APPOINTMENTS
REVIEW
NICOLETTE CARLAN
CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 May 1991
Appointments review process
Appointments review
Nicolette Carlan
Rita Deverell
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L)
Frankfold, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East T )
Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW PROCESS
Resuming consideration of the appointments review process.
The Chair: I am going to call the meeting to order. You all have your agendas before you. The first item of business is, as indicated, to resume consideration in respect to the report that we are obligated to make to the House in respect to a permanent standing order. We have had some discussion on this in the last two meetings. The clerk was directed to prepare a report that would have some opening comments, which he drafted, and then it would incorporate the government report and the minority opinion. That was circulated to all members. I will open it up for discussion. We have some formal motions that we have to go through later, that we are required to. Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: No, I was just going to move it, Mr Chair, but if you want to do that later we can do that later.
I guess I will just say that, certainly from my perspective, the report as put together by the clerk captures very well the position of the government side of the committee. As you can see, we have incorporated a few of the changes suggested by the opposition parties into that position.
Mr Grandmaître: Could they be highlighted?
Mr Silipo: They are. I do not expect they will result in a great many kudos from the opposition, but none the less they are in the report; 1 through 5 were in our original proposal and 6 through 8 are changes. There is the one changing "calendar" to "business," allowing a little bit more time there, as was suggested by the opposition members. The other was in 7, in situations where it was felt that the list of intended appointees was too long to allow for all the reviews of all the people that the subcommittee wished to be done, for indication to that effect to be able to be made, although, as we state there, our view is also that if we have the subcommittee meeting more regularly, the potential need for that provision would certainly be reduced. The third was the one requesting that the descriptions we receive of the positions and the process should contain a detailed description in order to provide us with as much information as possible. Those are my comments.
Mr Grandmaître: So basically none of the major changes or amendments requested by the joint report have been really answered, or the government has decided the status quo is good enough and we will maintain the old terms of reference. Is that basically right?
Mr Silipo: As we discussed for the last couple of meetings, and as you indicated, Mr Chair, the reality is that there is still a very fundamental difference of opinion as to what the role of this committee should be. We are comfortable with its present role because we think it does do what it was intended to do, which is to substantially open up the process of appointments to public review. For that reason, we do not think it is necessary or appropriate to go into the kinds of changes that the opposition parties have suggested.
Mr Grandmaître: I was under the impression that the terms of reference given to us back in December 1990 were on a temporary basis. This means no major changes will take place in the terms of reference and we will continue to use the status quo. How temporary were these terms of reference back in December 1990? In giving authorization on a temporary basis, the Legislature provided that the committee should have the opportunity while conducting its reviews of intended appointments and so on and so forth. Those terms of reference were given to us on a temporary basis and I see they will be ongoing for as long as this committee is in place.
Mr McGuinty: I just want to make reference to one matter. We obviously have a serious difference of opinion here, but something concerned me -- that I believe is an abridgement of the rules governing committees -- I think the standing rules of the House have some application here -- and that is with respect to imputing motives, which is generally not considered appropriate and not permitted. On the seventh page of the government members' position paper, the draft report, the government members have indicated:
"The government members on this committee understand the political posturing of the opposition and are profoundly disappointed that they have chosen to emphasize short-term political expediency over making serious efforts to improve the appointments review process that would be acceptable not only to this government but possibly to subsequent governments as well."
I resent that allegation that we are acting only out of political expediency and without a genuine interest in improving the process. I do not believe -- and I stand to be corrected, Mr Chair -- that this is permissible.
The Chair: It caught my attention as well, Mr McGuinty. I will have to ask the clerk with respect to the standing orders, but I may also encourage government members to respond to that as well. I guess I wonder about the necessity for the inclusion of that kind of reference.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I will certainly abide by your ruling on it. Quite frankly, though, we should recall some of the activity that has occurred. I think I alluded to this a little bit in some of the comments I made at our last meeting, when some of the opposition members came to this committee and gave the impression that they came here prepared to discuss and debate a particular issue when in fact there was a prearranged press conference ready to go at 11 o'clock, only one hour after the committee meeting started -- that tells me there is some degree of posturing going on.
Likewise, If you want to take a look at removing that, I would also want to re-read very carefully the dissenting opinion, or what I expect will be the dissenting opinion, that will come from the opposition parties, because certainly in that submission there were a number of comments that I could look at that I think fall in the same kind of category as the one that is being suggested in this paragraph.
One in particular that has just been pointed out to me is right at the bottom of the first page of that proposal, where there is the accusation that "Premier Rae's government has instituted a rather feeble post-appointment review process that is essentially lacking in substance and which has been emasculated by the terms of reference."
The Chair: It is not part of our report, though.
Mr Silipo: It is not, but I presume it will be. All I am saying is that if you want to take that particular view of this, then you will have to apply the same kind of approach to the minority report -- not to the minority report, because the rules do not provide for that, but to what I presume will be the dissenting opinion that will be presented.
The Chair: I guess I am a little confused about procedure here. I felt when we were talking about this last week that the dissenting opinion was going to be incorporated in the report, and I am not sure about the format. So maybe you are making a valid point here, Mr Silipo; I am not sure. Perhaps I can turn it over to the clerk to give the committee his advice on how he sees us proceeding. I am assuming that the opposition members want a dissenting opinion, so we are going to proceed along those lines. Mr Clerk, could you advise the committee on how that process would work.
Clerk of the Committee: To start with, the standing orders state that any member may request that a dissenting opinion be included in the report. Members have that right; that dissenting opinion shall be included. Previous committee Chairs' rulings indicate that a committee cannot dictate the content of a dissenting opinion. I can check, but I do not know of any Chair's ruling that has changed the content of a dissenting opinion. On the other hand, the issue raised by Mr McGuinty is one that is fairly before the Chair to determine as to whether the paragraph in the draft report is acceptable or contravenes the standing orders.
