has to be taken at it, if it's violence, and I just use that example again.
Mr Bradley: Last week there were captions on news programs that dealt with video games. It was noting that one company had to give in to the other company because the other company was making much more violent and much more sexually graphic material for its video games. So one company said: "We can't resist any more. They're outselling us." That gets to the issue of, should the Ontario Film Review Board, which now deals with videos and deals with films shown in public theatres, also have the opportunity to review material which goes into video games, which in effect, my guess would be, are seen more by children than films or videos even?
Ms Adams: As I recall, it's there but it's not -- sorry, I'm blanking on the specific phrases. Within the Theatres Act there is reference to video games. I feel it's something that would be very worthwhile to take a look at. As most of you probably know, we're in a situation where video games are grossing more money than films and videos at this point, and now we're seeing a link between those video games and films, so I think it is important.
Once I've met with the various board members and hear what their concerns are, I suspect that video games may indeed be a part of it. It's something that I think would be very worthwhile to have some kind of discussion about and possibly be looked at by the policy committee of the board, because it's tough.
Mr Bradley: The threshold seems to be pushed back virtually every year, and the old argument is made between -- it comes out this way -- politicians who are reacting to what many people in the community are saying and the news media, which naturally take an anti-censorship view. I have it happening in my own community now over a matter. It's a public discussion. The news media generally take the opinion that you shouldn't censor and use the example, "Years ago they would have considered Elvis Presley's gyrating hips to be obscene" or something, "so what's the difference between that and the latest thing that they're showing on a video?" -- except that the threshold has moved very, very significantly.
Perhaps it's an unfair question, but I'll throw it at you anyway. Where is the threshold ever going to end? Snuff films? We keep pushing it back, so where does it end? I say that in the context, for instance, even of many feminists who are also against censorship now taking a second look and saying maybe there is a need for censorship. Just a general comment.
Ms Adams: I think the threshold, fortunately, does change in positive ways too -- that's been happening -- in terms of changing community standards. I really feel that we're on kind of a cusp of some sort in terms of violence. I'm interested, with some of the people I chat with, who feel, say, in terms of family abuse situations, that there's some kind of turnaround that's happening, that people are more aware, that they are wanting to discuss it more.
A colleague of mine works with media and children's groups. She said she's really surprised by the educators and the parents who are just eating up this kind of information and what might or might not be done about it. One can only hope, when we're talking about community standards, that indeed that will be a standard that can be reflected, that there is a concern about violence and that something can be done about it.
It's very subjective, and as you all know, difficult stuff to get your fingers on, but I think it's the responsibility of the board to have its antennae out to all different situations and try and respond.
The Vice-Chair: That's it. Thank you.
Mr Bradley: Just when it gets exciting and interesting.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for appearing today.
Ms Adams: My pleasure.
1530
NANCY SMITH
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Nancy Smith, intended appointee as member, Ontario Municipal Board.
The Vice-Chair: Nancy Smith, you have the opportunity if you'd like to make a short opening statement, or if you'd prefer, we'll go right into questions. That decision will be yours.
Ms Nancy Smith: I'll leave it to the committee, to answer any questions.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Marland, we will start with you.
Mrs Marland: Good afternoon, Miss Smith. In looking at the résumé that was submitted to the committee, I do not see any reference to your most recent job.
Ms Smith: I noticed that as well, Ms Marland. On the copy that I have it's clearly listed that my position at the time was chair of the Ontario Housing Corp.
Mrs Marland: How long were you chair of the Ontario Housing Corp?
Ms Smith: For two years.
Mrs Marland: You completed two years?
Ms Smith: My term will be complete the middle of August.
Mrs Marland: And that will be two years.
Ms Smith: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Was it originally a two-year appointment?
Ms Smith: Yes, it was.
Mrs Marland: Why would you seek another appointment after only two years on the Ontario Housing Corp?
Ms Smith: My term was up, and as it came to the end I began to look for other possibilities. Actually, at the time I was offered the position as chair of OHC I had also applied for the municipal board and was in the position of being offered both of the positions at the same time. I had to make what to me was a rather difficult choice at that time, and as I came to the end of my term at OHC, I looked into the possibility of the OMB because it's something that interested me when it was offered to me originally, and still does.
