CONTENTS
Wednesday 15 May 1991
Appointments review
Nicolette Carlan
Rita Deverell
Rosemary O'Connor
Cameron Bailey
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)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaitre, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
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)
Also taking part: Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1013 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
NICOLETTE CARLAN
The Chair: The first matters to deal with, as you can see from your agenda, are the determinations of whether the committee concurs in the appointments of the individuals we interviewed last week. The normal process is to do these on an individual basis. I would ask for a motion in respect to Nicolette Carlan, we have a motion either concurring or not concurring with the intended appointment of Ms Carlan.
Ms Haslam moves the appointment of Nicolette Carlan to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel.
Motion agreed to.
RITA DEVERELL
The Chair: The second intended appointee is Ms Rita Deverell.
Mr Frankford moves the appointment of Rita Deverell to the Ontario Film Development Corp.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Okay, we will advise the appointees of their success.
ROSEMARY O'CONNOR
The Chair: We will move on to the first review: the selection of the official opposition, Rosemary O'Connor, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. Ms O'Connor, would you like to come forward please and take a seat? Welcome to the committee.
Ms O'Connor: Thank you.
The Chair We have broken this into 10-minute allocations between each caucus. Do you have anything you would like to say at the outset before we get into questioning?
Ms O'Connor: No.
The Chair: All right, fine. We will begin the questioning with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Ms O'Connor, I feel I have known you for a long time. This is the first time that I have received a phone call, Mr Chairman, praising Ms O'Connor for the great work she has done in the past 15 or 20 years with credit unions.
I remember getting involved with the credit union movement and the caisse populaire movement some three years ago, and these people were totally dissatisfied with the approach of Mr Nixon concerning the deficit. I should not call it the deficit; I am referring to your premiums for insurance, your fees. At that time, you people felt you were being somewhat discriminated against. Can you tell us more about this? I think it is a foregone conclusion that you will be a member. What will be your approach or some of your recommendations as far as insurance premium fees for your group?
Ms O'Connor: First of all, I would have to look at what that pool is at the present time. I agree with you: There was a great deal of consternation over increase in premiums. Credit unions and caisses populaires up until the 1980s were self-insuring. We had our own stabilization funds, so it was not taken lightly that another body was determining what that fund should be. But I think that is only because everybody resists change to begin with.
Second, I think that over the 10 years we have grown to realize that pool must be very strong and secure. My approach would be: How could we best do that, but still allow the credit unions operating surpluses to go about what their mandate is? I would want it to be as moderate as possible, but my first concern would be on the stability of that pool of insurance funds.
Mr Grandmaître: So, in other words, you are saying those premiums should be increased?
Ms O'Connor: I have no idea. I have not seen all the statistics. I have not seen all the arguments for or against. Just briefly, looking at the last financial statement of OSDIC, it would depend on what is reasonable. Looking at where it is, if you could watch your costs -- and they are being watched, I am sure -- you may not have to increase, but I would need a great deal more information. But I would not be opposed, if it had to be to provide the security needed, to telling my colleagues this was necessary.
Mr Grandmaître: I remember they were adamantly opposed to any increases in premiums. At the same time, three or four credit unions and a couple of caisses populaires were in financial problems. I do not know if you closed any of the credit unions, but a few -- maybe two or three caisses populaires -- were closed because of financial problems.
Do you feel that your movement -- the credit unions and the caisses populaires -- is ready in 1991 to face the competitive world of banks?
1020
Ms O'Connor: Yes, certainly I think they are. I think we are well positioned. The reserve structure, the capital, built up in the last 10 years is in my opinion very admirable. I fully believe that the credit union-caisse populaire concept is one that provides an alternative to financial arrangements for the people of Ontario, and I believe, with strong guidance and attention to the duty that they are charged with, they certainly could be competitive in Ontario. I believe they are.
Mr Grandmaître: That is good. Do you think the credit unions and the caisses populaires should not be grouped as they are today? Do you think they should be separated? Do you think we should have two groups instead of having one group? Caisses populaires are part of the credit union movement and credit unions are part of the caisses populaires movement. Do you think they should be separated?