1020
Mr Silipo: I certainly would not want to be in a position where as a committee we are dictating what the dissenting opinion should be. The point I want to make is that it would seem to me, certainly in terms of the rulings that are applied, to be only sensible that the same ruling that is applied in terms of what is or is not acceptable pursuant to the standing orders in terms of the committee's report would also apply to any dissenting opinion. That would be a matter as between the individual member or members and the Chair, but I would expect that the Chair would also be called upon to rule. In asking for that ruling, I would not be trying to dictate the content of the dissenting opinion, but simply asking to apply the same kind of approach that has been applied in this instance.
The Chair: I think that is fair. My problem, without going through the dissenting opinion in detail, is just the reference you made to that comment on the bottom of the first page. There is some sensitivity on my part to making a ruling which deals with partisan comments, because I am a member of the third party, so I am a little bit leery of this kind of decision. I will give you my advice at this point, how I read this, but if I have to make a decision on this, I am going to look for guidance from the clerk and perhaps others in the Clerk's office because of what I consider to be the politically sensitive nature of this kind of decision.
When I compare the two comments, I do not find the comments made in the opposition report to be imputing motives, but I do agree with Mr McGuinty in respect to his concerns about the fact that this statement clearly makes the comment "political posturing" of opposition members. As I read the standing order which rules against this sort of comment, imputing false or unavowed motives to another member --
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, is it the "political posturing" that is causing the problem? Is it that phrase?
The Chair: I believe it is.
Mr McGuinty: And the reference to "short-term political expediency over making serious efforts to improve."
The Chair: My point is, I do not think your report suffers by the removal of that paragraph, and if there are comparable or similar comments contained within the minority opinion, I think they should also be removed. As I said, I do not think either report is going to suffer by the removal of those kinds of remarks.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, as I said, I would abide by your ruling. I would be quite happy to have that removed. I guess what I am going to do is to just re-read the dissenting opinion, if the dissenting opinion is going to be submitted as it was in the form, and ask you to rule again on some parts of that. The concluding paragraph in that dissenting opinion states:
"We have serious concerns that the NDP government has no real intention of permitting this committee to undertake good-faith inquiries into the acceptability of candidates. By extension, therefore, we have no real expectation that it will review and consider seriously the excellent recommendations set out in the Macaulay report, and even less expectation that these recommendations will ever be implemented."
If that is not imputing motives, I do not know what is. I am sure if I were to go back and re-read it, I would find at least a couple of other similar paragraphs. I think that in short is the dilemma we have before us.
The Chair: It is a dilemma for the Chair as well to try and decide what is imputing motives and what is not.
Mr McGuinty: If the Chair intends to make a ruling then I will gladly comment and make argument. If you do not intend to make a ruling, then I will not say anything.
The Chair: Reading the rule, it quite clearly says, "...imputes false or unavowed motives to another member," and the reference that Mr Silipo is making has serious concerns in respect to the government and not an individual member or members. We could be splitting hairs here.
Mr McGuinty: The paragraph that concerned me in the government's draft report was a clear statement. The government members on this committee understand the political posturing. They have chosen to emphasize short-term political expediency. That is presented as a statement of fact. The paragraph that Mr Silipo is now objecting to, "We indicate we have serious concerns that the NDP government," we do not present as a statement of fact; we are offering an opinion.
Mr Silipo: We will be quite happy to change ours to an opinion then, Mr Chair, if that will resolve the problem.
The Chair: Is that going to satisfy everyone? Do you want to provide us with some wording?
Mr Silipo: Sure. "The members of this committee have serious concerns about what we believe to be the political posturing of the opposition," etc.
The Chair: I am having some difficulty with this, even reworded, but I think if we can get consensus just to finalize the report, as Chair I am prepared to live with it. I still have some difficulty with the fact that it does deal with "members." What is the feeling of the committee?
Mr McLean: I think there is a little confusion here over exactly what has taken place. I know I am a little confused, not necessarily others, but I think we need some time to deal with this. I thought today we were going to be dealing with the report from our research officer, and then we would take it from there after we had dealt with it.
1030
Mr Silipo: I think we can keep going around this one for meeting after meeting. We put together an initial position. You folks put together an initial position. We then took a look at your position put together. Yours was fairly hard-hitting, in our view. We put together an equally hard-hitting response to that. The long and the short of it is, ours will go forward as the majority and therefore the committee's recommendation. I am presuming that all of the opposition members will want to have the proposal you have put to the committee added to the report as a dissenting opinion, which you can do individually and collectively.
Let's just do that and get it over with. What is the point of wasting our time sitting around and going over and over and over this thing again? We have come to what agreements we can on the things we can agree with. Let's just put our report before the House and get it out of here, and move on to the other business that we need to deal with.
The Chair: I am prepared to do that. I guess we simply have to have consent from committee members. What is the feeling?
Mr Grandmaître: I think it is the only way.
Mr McGuinty: I am still concerned about the presence of that paragraph in the government report. If the government members want to amend it, then I would ask you to rule on it for Friday, but I am not prepared to consent to its inclusion.
The Chair: I am going to suggest in that respect that we deal with the remainder of the report, excluding the paragraph in question, so I can seek further advice from the Clerk's office, because, as I said, this is a politically sensitive decision. Because of the fact that I represent an opposition party, I am a little concerned about these kinds of decisions as Chair, to be quite honest with you. If we can deal with the remainder of the report, excluding that particular paragraph, until the Chair receives --
Mr Silipo: That is, with the amendment.
The Chair: As amended, yes. I have been requested to make a ruling and I will make that ruling next week in respect to that paragraph.
Mr Hayes: I hope I understand this correctly, but what we are talking about here is implementing the dissenting report into the --
Mrs Haslam: No, adding it.
Mr Hayes: Or adding it, but we are going to talk about whether we exclude and amend this other article, which talks about the posturing of the opposition. At the same time, I know there are members who do not like that because we are making a statement that they do not totally agree with, but at the same time, are we expected to accept statements that the opposition has put together that we do not agree with?