Mrs Marland: At the time of your appointment, and I suppose in fact during your appointment to the Ontario Housing Corp, there was quite a swirl of controversy around the fact that you were being paid close to six figures for that position.
Ms Smith: With respect, Mr Chairman, I have never been paid anywhere close to six figures.
Mrs Marland: What were you paid as chair of OHC?
Ms Smith: With social contract, $86,250. It's the equivalent of an SMG-2 and the range is $75,000 to $110,000.
Mrs Marland: Right. You don't think $86,000 is close to six figures?
Ms Smith: With respect, through you, Mr Chair, this was discussed with the minister at public accounts, I think, by yourself in the summer of 1992. I think that's a question for the minister and for the government and I think it was dealt with at public accounts at that time.
Mrs Marland: Yes, that's true, the amount was discussed, but it was your words a few minutes ago that said it wasn't close to six figures, so I just asked you that.
But there was a controversy about the fact that you were being paid what was interpreted as being close to six figures, which you've now confirmed is $86,000, and yet you also claimed the cost of your accommodation in Toronto and your travel expenses to and from Ottawa. What I am wondering is how you're going to treat this appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board in terms of what expenses you will be looking to claim. Are you going to be looking for travel and accommodation costs again?
Ms Smith: I would expect to do it exactly as I have for my past appointment, strictly within the Management Board guidelines that apply to the position. That's the way I've handled it and that's the way we'll handle it. It's not in my mind to break any rules or guidelines.
Mrs Marland: Are you going to ask for accommodation costs?
Ms Smith: No, I'll be living in Ottawa for my position with the municipal board, and as you are probably aware, as members of the committee are probably aware, one of the obligations of a board member is to do hearings anywhere in the province, and those travel and accommodation costs are paid as seems appropriate and according to Management Board guidelines.
Mrs Marland: What are you going to be paid as an Ontario Municipal Board member?
Ms Smith: The range is again $75,000 to $111,000. My understanding is it's again $86,000 something or other, and I'm not clear whether that's reduced by social contract or not. I'm presuming it probably is, as everything else is these days. I'm not clear whether it's eight days or 10 days, but I had been deducted 12 days for the chair at OHC.
Mrs Marland: We normally ask people about their relative experience in terms of jobs they're moving to and appointments they're accepting, so I need to ask you about the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and all the now well-documented serious problems with MTHA. I would like to ask you about your role for two years as chair of the Ontario Housing Corp, what area of responsibility that position held for you in relationship to what was going on at MTHA as a public housing authority.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I'm wondering whether you think that's an appropriate question vis-à-vis what we're interviewing her for.
The Vice-Chair: It's up to the witness whether she wants to answer or thinks it's an appropriate question. The member can ask any question she wants.
Ms Smith: Mr Chairman, perhaps I could handle it very generally. I don't like to frustrate committee members, though it is a bit of a stretch between MTHA and the municipal board. What I would say, very simply, Ms Marland, is that I and my board share the minister's concerns that led to the review and hopefully will lead to some improvement at the agency. Perhaps that's the simple way to answer it, in this context.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, there is no stretch between the role of the chair of the Ontario Housing Corp and her qualifications for now being appointed to the Ontario Municipal Board. I prefaced my question very carefully. With all candidates we ask about what they've done, where they've been. If Mr Marchese doesn't wish me to ask those questions to his appointment, then that is unfortunate, but we ask those questions all the time.
As chair of the Ontario Housing Corp, you would have to have known and shared some of the responsibility for one of the public housing authorities under your jurisdiction. Would you agree?
Ms Smith: I'm just trying to understand your question. Perhaps you could rephrase it for me.
Mrs Marland: As chair of the Ontario Housing Corp, what relationship would you have had with any public housing authority?
Ms Smith: With the other 55, they are direct agencies of the Ontario Housing Corp governed by a relatively standard management agreement. In the case of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, there is a different management agreement which puts it in a somewhat more independent status, if I can put it in those terms. They have been expected to function more independently. For example, as you would be aware, they have their own internal audit function, they have a full-time chair, they certainly have a substantial staff. They aren't like the other housing authorities. They're expected to function somewhat independently. They don't report through the same network of public servants as the others do. That's an agreement that was signed, I think, in -- I won't vouch for the exact year, but it would be 1991 or perhaps 1992, before my term began. They have a different relationship, more arm's length, and I think it would be fair to say they've tended to function very much at arm's length.