Ms O'Connor: If it is for the insurance aspect, my initial response would be the bigger the pool the stronger it is. In that regard, if you are alluding to governance of them, then that is a different issue. As far as insurance is concerned, unless shown otherwise, I believe that pool should be as big as it can possibly be for the security of the consumers.
Mr Grandmaître: I would not want to go on record as saying I agree, but I will follow up on this one. Due to the fact that you have, what, 858 or 859 branches, I think --
Ms O'Connor: It is down to a little less than 600. A lot of amalgamations are being carried out.
Mr Grandmaître: A lot of amalgamations over the last four or five years?
Ms O'Connor: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Then my question is irrelevant. I will pass on to my friend, Dalton.
Mr McGuinty: I have no questions at this time. I may, if there is time, at the end.
The Chair: There are about two minutes left. Mr McLean, do you have any questions?
Mr McLean: I would like your opinion with regard to ownership of credit unions. I have always been of the opinion that nobody should own more than 10%. What is your view as far as ownership goes?
Ms O'Connor: In a credit union movement our bylaws are one member, one share, so in our particular credit union with close to 14,000 members we have 14,000 owners. You only have one vote at the annual meeting on any issue. It is not dependent on the dollars.
Mr McLean: How many shareholders were there in Andy Markle's credit union?
Ms O'Connor: I am not familiar with that name.
Mr McLean: He was the owner of a credit union that had financial problems.
Ms O'Connor: There would be no one owner of a credit union. You must have -- I believe the act says 50 to start with.
Mrs Haslam: Twenty-five.
Ms O'Connor: Twenty-five to start a credit union, and it is one member-one vote.
Mr McLean: But one member could own 90% of that credit union, right? If there are 25 people, one person could own 90% of the credit union and yet you would still have the other 24 shareholders.
Ms O'Connor: No, each has equally one vote.
Mr McLean: And the trust company?
Ms O'Connor: Credit unions and caisses populaires have different regulations.
Mr McLean: They come under the same ministry, only they have different regulations.
Ms O'Connor: That is right. We have our own act.
Mr McLean: I see. That is interesting to know. I was not fully aware of that. The ratio for capital assets to surplus -- what figure would you deem to be appropriate?
Ms O'Connor: The act at the moment specifies 5%.
Mr McLean: Are you satisfied with that?
Ms O'Connor: I am not satisfied on how they calculate it. I have seen other methods by which to arrive at that which I would suggest maybe some time someone should look at.
Mr McLean: There are some 60 credit unions, caisses populaires, in some problems. How would you propose to rectify those, or what would be your views on the board so that this would not take place?
Ms O'Connor: In the past 10 years, this particular organization, Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp, has come out with, I think, excellent help in trying to overcome that. Most of the deficits occurred during the last recession, and unfortunately, looking at this one, we are all kind of wondering. But in between those times, OSDIC has come out with some business practice manuals, which the boards of directors of each credit union must adhere to. Information must be presented annually as to how their credit union scores against that. I think that is one avenue that has really helped in looking after units that may not be as well managed as they could have been, be it recession or not.
Mr McLean: What is the makeup of the board, the different people, backgrounds? You are from the credit union.
Ms O'Connor: I work in a credit union.
Mr McLean: How many other people on the board would be involved directly?
Ms O'Connor: At the present time, I believe, before this last set of nominations, there were no representations from credit unions.
Mr McLean: What would be the background of the people? Lay people, professionals, legals?
Ms O'Connor: Professional, legal, accountants, from what I read from their annual reports, yes.
Mr McLean: It would certainly be nice to see someone from the area being involved. I would hope there would be more than one.
Ms O'Connor: I understand there are not, but nominated.
Mr Lessard: Ms O'Connor, I understand from looking at your résumé that you are the general manager of a credit union, and I would assume that you are a member as well?
Ms O'Connor: Oh yes.
Mr Lessard: How long have you been a credit union member?
Ms O'Connor: From the length of time when I became employed.
Mr Lessard: So not since 1975, then?
Ms O'Connor: No, in 1969 I became employed at the credit union. I was appointed general manager in 1975.