The Chair: I am sorry, you will have to repeat the end of that. The clerk was talking to me and I could not hear you.
Mr Hayes: Just to be blunt about it, we have members from the other two parties who are saying they do not like a particular clause in the document that we have put together, but we want to just discuss that. At the same time, we do not agree with some of these other statements they have made.
The Chair: That is not, with due respect, the question. When we have a minority opinion, obviously you are going to have differences of view. What we are talking about here is, Mr McGuinty has raised the question of whether that particular paragraph violates the standing orders of the Legislature --
Mrs Haslam: With the amendment.
The Chair: -- even with the amendment, and he has asked me to rule on its appropriateness in respect to whether it imputes false or unavowed motives to another member. What I am suggesting, Mr Hayes, is that because of the delicate nature of this, being a political decision, I have asked for advice from the Clerk's office. The clerk just whispered in my ear that perhaps we can even handle it today, because when we have the break between dealing with this report and the half-hour review, he can also seek opinions from the Clerk's office, so I could have a ruling before we break for lunch. It is not simply a question of disagreeing on viewpoints; it is a question of whether it complies with the standing orders.
Can we deal with the rest of the report, excluding that particular paragraph?
Mr McLean: What really is there to deal with in the rest of the report? The government members indicated that the report is going ahead as they have presented it. Our dissenting report will be included in it, regardless of whether we disagree with any other factors in the report. They indicated that it is done.
The Chair: We still require a motion, and I am not sure if this will require changing as a result of the removal of that paragraph, Mr Clerk. The motion we are required to deal with is, shall I present the committee's report to the House and move the adoption of these recommendations, such presentation to be made at the earliest opportunity and no later than 16 May 1991?
Mr McLean: Will that report include the dissenting report?
The Chair: That is up to the committee; it is your decision.
Mr McLean: If the opposition wants it included and the government does not want it included, my understanding around here over the years has always been that the dissenting report would be included.
Mr Silipo: Absolutely. That is our understanding as well.
Mr Waters: We would do it to you if we could, just because it is you.
The Chair: Okay. The clerk is suggesting that we do not deal with these motions until after I have passed judgement on the paragraph.
Mr Silipo: Given your decision on how you are going to deal with Mr McGuinty's request, then I guess I would just need to be clear if it is the intention of one or more of the opposition members that they will want the report that was presented to us by the two opposition caucuses appended as a dissenting opinion. My sense is that the answer to that is yes. If it is, then I would request that you look at that report as well in the same kind of light in terms of there being at least a few areas, I believe, where there may be imputing of motives as well.
The Chair: I do not think it is incumbent upon the Chair to review the completed report. I think it is the responsibility of individual members, if they have a concern, to bring it to the Chair's attention.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate that, Mr Chair, and I then would just need some guidance from you in terms of the kind of time lines that I or other members of the committee would have to be able to raise those points with you.
The Chair: What I would suggest, Mr Silipo, is that we have the break and try to be back here at 10:55 so we can deal with it.
Mr Silipo: That is plenty of time.
The Chair: If you are not comfortable with that amount of time, what we will do is we will just table a decision on this matter until the following meeting.
Mr Silipo: Thank you.
The Chair: We will have a 15-minute recess. We will reconvene at 10:55.
The committee recessed at 1038.
1056
The Chair: We will come to order again. I advise the members that the clerk and I sought advice and an opinion on this matter and I am going to rule that the paragraph as amended is in order. I will simply say once again that I personally have some difficulty with this kind of wording. I am not sure it does anything to enhance the operations of the committee, but indeed it is in order.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, can I --
The Chair: The ruling is not subject to debate.
Mr Silipo: I was not going to debate it. I just wanted to say again that this paragraph exists in the second report we put before the committee and it reflects and responds, I think, to the tone that is in the report from the opposition parties. I am obviously glad of your ruling.
The Chair: I think we can move on now to the question that I am required to place. Shall I present the committee's report to the House and move the adoption of these recommendations, such presentation to be made at the earliest opportunity and no later than 16 May 1991?
Mr Grandmaître: Is there a formal vote, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: We require a formal vote if there is a request to have that.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you talking about both reports?
The Chair: No, we are not talking about the minority opinion. We are just talking about the report.
Mr Silipo, do you want to move that motion?
Mr Silipo: I will move that, Mr Chair, yes.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to direct that the report be presented simultaneously in English and in French? Do you agree with that? It does not require a formal motion.
Mr McLean: We have no choice. That is the rule, is it not?
Mr Wiseman: No, I do not think so. You can have it brought in in English first and then the French translation can come later. Having it done simultaneously has not happened.
The Chair: That wraps that up then, members. The minority opinion will be appended.
Bill ordered to be reported.
1100
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
NICOLETTE CARLAN
The Chair: The next order of business is a half-hour review of the intended appointee Nicolette Carlan, who has been selected by the official opposition. Ms Carlan, would you like to come forward, please? Welcome to the committee. It is a maximum of a half-hour review. As I indicated, your appearance was requested by the official opposition and we will open the questioning with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I have gone through Ms Carlan's CV and it is very impressive. Tell us how your experience with the Office of the Ombudsman will make you a better person to sit on this committee.
Ms Carlan: A better person? Am I more moral, being from the Ombudsman's office? I think the Ombudsman Act requires its people to look at both sides of any issue and to do an impartial investigation. I would think that experience of over 10 years has opened my eyes to both sides of many issues, as has my work at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I think I have a sense of the needs of both the employer and the worker community and I hope I can bring the two of them together in accomplishing the goals of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel.
Mr Grandmaître: How often did you deal with industrial disease cases while you were with the Ombudsman's office?