1540
Mrs Marland: So are you saying that the Ontario Housing Corp didn't have anything to do with MTHA?
Ms Smith: No, I didn't say that, Ms Marland. I said there's a management agreement signed in 1991 or 1992 that gives them more of an arm's-length relationship than the other housing authorities.
Mrs Marland: As chair of OHC, then, what was your responsibility with regard to MTHA, your personal responsibility as chair of the Ontario Housing Corp? If there was a problem at MTHA, would you not have known about it?
Ms Smith: I've tried to describe the relationship. The individual members are responsible to the minister and to the government, as they're government appointees. The staff reports to the board. The board is responsible to the OHC board: agency-to-agency responsibility. So there's a responsibility of oversight that's defined by the management agreement. It is a general responsibility and something that I hope the current undertaking will clarify so that it's clear for everyone.
Mrs Marland: So you agree that there is a general responsibility for MTHA by the Ontario Housing Corp?
Ms Smith: Mr Chairman, I'm finding myself in the rather odious position of repeating myself. I've done my best to describe the relationship as clearly as I can according to the documents that spell that out. I haven't brought them with me because I hadn't anticipated that this would deal with OHC. I thought perhaps it would deal with the OMB. With respect, I don't wish to fray the committee.
Mrs Marland: You don't like my questions.
Ms Smith: I'm doing my best to respond to them as accurately as I can.
Mrs Marland: I'm trying to establish your role as chair of the Ontario Housing Corp and why you didn't do anything about the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, and whether or not you didn't do anything about it because you didn't know about it, which would be a fair answer.
Ms Smith: With respect, Mr Chairman, that's not a correct paraphrase of my responses. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Harrington is next.
Ms Harrington: Thank you, Ms Smith, for coming here. I remember meeting you some years ago when you were with the Ottawa region or Ottawa city council.
Ms Smith: Yes.
Ms Harrington: You were on both the region and the city council?
Ms Smith: Both at the same time in those days, yes.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to deal with your qualifications for this appointment to the OMB. In your role as regional councillor and municipal councillor, what background do you have with regard to planning issues?
Ms Smith: I sat on the city of Ottawa planning committee for 11 years. In those days it was fairly busy. We met every Tuesday except for Christmas and New Year's, as I recall, and generally sat five or six hours a week. A lot of that time was in boom times and there was a considerable volume of development applications. We dealt with a new Planning Act -- I'm trying to remember whether it was 1983 or 1984 -- during that time, two complete revisions of the zoning bylaw, and a number of innovative zonings in the area of rooming houses and rest homes.
I also chaired the heritage committee and I'm interested to see that the OMB will shortly become the appeal body for heritage act decisions as well, which I think is a positive move. Half of my ward was in a floodplain, so I got to deal with floodplains as well and sat on, an Association of Municipalities of Ontario group that reviewed what resulted in the new floodplain guidelines.
The other area to mention, if I might, would be the area of chairing and holding hearings. In addition to my experience at OHC, I was vice-chair of the planning committee, chair of social services, chair of a number of other working groups, grants hearings and that sort of thing. Most of the panels are single members these days and I think it's very important to be able, on the one hand to establish a presence for the hearing. If you're there all by yourself, somehow you need to do that. On the other hand you have people, be they solicitors, project proponents, community people, whoever they might be, who are in front of the board. You have to give them a feeling that they have been heard, and I think my experience in dealing with a range of different people in front of hearings would be very helpful.
I'm also able to do hearings in French, which I hope is something that will be taken advantage of. It's an important body and should be accessible in French if that's at all possible.
Those would be some of the things I would think, Ms Harrington, in terms of my municipal experience.
Ms Harrington: Just to clarify for some of the members of the committee, I met you when I was representing the city of Niagara Falls as a municipal councillor when I was at a conference in Ottawa and you were showing us around some of the ideas that were going ahead in Ottawa.