Mr Lessard: Has that always been with the same credit union?
Ms O'Connor: Yes.
Mr Lessard: Which credit union is that?
Ms O'Connor: The ASCU Community Credit Union.
Mr Lessard: So that continues to be the credit union in that community. Has it gone through any changes during that time, any amalgamations with respect to that credit union?
Ms O'Connor: Our particular credit union, which formerly was chartered for Algoma Steel Corp, amalgamated with the Mannesmann Tube Credit Union, which was a unit Algoma Steel purchased, and also with what was called the Weyerhauser Credit Union, a small wood manufacturing firm. Both of them were under a million dollars at amalgamation, so it was just the three of us. In 1980, we became a community credit union, but we have elected just to remain in the city of Sault Ste Marie for the fact that it takes capital and resources to expand, so we are doing fairly well. We have grown considerably just within the community itself.
Mr Lessard: Do you have a deficit now, or is the credit union doing all right?
Ms O'Connor: My particular credit union has never had a deficit. That is one of the policies. I would not be sitting here today if there ever was one, and I understand that and I believe in that.
Mr Lessard: How did these amalgamations come about? Was this an initiative from your membership, or was it encouraged through Credit Union Central or OSDIC?
Ms O'Connor: No. The two particular credit unions came to the conclusion that they were not going to be able to expand, and approached our board of directors for amalgamation.
Mr Lessard: Do you see that as a trend in the future for credit unions for more amalgamations? Do you think there should be fewer numbers of credit unions with larger asset bases?
Ms O'Connor: I see it as probably a very good method by which to remain competitive in the marketplace.
1030
Mr Lessard: Do you think your role with OSDIC would be to encourage that sort of thing happening? Do you see OSDIC playing a role in encouraging credit unions to amalgamate?
Ms O'Connor: Only if asked, I would suggest. I do not see that as OSDlC's mandate. I believe they can be approached from units that may be looking at areas, and if that were the case, then I would believe they would give the best information they could, which may be that in this day and age for a million-dollar credit union it is extremely difficult to offer the services that the consumer is asking for.
Mr Lessard: I am not sure about this; maybe you can help me out. If a small credit union wanted to change its bond of association to a community bond, and that gave it the ability to attract members from the community in addition to those people who may come from a certain company or group, would that be something that would have to have the approval of OSDIC?
Ms O'Connor: No, I believe it is the ministry. They probably confer with OSDIC to see the financial status of the unit, but the ministry, I believe, has the final say on charters.
Mr Lessard: They may ask you for advice on those sorts of things --
Ms O'Connor: They could.
Mr Lessard: -- and you would give an opinion as to whether you thought that a lot of small credit unions should have a community bond, and they would all be kind of chasing after the same potential clients. That is why I am asking you whether you would think that perhaps, in a case like that, you would try and encourage amalgamation rather than having a lot of people with community bonds.
Ms O'Connor: I would think if a unit had a good business plan then it might be advisable. But if they have not planned for five or 10 years down the road, then I tend to agree with you that you would try to assist them with other avenues.
Mr Lessard: In the act that governs the activities of OSDIC, it indicates that part of those duties is to act as an administrator of a credit union that runs into financial difficulties. Also one of the roles of OSDIC is to be the liquidator of a credit union in a case that it runs into difficulties. I know that in my own community those two purposes have sort of clashed, because once OSDIC ended up in the day-to-day running of a credit union, it appeared as though it was not doing the best job that the members thought it could, and they thought maybe it was trying to liquidate the place rather than to nurture it back to good health.
I guess the question that I am asking you is, do you think there is a problem in having those two competing purposes, and do you think there could be some changes to the act to make it easier for members to sort of take back their credit union after OSDIC moves in if they think it is not doing a job that is going to bring it back to good health?
Ms O'Connor: Not being completely familiar with how that is done, but in just general terms, I believe there is lots of opportunity for a unit to voice objections. As a board member, no doubt I would be hearing about it last, if you would, because it is day-to-day decision-making. I would look at it, if I became a board member, to see, but in my own mind, when a credit union is in difficulty and it comes to the limit that OSDIC is administering, the union has had quite a bit of opportunity to get out of that itself, usually. I have not ever been involved in that process, but I have heard from some of my colleagues in southern Ontario. They wonder about the process that was used by the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.