Ms Carlan: I have been doing workers' compensation for the last 20 years, so probably over the last 20 years I have dealt with 4,000 cases personally and I would think that 10% of those cases were industrial disease cases, either hearing loss, respiratory illness or other kinds of problems. I think about 400 of the cases I have dealt with, either as an adjudicator at WCAT or in my work at the Ombudsman's office or my previous work at the legal clinic, dealt with industrial disease cases.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr McGuinty, do you have any questions, really serious questions?
Mr McGuinty: I might just take advantage of your presence here, Ms Carlan. I gather that determining the connection between an industrial disease and the workplace is often rather complex. Could you describe any system for improving the methods used presently to establish a connection?
Ms Carlan: It is my understanding that the IDSP relies heavily on the scientific knowledge base, and it is my view that deciding something is an industrial disease is really an issue of social policy rather than strict science. Science plays a part in it but, in addition to science, you have social concerns. The standards by which you determine whether something is an industrial disease or hazardous really depends on the social values of the environment.
For example, in hearing-loss cases we know that 85% of the population will be protected if they are not exposed to noise at levels greater than 90 decibels; so 15% of the population will be affected by noise at less than 90 decibels. It has been the policy of the previous governments for the last 20 years to allow the 90-decibel level to be the standard by which industry has to protect people. The question is whether you are supposed to protect the other 15% of the population and how you do it.
It is a difficult question. What has happened is that we narrowed the scope of deciding what an industrial disease is by limiting our review to the scientific knowledge base. Science is an art; there are a lot of questions that there are no answers to. To be realistic about deciding whether something is an industrial disease, you have to take into consideration the entire social milieu, and that includes the concern for competitiveness in the marketplace and a variety of other things.
I do not have a simple answer for you and I do not think there is a simple answer. I think you have to look at a number of things, and that is what a revitalized Industrial Disease Standards Panel could do, by including more people in that decision-making process.
Mr McGuinty: I gather that by being fair you are saying that science obviously has a role to play in providing us with data, but society has to draw the line somewhere in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.
Ms Carlan: That is right.
Mr McGuinty: Do you think that presently we are encompassing a sufficient number? Where have we drawn the line, in your estimation, and should we be including more people who are suffering but are not presently included?
Ms Carlan: We have a number of areas where we have not looked. We have been looking at really specific things like asbestosis. We have a specific hazard and thereby a specific disease, and so those two come together and nobody has a problem; they can define asbestosis as an industrial disease. But when you have something like chronic obstructive lung disease, which affects the general population, and probably 12% to 15% of the population suffers from that disease, we have a real hard time defining that as an industrial disease. However, I would venture a guess -- and this is just a guess; it is not a statement of policy or anything else -- that there is a higher incidence of chronic obstructive lung disease in people who are exposed to dust, like miners, who work for a living, than there is in office workers. When you have a non-specific disease that affects the general population, we have not done a good job in identifying the occupational risk involved in the development of that disease and I think that is one area we have to look at to expand our horizons.
Mr McGuinty: Do you see any potential for conflict, Ms Carlan, in your past experience as vice-chairman of WCAT and your new position?
Ms Carlan: No, I do not. I think one links into the other. I have been required to make decisions with my colleagues on industrial disease cases. I have known where the evidence is lacking and where we have had to make a decision on the best evidence we had, which was not the evidence we really wanted. I think it has given me an insight into developing standards that will be useful to adjudicators, so I do not see that there is a conflict at all.
Mr McLean: Is this position full-time?
Ms Carlan: No, it is not; it is part-time.
Mr McLean: And you have another job?
Ms Carlan: No, I do not. I have applied for a few things. I have talked to the government, and there has not been a chairman in this position for close to a year. So I am anticipating that I will spend a good part of the summer on this on a full-time basis and be looking at something in the fall on a part-time basis, another part-time basis.
Mr McLean: Is this based on a per diem rate?
Ms Carlan: Yes, it is.
Mr McLean: How much is that rate?
Ms Carlan: I do not know.
Mr McLean: Did you apply for the position or was it advertised or how did you --
Ms Carlan: I applied for the position. I knew that the position was open. My term at WCAT had expired in October and I knew the position was open and I wrote a letter to Mr McClellan in the Premier's office, who I knew from previous appearances before the standing committee on the Ombudsman and in some of my volunteer work. I wrote to Mr McClellan and Mr McClellan then passed my résumé on to Ms Phillips. I met with Ms Phillips in January and she then passed my résumé on, as I understand it, to the Minister of Labour.
Mr McLean: Do you know of any other people who applied for it?
Ms Carlan: Yes, I do.
Mr McLean: And you were pleased that you were the successful one.
Ms Carlan: That is right.
Mr McLean: You have a long range of experience in the field of, as I say, health care towards workers. What affiliation would there be with regards to the workplace health and safety?
Ms Carlan: Agency? I do not know. We have to talk about that. I do not know what the relationship is. They are certainly talking about occupational health and setting up committees and educating workers. We would be a more scientific and research-oriented agency, but I would think that there has got to be some interplay between the two and it is a matter of negotiation and establishing stuff.
One of the things that I think we could work towards, for example, is white finger disease, which miners get from using pneumatic drills. It seems to me that we have got to be able to develop a drill so that people's nerves do not die when they use them. I do not see why the research component at the occupational health and safety agency could not in some way fund some of that research. I think that we could provide some of the scientific knowledge about what causes that kind of disease to them so that maybe we will not have the disease, we will not have to pay any compensation claims, and people get to use their fingers for the rest of their lives, which certainly has got to be the goal of everybody.
1110
Mr McLean: Yes. I think it is an area which is of great concern to the people of the province, and I am glad to see that you are going to be looking at that, because a lot of workplaces have too much noise, and in 20 years' time workers will be on WCB because of the injuries they have received. Disease in the workplace, such as asbestos and working with tires in a tire factory: do you anticipate those are the areas that you would be looking at?