At this point in time you know that Bill 163 is going ahead and part of the mandate of that bill is to streamline the planning process, so obviously that's going to impact on the OMB to some extent. Do you have an opinion on Bill 163?
Ms Smith: I've had a look at it and I've had a look at some of the material that's come out around it. I guess my view of streamlining is time is money, and money is units, it's landscaping; it's not just money in somebody's pocket. It's the possibility of getting your business on the road in time to actually make it viable or building a slightly larger unit or having the site more appropriately done or a building that fits in better with the neighbourhood. So I think the streamlining is critical.
I think the other factor is constraint and we all have to live with that these days, and the board is no different. So anything that can be done to maintain the quality but reduce the cost for everybody involved is very important. I think that some of the changes that have been made in the bill -- I understand that there are time limits put on some of the applications that were open-ended, for example -- will exercise a healthy discipline on all concerned. I think some of the things that the board is doing as well -- case management; as I mentioned earlier, single members sitting rather than two- or three-member panels -- can add up to major improvement. It's jobs and it's housing and it's all of those things that come out the other end of the planning and development process that benefit in the end.
Ms Harrington: I wish you well and I really think that your extensive background over the past decade or two will be appropriate to this job. I just think my opinion is, since I know Helen Cooper quite well, who is the chair of the OMB, that you two would probably work very well together.
Mr Marchese: My specific questions would be under Bill 163. Under the existing law now there are no limits on how long planning authorities can consider an application for approval of a project and under Bill 163 the approving authority will have a maximum of five months to make a decision. I would assume that you think that is a good thing; correct?
Ms Smith: It depends on which side of the table you're sitting on, I think. If you're a municipal councillor trying to get a project changed, five months would probably be a rather short time. If you're somebody with mortgages outstanding, trying to get your shovel in the ground, I think it might be rather a long time. I guess my thought was, five months is manageable, just barely, in a larger municipality, speaking from my Ottawa experience. I have no idea what would happen in Toronto. In Ottawa, it would be manageable if people really moved. I think the municipalities and other approving bodies involved will have to be very firm in terms of the quality of the documentation, no files opened until the documentation is complete, that type of thing. I think they'll also have to be a lot clearer with proponents and so on as to exactly what's required.
Mr Marchese: But clearly it would force many of them to make much more efficient decision-making. In order to streamline things, if you give a time line, those members will have to work a little more differently than before, so I would think that's a good thing.
Ms Smith: My experience with the last round of changes in the Planning Act, I think sitting around the municipal planning table, we all thought the end of the world had come, and it didn't. People adapted to it very quickly and worked with it. It's a process of gradual improvement and adaptation.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: The OMB will no longer have any jurisdiction over minor variances.
Ms Smith: That's merciful, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Sorry, is that in relation to something he said?
Ms Smith: No, minor variances.
Mr Bradley: Everyone sounds like a Tory now.
Mr Marchese: Who's this?
Mr Bradley: You all sound like Tories.
Ms Smith: I think I'm in a crossfire, Mr Chairman.
1550
Mr Marchese: We're making things more efficient, I would think. Municipal councils' decisions now will be final, because under Bill 163, minor variances would be taken away. Is this something you agree with as well? Do you have an opinion on that?
Ms Smith: I think it's probably a good idea. There are two types of minor variances that go to appeal. One is where neighbours are clawing each other's eyes out, and I'd rather the municipal council dealt with those than the municipal board. There are others where somebody has creatively found a way to go to the committee instead of going for a rezoning under the Planning Act. Hopefully councils will be able to deal with those as well. I don't think it's any different from their dealing with zoning, and generally I think it's an improvement. I'll be glad to be at this table and not that one when that change is made, if I can put it in those terms. I had perhaps three a week in my area for 10 years; a lot of minor variances.
Mr Marchese: On the issue of alternative dispute resolution, because I know this is becoming more and more of a procedure that is being adopted by many to solve a lot of problems, conflict resolution is obviously a big part of why people are there at the OMB. What is your experience in conflict resolution?