I would just hope that we could be encouraged to be working for the same goal, which is strong units to serve the consumer through the co-operative movement. So in answer, Mr Lessard, I would have to wait and see. There is lots of room, but I have heard the same comments you have and, if on there, I would investigate and try to get the information one way or another. At this moment it is all perception, to me, anyway.
Mr Lessard: You think that is an area you would be prepared to look at.
Ms O'Connor: Certainly.
Mr Lessard: And recommend changes if you thought that --
Ms O'Connor: If the complaints were valid.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, there are two minutes left.
Mr Silipo: Okay, very quickly then. It is actually following up on the last question Mr Lessard put. It seems to me that part of the problem in some cases, at least in terms of why some credit unions get into trouble, is perhaps the lack of very clear guidelines, particularly with respect to conflict of interest and situations of that nature involving the board members of the credit union. Is that an area in which the deposit corporation would be playing a role, in your view, or should be playing a more active role?
Ms O'Connor: It should not be a problem, it is very clear-cut. Whether it is adhered to may be the question. Watchdogging -- how many people do you have to have to continue to do that? Their sound business practices manual, if reviewed every year, is a very good watchdog, but it is up to individuals whether they are going to adhere to laws or not. It is hard to determine, but 99% do so.
Mr McGuinty: Ms O'Connor, I understand that losses resulting from fraud and dishonesty are relatively high in the caisses populaires and credit unions. I have a statistic here that, over the past four years, dishonesty and fraud were primarily responsible for 20% of the failed units by number, with over 43% of the losses in dollar terms. I do not know how that compares to banks and trust companies, but what steps do you think can be taken to reduce that?
Ms O'Connor: I guess one would be the role of hiring people who would be employed by the unions. In a high-growth time, many times you have individuals who may have been hired but do not have all of the proper qualifications. Dishonesty, and anything you read about risk management -- you can have all the rules in the world, but that dishonesty factor can come in.
I do not know how that compares to the banks and trusts. I would like to see that because I do know that it happens in other places. Probably because of the size of the units it is a little more disastrous for our size than, say, the Royal Bank. If they have four or five, it means probably nothing.
But how could we insure against that? I just think it is education of the people doing the hiring, be it the board of directors, general managers, CEOs, whoever are in that capacity to hire people. I know Credit Union Central of Ontario has a very good human resources area. They assist credit unions if they do not feel they have the expertise to hire. They will hire CEOs on down for them. If units would take advantage of some of the processes that are available, it would deter that from happening.
Mr McGuinty: The existing auditing system employed by the ministry, do you think that is adequate in terms of acting as a preventive measure against fraud and dishonesty internally?
Ms O'Connor: I think it would be. We are audited annually by our own. They are in our particular credit union twice a year because of our size. Again, one of the questions is how many people you are going to employ to insure against a risk that maybe is not all that prominent. At the present time it is probably adequate.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms O'Connor. That concludes the questions and answers. We appreciate your appearance before the committee this morning and wish you well.
1040
CAMERON BAILEY
The Chair: The next intended appointee is a selection of the third party, Cameron Bailey. Mr Bailey, would you like to come forward please and take a seat? Mr Bailey is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Film Development Corp. Mr Bailey, would you like to say a few words before we start the questions, or do you want to answer questions?
Mr Bailey: Actually, I would appreciate hearing from the committee what the questions are.
The Chair: All right, we will begin the questioning with Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Good morning, Mr Bailey. Were you approached for this appointment or did you apply for it, or how did this appointment come about?
Mr Bailey: I was approached by the ministry, and I understand that the OFDC itself also put forward my name. That is how it came about.
Mr McLean: Which ministry office?
Mr Bailey: Culture. Rina Fratacelli is the person who approached me.
Mr McLean: And did you get a phone call from them?
Mr Bailey: Yes.
Mr McLean: And who was the phone call from?