Ms Carlan: Asbestos has been the subject of a number of studies. I think it is time for somebody to write the regulations, and that has not been done yet. One of the things that the IDSP could and should do, in my view, is help draft the regulations for asbestos exposure in the province and put them forward to the government so that they can be part of the Workers' Compensation Act and regulated. There are a number of areas where we need regulation, and I would hope that we would be a part of the drafting of some of those regulations.
Mr McLean: One final question: Are you a member of any political party?
Ms Carlan: No, no.
Mr McLean: Non-political?
Ms Carlan: Non-political. I could not have been a member when I was at the Ombudsman's office, and as a neutral vice-chair at WCAT it was impossible; so it has been at least 15 or 16 years.
Mr Frankford: Could you go back again to what you were saying, that you felt there was a difference between the scientific approach and the social approach?
Ms Carlan: Scientists, to establish something is probable, I would think would want -- I do not know what statistical value they would need, but it certainly is different than what a lawyer or an adjudicator would want. Fifty-one per cent is enough in a court to say that something is probably related. I do not think a scientist would be satisfied with that kind of value. In adjudicating claims and in making regulations you are allowed to make a guess because you are dealing with people's lives; it is not a guess, but a professional estimate. Something less than a scientific level of proof is sufficient to allow entitlement for an industrial disease. From the most recent government report we know there is a 40% higher incidence of lung cancer in welders than in the general population. I do not think a scientist would say that welding causes lung cancer, but I wonder, from a social policy view, whether that is strong enough to say that a welder who has lung cancer may well, in fact, have an industrial disease.
Mr Frankford: I have difficulty with what you are saying because you are talking about probabilities and percentages, which to my mind is scientific. I do not think scientific means 100% certainty, but --
Ms Carlan: There is a big divergence in the workers' compensation community about what kind of level of proof is necessary. Professor Eison, the former chair at the board in British Columbia and now a professor at Osgoode, has always argued that unless you can establish an alternative hypothesis the workers should get the benefit for an industrial disease. That is a pretty loose standard of proof, because we do not know what causes a lot of kinds of cancers, so if you do not know why this person has one kind of cancer or another kind of cancer you automatically attribute that cancer to the workplace. That is one of the adjudicative models that is on the table. I do not think that a scientist would be prepared to say, "In the absence of an alternative hypothesis, we must accept one of many other kinds of exposures." So there is a big continuum there between an alternative hypothesis and a scientific level of proof, and I think that someplace in the middle would be the appropriate road for establishing whether something is an industrial disease or not. There is a difference.
There is a big problem. I completed a case not long ago on chronic obstructive lung disease while I was at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. In 1979 the government considered doing a study on chronic obstructive lung disease for miners. There was no money in 1979. In 1991 the scientists are saying there is probably a relationship, but they do not know for sure. Nobody has really studied it; the reason they have not studied it is that there is no money and there have been other health care priorities like smoking and breast cancer. There are a number of ways that the Canadian government can spend its money. The fact that the scientists have not established a relationship does not mean that people should not be entitled to benefits or that there is not a relationship; it just means the scientists have not done the study. If the scientists have not done the study, how we decide is I think a question of social policy.
Mr Frankford: I have some difficulty when you say "the scientists." I mean the diagnoses and the correlations. This should be something which can come out day in and day out. People are being diagnosed and treated all over the province, and we should be in a position to establish data bases where everyone can establish those correlations.
Ms Carlan: There are hundreds of thousands of chemicals in the workplace, Dr Frankford. To suggest that we should know the synergistic effects of all those chemicals on all people who live different kinds of lives -- the level of smoking is individual. Do you eat a lot of pork? Do you eat a lot of beef? Do you eat only seafood? There are so many different variables that go into the diagnosis of an injury that to suggest there is one real answer is just not realistic in my experience. You have to make a judgement, and when I talk about social policy, I am talking about a judgement.
Mr Frankford: Do you see the panel developing its own scientific studies?
Ms Carlan: Sure. The panel currently has a couple of scientists on staff, and as I understand it, there are a couple of openings. If you approve my appointment, I will be speaking to Mr Di Santo about some additional funds for the Workers' Compensation Board to increase our complement.
Science is a part of it, and there is a lot of science going on in the university. We have some real good universities. McMaster, for example, does a lot of work in occupational health and safety. I am not saying that science does not play a part; all I am saying is that it is a part and it is not the only answer.
Mr Frankford: Can I just finish with one question? I will read you a quote from the panel's report in 1986-87:
"Attending physicians may not recognize the work-relatedness of a given disease, and government and academic administrations may not recognize the need for appropriate epidemiological research of worker populations. The human resources committed to epidemiology and industrial clinical medicine in Ontario and elsewhere are far too inadequate."
Ms Carlan: That is from the report, but that is not my quote.
Mr Frankford: No.
Ms Carlan: I agree with that; I think we have to spend money on science. I am not saying that science is not important, and I hope that I have not given you that impression, but I think that it is a piece of a pie, but it is not the whole pie. You have to recognize that the scientists do not know everything. They do not have a cure for cancer, and where there is a carcinogenic -- I do not know what that means. Does it mean that it causes cancer for everybody who is exposed to it, or to a high percentage of people, or to people who are exposed to a certain chemical in addition to eating a lot of pork? There is not a simple answer, and so it is only part of the process.
1120
Mr Hayes: Ms Carlan, you are talking about the scientific part of things, and of course you are familiar with the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the guidelines for setting levels for substances. In those particular guidelines sometimes I think they just arbitrarily make changes, because when you look in that book, it says "proposed changes," like reducing threshold limit value, for example.
Do you think there should be even more done there? I know the previous government designated some substances, but they were actually just based on that American conference of industrial hygienists' booklets. I am just wondering whether you think there is enough real scientific research there, because it seems that we do know that certain substances are carcinogenic, and they say, "Well, next year we'll propose that we might change that exposure."