Ms Smith: I represented a downtown ward as a municipal councillor, and none of the zoning fits any of the buildings or any of the uses that are there. It's one of those places. So there was a very high volume of development applications of different kinds and also a lot of new development in the area in the time I was on council. I did a lot of work with community groups and project proponents to try to come to an agreement early on. I found if you could figure out what were the two or three important things for each party and try to accomplish those and then just hold everybody to the line to the end of the process, it really worked very well. Once people got the flavour that the councillor wasn't going to flip around as the application proceeded, they would either come along or go away, be they community groups or be they project proponents.
I think it offers a lot of opportunities. I think it has to be very carefully handled, because everybody has a right to access for legitimate grievances to legitimate appeal bodies, and I think you have to be very careful on that angle. That's a fine line to tread in the way it's handled at the board level.
Mr Curling: Ms Smith, were you a member of the NDP, or if not, are you a member of the NDP?
Ms Smith: No.
Mr Curling: You've never been a member of the NDP?
Ms Smith: No.
Mr Marchese: Any other party?
Ms Smith: I haven't been a member of any party, just to save the committee some time.
Mr Curling: That's all right. You answered the question.
Ms Smith: As a municipal person, I chose to be non-partisan.
Mr Curling: The reason I ask you that is that, as we know, the OMB is an independent administrative tribunal. I presume you would then agree that it is essential that the board operate completely independent of government interference, of any sort of political meddling. Would you agree with that?
Ms Smith: Yes. I think it's also important that they be relatively distant from the municipal hurly-burly as well. I say it because in the Ottawa area it's not particularly party politics at the municipal level.
Mr Curling: Earlier on, I think Mrs Marland asked you how you became interested in this position. You said that your time was running out in the other one, your period on the other board, and you thought this was an opportunity. Were you approached?
Ms Smith: Perhaps I wasn't clear when I responded earlier, Mr Curling. I originally applied probably in January or February of 1992. I was interviewed perhaps in May or June of 1992 for both the chair of the OHC position and the OMB position and was offered both positions in July or August of 1992. So I had been previously offered an OMB position. I reapplied this spring, perhaps in May. I put in a new application, underwent a new interview and had a new reference check. So I went through the process twice for the OMB position.
Mr Curling: I find it extremely fortunate. I know many of these boards and commissions are well paid. Many people approach me from time to time and would like one of those things that pay full-time, and here you are, wonderful as ever, getting two interviews for two different jobs, getting one, and two years afterwards again getting the other. So you were interviewed for the OMB and the OHC in 1992.
Ms Smith: Yes, I was.
Mr Curling: And you got the OHC.
Ms Smith: I had what I describe as a rather difficult choice to make and decided to accept the chair of the OHC position.
Mr Curling: Do you think they held this one for you until now?
Ms Smith: I think some members have left, Mr Curling. I think your government was the one to make the change not to have them there for life, and some of them have left because their terms have been completed.
Mr Curling: It's nice to know people in high places. Do you know Evelyn Gigantes well?
Ms Smith: Mr Chairman, the minister is Mr Philip; I don't know Mr Philip.
Mr Curling: I didn't ask that question at all.
Ms Smith: I didn't hear a question.
Mr Curling: I didn't mention Mr Philip's name. I asked if you know Ms Gigantes well.
Ms Smith: I know her as a colleague in the Ottawa area. I always made it my business as a municipal councillor to be on good terms with all politicians everywhere, and she was one of many of the local scene, if I can put it in those terms.
Mr Curling: And she, I presume, supported your application in getting this job, your appointment here.
Ms Smith: My references were a developer, an architect and a prominent municipal solicitor in the Ottawa area. Quite frankly, I don't find politicians make particularly good references.
Mr Bradley: I don't know about that.
Ms Smith: I only say that because I've been one. Forgive me.
Mr Bradley: When it comes to government appointments, they are the best reference, I assure you.
Mr Curling: The OMB has been plagued with a lot of backlog. So are many, many agencies and commissions within the province here, and I don't need to go through the famous ones. That's one aspect of it. I know there are changes coming about and I hear my colleagues with the government talk about 163. Do you feel that this will assist very much in the backlog that is created? I'm more concerned about especially minor variances, these people who don't have the resources to spend days, months and years waiting for those things to be corrected. Do you feel that 163 will resolve most of these backlogs?