Mr Bailey: From Rina Fratacelli.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I see by your résumé that you have been involved in the industry for some time. Have you ever been to visit the Ontario Film Review Board, the facility where they show the films on screens?
Mr Bailey: No, I never have.
Mr McLean: I would think you find it rather interesting to see that.
A couple of the main points with regard to Canadian content. How do you believe that we could have more Canadian content in our films?
Mr Bailey: I feel the films that are being produced in Ontario right now have a tremendous amount of Canadian content. They are produced here by Canadians and they are Canadian films. So to me it is not a matter of getting more Canadian content in the films but perhaps making more Canadian films and having them reach Canadian audiences. That to me has been the difficult part, the distribution. So I would like to see that area increase. I would like to see Canadian audiences want to go out to a Canadian film on a Saturday night as opposed to the latest American film. I think there are certain ways that we can perhaps encourage Canadian audiences to, first of all, know about these films, know that they are out there, and second, want to see them.
Mr McLean: Do you know a lady by the name of Rita Deverell?
Mr Bailey: I just met her last week, as a matter of fact.
Mr McLean: How would you meet her?
Mr Bailey: I met her at a lunch meeting.
Mr McLean: By the ministry?
Mr Bailey: That is right.
Mr McLean: And did all the people from the board attend that?
Mr Bailey: People from which board?
Mr McLean: The Ontario Film Development Corp?
Mr Bailey: No, no. That was not a board meeting at all.
Mr McLean: I have some further questions but I will wait until later, Mr Chair.
Mr Silipo: Mr Bailey, in answer to one of the last questions, you were saying what we need to do with respect to the Canadian content issue is to look at ways in which we can encourage Canadians to see more Canadian films. What kinds of things, if any, do you think the Ontario Film Development Corp could be doing in the way in which it goes about either giving out grants or setting up any other kind of mechanism? What kinds of things can the corporation be doing and what kind of a role do you think you can be playing in that process?
Mr Bailey: As you may know, we are in a situation in the Canadian film industry where we basically have our hands tied behind our backs as far as distribution goes, because the exhibition chains are sort of in a locked relationship with the American studios. So it is very difficult as far as what can be legislated to change that.
What I think the OFDC can do is to provide more funds and more support to Canadian distributors to get Canadian films on to Canadian screens, to the extent that they can do that. As I have said, it is very difficult when, as you know, 97% of the screen time in Canadian theatres is occupied by American films. That is part of a kind of economic relationship that we have with the American studios, and that is very difficult to legislate against. Efforts have been made at the federal level for years, as you may know.
But I think there are a number of Canadian distributors working with small, low-budget Canadian films in Toronto and Ottawa and various other centres in the province. They should be encouraged on a number of levels, I think, to put more money into Canadian films because, as you know, the OFDC does not fund Canadian films without a distributor attached to that project. If the distributors have more money to put into those films, we get more films made, and they have more access to the screens. It is limited, but I think it can be increased. There is a lot that can be done there.
Mr Silipo: You have been involved in a number of different areas, among which one might sort of categorize some of the alternative kinds of productions. I do not know if that is a fair categorization; you can tell me if it is. What kinds of things do you think you can bring to the corporation based on that experience you have had?
Mr Bailey: I prefer to call them the independent sector, let's say. I have been very involved in that sector. I have been very supportive of independent films as a critic, as a programmer. I think what I can bring to the corporation is a broader sense perhaps of what an independent film is. The OFDC is mandated to support independent film making in the province, but I think what I can bring are different modes of independent film making, let's say, working in different sectors.
I have been very involved in boosting films by people of colour in the province. We are at an early stage as far as film production by that sector goes. I have tried to get involved in ways of bringing those people forward, getting them to make their first and second and third films.
I think what I can bring is certainly that knowledge and that experience in that part of the independent sector, but also I think I just have a passion for supporting independent film. I have done that in a lot of cases in the face of just indifference, you know, on the part of most mainstream critics, and audiences in some cases as well, so that is what I hope to bring to the board if I am selected.