Are there other ways that we can make the change? I think probably through the social part, like what you are talking about, with the epidemiological studies, would tend to give us the opinion that even though that chemical scientifically does not state that it is a carcinogen, that a high number in that particular population have that cancer. You are saying you have to work them both together, but do you think that the method that we have used in the past -- and a lot of times that is only guidelines -- really goes far enough?
Ms Carlan: I do not think it has been a focus of the previous government, and I think that is a concern. We have the technology now with computers to know what people are exposed to in the workplace and to be able to cross-reference things. We have a lot more capability than we ever had before, and I am not sure that those capabilities are being used to the fullest extent.
I would think that with the workplace hazardous materials information system legislation and with the new agency on occupational health and a stronger IDSP, you might be able to develop a more organized and systematic way of establishing threshold limits and doing them on a regular basis so that you do not wait every year. I can tell you that you will never know what all the threshold limits are or should be. Although it might be a goal to make every workplace completely safe, it cannot be a reality because the workplace just changes too quickly. But it certainly should be the goal, and by doing it systematically, I would hope that a number of agencies in the government can pull together and accomplish that goal.
The Chair: Very good, thank you. Mr Waters, you have one minute.
Mr Waters: Just a quick one, then. I have a question on plastics, because they are everywhere nowadays. I know where I came from, they mixed five different plastics and every one had a side effect. Nobody could ever tell us what we were dealing with by the time you mixed them and melted them. Is there any move afoot that would try to deal with that problem?
Ms Carlan: Well, I think some of the WHMIS legislation is requiring you to tell people what the stuff is together, and I think maybe that is a good question for Mr Forder, to find out what they are going to do with all their research money to figure out exactly what people are exposed to in the workplace. The IDSP would deal with the problem after they had been exposed, but Mr Forder's and, I think, Mr Baker's agency would be more likely to be able to answer that question for you.
Mr Waters: He is going to love you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Carlan. That concludes the questioning, and we wish you well.
Ms Carlan: Thank you very much.
RITA DEVERELL
The Chair: The next intended appointee selected by the third party is Rita Deverell. Ms Deverell, would you like to come forward, please. Welcome to the committee. We are going to commence the questioning with the third party.
Mr McLean: You have been involved in the film industry for some time, have you?
Ms Deverell: Yes, quite a long time, actually. I have been working as an artist in Canada for 23 years, and about 18 of those years have been in television. I am a broadcaster, not a filmmaker.
Mr McLean: Have you had the opportunity to visit and review the board with regard to censoring films? Have you ever visited the Ontario Film Review Board?
Ms Deverell: No. I have, from time to time, known people who have been on that board but I have no personal involvement with it.
Mr McLean: Did you apply for the position or were you asked to send in a résumé?
Ms Deverell: I was asked if I would be interested, and I indeed was interested, but no, I did not apply. I suppose one of the realities of a working artist is that we tend to spend -- especially in my case, I produce two weekly half-hours of television, so most weeks anything that does not directly relate to my show does not get done. So yes, I was in fact approached.
Mr McLean: Who approached you?
Ms Deverell: It was the minister's office; Rina Fraticelli, who works as a special assistant to the minister and who is known to me from her work at Studio D of the National Film Board, the women's studio. We have from time to time encountered each other in the industry.
Mr McLean: Do you have any specific thoughts on how we can increase the Canadian content in our films?
Ms Deverell: The work of the film development corporation of course largely deals with Canadian production. A small portion of its work deals with promoting Ontario as a location site for other than Canadian productions, though it becomes a Canadian production when it uses Ontario as a location site.
However, in my own view, it is extremely crucial, maybe now more than ever. I think our cultural industries are more threatened at this time than any time that I know of in Canadian history. I have been a Canadian since 1967. I have never known a time in that length of time when there have been so many policies that would seem to indicate that this is not a sovereign nation culturally. There are so many federal policies that do this that this is something that deeply disturbs me.
Mr McLean: Do you think the Ontario government should bring in some protectionist legislation, such as they have in other provinces, to protect our film releases?
Ms Deverell: I am not sure I am quite prepared to answer that. That is something I would have to give a considerable amount of thought to. I do, however, feel -- and I am not sure it is through protectionist legislation but possibly it is -- that we have to do everything we possibly can to foster our arts, culture and entertainment. We should be very unembarrassed -- in fact, I do not know why we are embarrassed; most other nations are not -- about realizing that this is a sovereign nation with its own arts, culture and entertainment, that these are industries as well as a way of expressing ourselves. Yes, we do have to do everything, but I would have to think a bit about legislation.
1130
Mr McLean: I would like to go back, just in my final questions, to the censor board. I had the opportunity, when we were on committee here several years ago, to view some of those films that we see. I am wondering, in your own mind do you feel that there is a borderline where we should not be showing these types of films that we sometimes see?
Ms Deverell: Censorship is an extremely difficult question. A film that is shown in the movie theatre -- I think the system of providing some kind of guidance as to whom the film is appropriate for is a very good idea. That is something I certainly, as a parent, very much appreciate. Yes, guidance should be provided. We certainly should be extremely concerned about anything that exploits performers, especially women and children, just like any other form of exploitation. Pornographic exploitation is a very serious matter and something that I take seriously.
This is ticklish, though. We have dealt with it, for example, in our union, ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, with extreme difficulty, because how you come up with what will protect performers and not impede the creative process is a very ticklish matter.
That does not give you much of an answer. I suppose it does give you an answer. I think there should be guidance. I also think there is a difference between what is on television, which is just in the air and is readily accessible to everybody, and what is in movie theatres. I think there are some questions there in terms of what the public sees. There are also some questions in terms of workers' protection and workers' rights, people who work in cultural industries.
Mrs Haslam: I just wanted to let you know that I come from Stratford and I am very interested in the arts and culture, because when you mentioned that there is an industry there, you can well understand the industry it is to Stratford and the money, $250 million, that comes in at any one time from festivals.