Ms Smith: Quite frankly, I think most of the backlog is in the hands of the management of the board, and some changes that I described earlier that are under way, I think, are the direction to go in that. It's a matter of doing what everybody is doing, tightening up all of the small things that in the end give you better productivity out of the resources that you have to deal with; for example, shifting to some extent to more computerization for the members' decisions. I fancy one-page decisions myself; I think that would save a lot of everybody's time. I'm not sure that's always possible, but it's something I would strive for.
But I think the type of changes, to be serious about it, the alternative dispute resolution, the reduction of the number of three- and two-member panels and more one-member panels, improvements in scheduling, those types of things -- they're not exciting but I think it's those small things that will have the major impact. Some of the changes in the bill, to the extent that I'm familiar with them, will assist, as some previous changes did.
Mr Curling: Let me go back to the appointment process and your appointment to this board. Maybe you could help me and some of my constituents who come to me from time to time to get appointments on boards and commissions. What did you tell them? You seem to have it down pat, really, because in 1992 you applied for two, and in four years you got two of the best appointments ever in this province at a nice salary. What would you say you're doing right or what could I tell my constituents who want to be on boards and commissions that are paid well? They could consider: "This is a nice substantial job. Pay me good and I could make a great contribution." What would be your advice?
Ms Smith: I'd recommend a master's degree. I'd recommend 15 years of planning experience. I'd recommend many, many hours of chairing hearings and those types of things. I'd recommend a lot of time in public service at half, maybe, what it was worth at the time and an interrupted career on the way.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Bradley is next.
Mr Bradley: My question is this: We talked about the boards before. We talked about the development --
Interjections.
Ms Smith: Mr Chairman, with respect, I'm having trouble hearing Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: The development on Toronto Islands was discussed with the previous person before the board. As a person who probably appreciates good parkland in the province of Ontario, would you be the kind of person who would be inclined to approve such projects as a co-op housing development on Toronto Islands when the conservation authority is opposed to it and when everyone seems to want to preserve as much parkland as possible in major urban centres?
Ms Smith: It strikes me as a bit of a hypothetical question, Mr Chairman.
Mr Bradley: Oh, it's coming.
Ms Smith: I think it might be unfortunate for me to pronounce on a case before I'd seen the file.
Mr Bradley: In general then, instead of saying that specific one -- I thought that might provoke that answer -- would you be inclined to support housing developments on areas that are wonderful parkland to be used by all of the people, enjoyed by all of the people of a community or of the province, as opposed to simply a few privileged people?
Ms Smith: Mr Chairman, I think as Mr Bradley probably knows, every hearing at the board is de novo, not precedent-setting or policy-creating, and is based on the evidence in front of the board at that particular hearing. I would expect the decision would depend on the network of local and official plans and actions of the planning authorities involved in it at the time.
I have to say that I've had some very frustrating experiences myself where we had, for example, valued wetlands which somehow hadn't made it on to anybody's list and saw them filled in and paved over for lack of the planning document missing. I think the integrity of the planning framework or planning documents in a particular area is absolutely critical and is primarily a municipal responsibility. I have to say, though, that I think the issuance of the policy statements, statements of provincial interest which have been published and I gather will come into effect when the act is proclaimed, should help plug a number of holes, and one in particular that I've been familiar with is in the environmental area. It must have taken 15 years to get the wetlands statement out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and into action. That's the way hearings go. They're based on the planning evidence that's in front of that particular hearing, not on the calls of Blue Jays that you may be familiar with.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Bradley. Your time has expired.
I'd like to thank you, Nancy Smith, for appearing before the committee today.
Ms Smith: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My pleasure.
The Vice-Chair: I wish you well.
Ms Smith: Glad to be here again, I have to say.
Mr Bradley: Just when it gets exciting.
The Vice-Chair: Now we have a little duty to do, the determination of whether or not the committee concurs in the intended appointments that have been reviewed today. How would the committee like to handle the appointments that have been looked at today?
Mr Bradley: I predict that the government carries all of these appointments. I predict that.
The Vice-Chair: Could we have a motion then that they all be concurred with? The motion is by Mr Marchese. All in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.
At 10 o'clock tomorrow morning the committee will resume business here.
The committee adjourned at 1603.