Mr Bradley: I recognize that most of the material that the Ontario Film Development Corp would be involved in would be probably non-political, although sometimes there are political overtones or undertones in some of the productions. Is it your belief that any such political content should be a balanced reflection of the province of Ontario, or do you think it is too much of a confinement on the Ontario Film Development Corp if one were to suggest that there should be some balance instead of portraying one political viewpoint or another? I do not necessarily mean partisan, I mean philosophical.
Mr Bailey: I certainly do not think the OFDC should get involved in judging a project on its political line. I do not think it does that or ever has. Certainly the board would not be involved in that sort of judging of individual projects, but the OFDC does have a mandate as far as funding culturally relevant film projects, and that I think does mean reflecting a wide range of opinions, not one more than the other, but reflecting the diversity of Ontarians.
I would definitely not want the board or the OFDC as a body to get involved in selecting a variety of political viewpoints as far as projects to fund are concerned. I do not think that is their job. Their job is to fund film projects that are culturally relevant to the province.
Mr Bradley: There is a concern from time to time depending on what country you happen to be in. I suppose it happens in virtually any political jurisdiction that an organization such as this might be seen in certain countries to be promoting a right-wing point of view and in other countries a left-wing point of view, and in other countries it may not promote any particular point of view. In other words, the productions would be seen by some to be either one way or the other depending on what country you are in, or what individual jurisdiction. That is the context in which I ask the question: Do you think it is important that that not be the case in the province of Ontario?
1050
Mr Bailey: I would actually question that. I do not know if films made in Ontario are seen as either being right-wing or left-wing. I do not think the political element, if it is even there explicitly in a film, is the primary way that people judge films. I think that when you go to England, when you go to the United States, when you go to different countries and you ask them what they think of films made in Ontario, they will cite aesthetic qualities. They will say whether they like the film or not, whether it was successful, whether it engaged them or was interesting. I do not really feel that there is a sense out there that the OFDC within Ontario is producing films with a particular political point of view. I do not really see that as an issue for the OFDC because I do not think it has ever been an issue as far as what it funds and the films that are produced through that body.
Mr McGuinty: I do not have the information in front of me right now, but I recall looking at something which said that the number of American films being shot in Ontario has reduced for the past few years. Do you have any ideas that you might suggest in order to attract more American film shoots up here?
Mr Bailey: This is something that I would really have to look into a little bit more because I do not know all of the factors that an American studio uses to decide whether or not it will come here or go to New York or Cleveland or England. So I would like to learn more about that before I could comment fully. I do think, though, that certain factors that are almost beyond our control have gone into the decline. There is something known as location burnout, where they come to shoot in Toronto to make it look like New York, and you can only do that so many times before you begin to see the same alleyways over and over and over again.
Certain things like that we cannot control, but I do think that we already have quite a solid infrastructure going as far as encouraging American film investment. I know that the Toronto film liaison office in the OFDC makes regular trips to Los Angeles and New York to encourage investment here. I think we are doing a good job, but I just think there are a number of structural factors that we cannot really control at this point.
Mr McGuinty: I think from your previous answer to my colleague here I detected a healthy scepticism, a reluctance to become involved in anything political. Having said that, though -- it is a question I asked of the other person who appeared before us last week; Ms Deverell, I think it was -- in the context of our constitutional dilemma, does the OFDC have a role to play there in promoting Canadianism, if there is such a thing, or a Canadian perspective, or some projection of unity?
Mr Bailey: I think those are two different things that you just mentioned -- the Canadian perspective and unity. I think the OFDC is mandated to project a Canadian perspective in the films that it funds, and it has done that. Whether that means getting into promoting a particular point of view as to what a Canadian perspective is and which particular Canadian perspective it chooses to emphasize is something I would not want to see the board get into as far as promoting a particular line of what it means to be Canadian. I would like to see them reflect, as I think they have done for the most part, a diversity of points of view on being Canadian and how you can reflect that in a film.
I understand the significance of what is going on right now as far as the Canadian unity issue is concerned, but I do not think it is the place -- this is my own opinion -- for a body like the OFDC to get involved in pushing a particular line on that.
Mr McLean: Are you still a teaching master at York?