However, having said that, I am also going to go into another area that I deal with, and that is employment equity. I understand that in 1990 the Toronto Women in Film and TV did a study and it found that in 1987 the average woman in the industry was paid about 75% as much as the average man and that women tended to be in the lower-echelon jobs rather than in the higher-profile jobs: directors, producers and things like that. I wondered if you would like to make a comment on that and, particularly, should the OFDC develop pay and employment equity policies for corporations to follow.
Ms Deverell: These cultural industries are just like all other industries. We have got employment equity in place in Ontario and these industries certainly should not be exempt at all.
Yes, the situation of women in film and television is very serious. I am pleased that I work for an organization, Vision TV, that is on the very good side of the balance sheet as far as that is concerned. More than 50% of the people who work at Vision are women, more than 50% of the people in the top creative jobs are women. Yes, the Toronto Women in Film and TV study said only 14% of the top jobs are held by women. Then there is also the question of people of colour, which is even more serious than women, very much more serious.
Yes, employment equity needs to apply to these industries like all other industries. The fight will be, as it historically always has been, something to do with creative freedom, which is usually the argument that is trotted out, but I think that can be dealt with.
Mr Wiseman: We have heard just recently Carla Hills, who is the negotiator for the Americans on the free trade deal, say that the next round of negotiations between the Americans and the Mexicans, with Canada being involved, is going to reopen the whole question of cultural protection that Canada was able to, in some minor ways, secure in the first round of free trade. Would you see your role, should you get the appointment, as developing some kind of strategy or some kind of method by which Ontario and Canada could protect their film industry from the advances being made by the Americans?
Ms Deverell: I think it is a very serious question. It has always been a serious question. Yet it is more serious in recent years, and I think it is because of free trade, because of the massive budget cuts to cultural industries, to the CBC, to the Canada Council; to the federal cultural agencies. I do not see any stop to it, and I do think that it has to be stopped. There is perhaps no single more important aspect of our economy in terms of defining who we are than arts, culture and entertainment.
I personally worked, though I would not say very hard, certainly medium hard, on all the protests to the cuts to cultural industries as they came down one by one. I was teaching at the journalism school at the University of Regina at the time and there were some protests that I was taking a political position in, protesting these cuts. I said I did not see this as a problem at all because that, after all, was the industry I worked in. What was the difficulty with protesting budget cuts that in fact were going to affect our students, since this was the industry that they were being trained to work in? I guess the short answer to your question is yes, I think it is very serious.
Mr Silipo: Ms Deverell, you mentioned earlier in response to the question about the process that led you to this point. Could you tell us a little bit about what interested you in becoming a member of the board, and particularly, what kinds of things you think you can contribute on the board?
Ms Deverell: As I said earlier, I have been a practising artist in this country for 23 years, so this is the area that concerns me extremely. I will add a few things to that. That means I have made my living, one way or another, as a performer and broadcaster for 23 years, which I will assure you is actually not easy to do. It is not an industry that is organized in such a way that it is easy to make a living. This is an industry that concerns me very directly.
I have very serious concerns and have been active in the areas of dealing with the inequality of women in this industry. I made a contribution to phase 2 of the study that was referred to earlier, Toronto Women in Film and TV. Specifically, they wanted their statistics commented on by a woman of colour and by someone from the disabled community. I pulled together a team: myself, a rather young independent Chinese Canadian filmmaker and a rather young disabled broadcaster. This is an area that has concerned me directly.
In my own union, here again I have been active in working on questions of employment equity for visible minority people who work in film and television. I suppose the way to put it would be that I have that background, that very personal concern and that passion to bring to the board.
A little bit of a sidelight is that I am a relatively recent resident of Ontario. The last three years I came to work for Vision TV, although I worked back and forth in Ontario a lot. I was always commuting from Saskatchewan. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this province at this level. I hope I will be able to make a contribution in view of my background and yes, as a citizen I am literally quite glad to be able to participate in this way.
One final thing that is a problem on boards of cultural industries or this kind of agency -- and I know this; I did have a brief, two-year stint working for the Saskatchewan Arts Board as a performing arts consultant. I was a staff person and we had a board to deal with. One of the things that happened very frequently was that there would be people on the board who worked in other kinds of areas who had literally no notion of the kinds of economic constraints, the kind of lifestyle, the kinds of pressures that artists work with. It is very difficult for a person who has an assured salary that comes in every year of $80,000 to understand what it is like to be a freelance artist. It was only by having artists on the board that this was able to be continually interpreted to people.
1140
Mr McGuinty: Ms Deverell, I wonder if you might describe for me in detail how it is that you came to appear before us today. I gather the original contact was, there was an acquaintance in the minister's office. What happened after that?
Ms Deverell: I was approached to see if I would be interested, and I indeed was interested, so I submitted background materials on myself. Then -- you are a bit more familiar with your processes than I am -- I assume what happened is that my name was submitted as a nominee, and this committee requested to see me. That is essentially it.
Mr McGuinty: The contact you had, then, with your acquaintance in the minister's office, what did that consist of, a telephone call?
Ms Deverell: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: Were any assurances offered with respect to your getting the position?
Ms Deverell: No.
Mr McGuinty: What is your understanding of what is going to happen here today?
Ms Deverell: My understanding is that you wished to meet with me and that you may deem me appropriate or inappropriate, and that I would be advised.
Mr McGuinty: All right. I am going to leave that matter aside and I will proceed with something else.
Quebec is touted by some as having legislation which is stronger than ours. The former chair of the OFDC, Wayne Clarkson, called on the Mulroney government to introduce legislation to strengthen Canadian film companies' ability to bid for distribution rights to foreign films to be shown in Canada. He has also indicated that the Ontario government may be forced to introduce protectionist legislation such as Quebec's.
I gather an Ontario film distributor cannot distribute a film in Quebec without first setting up an office there, if I am correct. Do you think we should have such a thing here?