Mr Bailey: No, that was just a one-year appointment.
Mr McLean: What are you doing now?
Mr Bailey: I am a film critic for Now magazine and for a number of other publications. As well, I program films for the Festival of Festivals.
Mr McLean: Do you still enjoy doing the Saturday night movies?
Mr Bailey: Actually, that was also just a one-off thing. That was fun. Television is not my forte, but that was fun to do that one time.
Mr McLean: You have excellent credentials, and I think you are an excellent choice. I wish you luck.
Mr Bailey: Thank you.
Mr Lessard: Mr McGuinty had asked something about encouraging outside investments in Canadian films and encouraging American filmmakers to come to Canada. Is that part of the role of the OFDC?
Mr Bailey: It is. They are involved not only in supporting Canadian directors and writers, but in supporting the Canadian film industry, and that means technicians as well. So technicians need to work. They do not work only when a low-budget film is being produced, they need to work all year round, obviously. So part of that means a certain proportion of the films that are shot in the city will be funded from outside. They will be big Hollywood productions or European co-productions or something like that and that is just a part of maintaining a film industry in the province.
Mr Lessard: You said those productions have been decreasing.
Mr Bailey: Yes, slightly.
Mr Lessard: I am going to suggest to you -- and you can tell me whether you agree or disagree -- that maybe part of the reason that they are decreasing might have to do with the high Canadian dollar or the high interest rates that we have been experiencing in the past few years. Would you agree or disagree with that?
Mr Bailey: As I said, I really need to research more all of the different factors. Those may well be factors as well. I know there are a number of things that are going on as far as the decline goes. I do not know the full reason for it.
Mr Wiseman: One of the comments made by Carla Hills, who is the negotiator for the Americans in the free trade deal, is that she wants to see the opening up of film and the cultural sections of the free trade deal in these North American trade negotiations. Have you given any thought to positioning yourself or what position you would like to take with regard to that, because I see that as a very serious threat to Canadian cultural productions.
Mr Bailey: Well, it is ironic that she would say that because the Canadian film industry is obviously in bondage almost to the American industry at the moment. As I said, 90% of the screen time is occupied with American films. So I do not really feel they are at any disadvantage as far as access to our markets. I would hesitate to suggest that they increase that. It is almost perverse that that would be suggested, because I think there needs to be a much stronger Canadian control over the Canadian film industry. However that happens, I think that is what needs to happen.
Mr Wiseman: It sounds like you and she are going to have a difference of opinion.
Mr Bailey: It does sound like that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bailey. We wish you well.
Mr Bailey: Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks for appearing before the committee today.
This is a little bit unusual for me, but I did have a request, and I will convey it to the committee, that we give consideration to dealing with the appointment of -- I lost my piece of paper.
Mrs Haslam: Mr Chair, I agree. We are taking a break in the next week and I wondered if a motion would be in order that we deal with both of these interviewees now and make a decision now while we are all here.
The Chair: The motion will be in order if indeed we have unanimous consent to deal with it at this point. That is the only way we can do it. Do we have unanimous consent to consider the two intended appointees now rather than waiting until 29 May? Hearing no objections, we will consider motions on the floor on a separate basis.
Mrs Haslam: I move that we consider the intended appointment of Rosemary O'Connor and Cameron Bailey at this meeting.
The Chair: No, we do not need that. We will just have the concurrence.
Mrs Haslam: Oh, a motion to concur. I am sorry. I misunderstood.
The Chair: On an individual basis with each intended appointee.
Mrs Haslam: Thank you, Mr Chair. I misunderstood what you had anticipated.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam moves the appointment of Rosemary O'Connor to the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mrs Haslam moves the appointment of Cameron Bailey to the Ontario Film Development Corp.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Before we wrap up, I just want to remind members that this has provided a bit of relief, I guess. May 29 is a pretty full schedule. We are starting at 9 o'clock in the morning and hopefully we will get through.
Mrs Haslam: That is a change in our agenda, then?
The Chair: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee: All but two are confirmed, and I will have an agenda to you as soon as I hear from those two, probably today or tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 1100.