Ms Deverell: I have not thought carefully enough about the fine points of legislation. Obviously this is something I will need to do if I am serving on the board. However, there is one thing that is pretty obvious, and it is that the arts and culture and entertainment in Quebec thrive. It is one of the first things that I noticed when I came to Canada, and it continues to be the case.
There are real successes in Quebec, and I have to assume that this is a combination of having a desperate need to preserve and enhance culture, and protectionist legislation. I certainly could not, at this point, say exactly what kind of legislation there should be. But there is absolutely no doubt that the arts, culture and entertainment in Quebec thrive. Jesus of Montreal is a film seen by thousands, a wonderful film. One can actually name popular, serious playwrights in Quebec like Michel Tremblay. One can say that there are actors who are the best interpreters of Tremblay. That would be very difficult to say in English Canada, and I say that while being married to a playwright.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I could canvass another area with you. I have the statistics here before me saying an OFDC study discovered that Canadian films capture only 3% of the screen time and 1% to 2% of box office figures in Ontario. Canadian films make up only about 5% of video retailers' inventory. The average Canadian watches 23.3 hours of TV a week, but only 29% of those hours are spent watching Canadian programming. What can we do about that?
Ms Deverell: This problem is very old. It is as old as John Grierson's fight at the National Film Board with the Hollywood distributors. We have never in this country, presumably, taken seriously that if it is an American stranglehold on our distribution system, that is a problem. But recently this seems to be combined with what I will call the tax on cultural industry. It looks like protectionist legislation is the thing but, as I say, I am not prepared to speak to exactly how.
But this is a very old and serious problem. The minute that people who work in cultural industries or governments relax on the extent to which it is a problem, and that is what seems to have happened recently, then the problem only gets worse.
As for the television situation -- and I work in television, after all, not in film -- certainly the organization I work for promised in its promise of performance to do a great deal better than that, and we have, so I suppose that speaks to the importance of legislation.
Mr McGuinty: How do you reconcile protectionist legislation with the general movement, worldwide I think, to open markets so there is a freer flow of goods and services across national borders?
Ms Deverell: I do not think there is anything wrong with protecting and enhancing our own identity. I am not sure that cultural industries are like refrigerators but, for that matter, I am not even sure that refrigerators are like refrigerators if it means that all kinds of plants close and people lose their jobs. I mean, I think there is nothing wrong with our looking after our own interests. There is particularly nothing wrong with our looking after our own interests in this area.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I might ask you as well what role you see the cultural arts playing in the context of our constitutional discord. What positive role can they play?
Ms Deverell: I am not sure. I think we have a responsibility to interpret to the various publics in Canada, in Ontario, what is involved in those debates. We have a responsibility to make sure that the citizens are aware of what is at stake and aware of -- now, I suppose I see this mainly from my position as a broadcaster -- groups of people who are not actively participating or who would be relatively disfranchised by these processes. To that extent I think there is certainly an information component that is very important.
Mr McGuinty: I guess another factor or feature that I was thinking of is, what about promoting Canadianism, if there is such a thing, in a more concrete way?
Ms Deverell: I do not know that we can promote Canadianism, any more than we can promote racial tolerance. What I think we can do is reflect on our screens and on our stages a vibrant cultural scene. My approach to something like racial tolerance is quite simply that in every show I do there are people of a variety of ethnicities, there are men and women, and there are people of a variety of faiths -- faith, because Vision TV is concerned about that. We just do it, I think, but I do not know that we can make commercials. For Canadianism or racial harmony or those kinds of things, I think we just do it.
Mr McLean: Do you think Toronto should proceed with the opera house?
Ms Deverell: I do not know if I am going to touch that with a barge pole.
Mr McLean: Being that you are in that industry, I thought you would think it would be an asset.
Ms Deverell: This is a very difficult one, because right now many arts groups in Toronto are in a desperate space situation. We all know what Toronto costs, so I do not need to bore you with that. I think that the ballet opera house, if it also addresses the space needs of other cultural industries in a variety of ways, is an excellent idea.
Something else that is a serious concern to me, since I have been in Ontario, is the mega-musical: the Phantom, Les Miz and so on. Aside from the fact that these things employ a few Canadian or Ontario performers, they are not Canadian. They are sucking away vast numbers of consumer dollars from things that are our own; most of the money leaves. I think all these things are connected; so at the same time we are pulling our support from grass-roots cultural industries, we are in effect giving support to highly commercial external work, and this bothers me a great deal.
Mr McLean: My final question is mainly for information and I think you are the one who would have it. I am interested to know -- you spent some time in Saskatchewan -- how you would rate the industry in Ontario, comparing it to, say, British Columbia. I know there is a great deal of filming being done in Quebec. How would Ontario rate among those three?
Ms Deverell: Of course, the major part of the industry is here. That is only natural, because most of the people are here. Then, as you pointed out, the rest of the industry is in British Columbia and in Quebec.
I was involved in Saskatchewan's efforts to set up something that is very similar to the Ontario Film Development Corp, and Saskatchewan being very small, this was quite an effort, but it is happening now. One of the most adventuresome things that has happened in this area is that Manitoba was able to negotiate a major federal-provincial agreement in publishing, film-making and other cultural industries.
Having said all that, Ontario does well. I think what Ontario has got to do, though, is a lot better.
Mr McLean: Is Ontario returning more to live entertainment? Are more stage shows coming back?
Ms Deverell: No.
Mr McLean: I notice in my community they are having more live shows in the opera house.
Ms Deverell: No. I think there is probably less professional theatre here than there was in, let's say, 1970.
Mr McLean: Is that right?
Ms Deverell: Yes. That is indigenous theatre. I am not talking about the big mega-musicals but about indigenous work, by Canadians, for Canadians, about Canadians, etc. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this area, and I think this is not the time to be asleep.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Deverell, and we wish you well.
Ms Deverell: Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1155.