CONTENTS
Wednesday 16 October 1991
Appointments review
William Haskett
Michele Schlueter
Nancy Toran-Harbin
Rose Lynne Voyvodic
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)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Substitutions:
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L) for Mr Grandmaître
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP) for Mr Waters
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
WILLIAM HASKETT
The Chair: We will start the meeting with Mr William Haskett, who is an intended appointee as a panel member of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. This is a half-hour review, 10 minutes to each caucus to ask questions. Perhaps you would like to take a minute or two to make some brief comments before we start, or we can head right into questioning.
Mr Haskett: Right into the questioning is fine.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Haskett, first of all, could you tell us how you came to make an application for the position?
Mr Haskett: I believe I was recommended by the industry through possibly the Ontario Funeral Service Association or the Board of Funeral Services. I am not totally sure of that. I have been quite involved with the Western Ontario Funeral Service Association as well. When I was asked, I said I would be happy to sit on a committee.
Mr McGuinty: Right. Have you had any experience dealing with the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal?
Mr Haskett: No, not in the past.
Mr McGuinty: What would the extent of your knowledge be regarding the tribunal?
Mr Haskett: As you may or may not know, we have new legislation as of October so there are a lot of things that are new. I believe the tribunal is new as well. I did sit on a board of inquiry under the old legislation and I believe it was the first time the board had ever sat. As for the tribunal itself, I believe it is to hear appeals from the Board of Funeral Services and make a judgement on the decision of that committee.
Mr McGuinty: All right. You are going to be required as a member of the tribunal to, as I understand it, conduct a hearing, and you will have to hear evidence from witnesses and come up with a written decision. Undoubtedly you would have to -- and this is perfectly understandable -- deal with industries or professions with which you are not intimately familiar. Do you feel comfortable doing that?
Mr Haskett: Yes, I believe I do.
Mr McGuinty: Have you had any experience in the past relating to that kind of a fact-finding and decision-making body?
Mr Haskett: Other than the board of inquiry that I sat on for the Board of Funeral Services a year ago, nothing other than that.
Mr Offer: I have a few questions. You indicated that just this past October there has been new legislation dealing with funeral directors.
Mr Haskett: That is right.
Mr Offer: It would be my understanding that there may be matters before you, as a potential member of the CRAT, dealing with decisions under the new legislation. Is that correct?
Mr Haskett: That is right.
Mr Offer: I wonder if you might share with us whether you have made any representation to either a legislative body or to your association on a position under the new legislation? In other words, were you in favour of or opposed to the new legislation?
Mr Haskett: As the legislative committee of our Ontario Funeral Service Association presented it to us, there were things that came out in the legislation that our total association was not in favour of, and we have asked for changes to the legislation to bring about the changes we are asking for. But in total, I think the legislation is good for our industry.
Mr Offer: You do not find any difficulty in potentially being a member of CRAT and listening to matters under a piece of legislation, aspects of which you are opposed to?
Mr Haskett: No. I think the aspects are minor. There are things that possibly need minor changes to the wording, and really there will not be any problems with those issues.
Mr Offer: The reason for my question is, of course, that there may be matters you might be asked to decide upon, on the very issues of wording or whatever, basically the concerns that you previously brought forward and now are coming to you as a member of the appeal tribunal. I think it is important for us as a committee to recognize that a potential member of CRAT does have some difficulty with the legislation, a piece of legislation upon which that person might be asked to decide.
Thank you very much. I appreciate those responses.
Mr McLean: I really have no questions other than the fact that your industry, I see, has recommended you. I looked at your résumé and I think you would do an excellent job.
Mr Haskett: Thank you.
Mr Wiseman: There seems to be a lot of concern about the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act which comes before CRAT as well this year. Do you have any familiarity with that?
Mr Haskett: The new home warranty --
Mr Wiseman: The Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. There is a whole list of appeals to the tribunal that are authorized under 17 statutes. It seems like an awful lot. I am just curious as to how familiar you are with all of these and hence where do you go with this?
Mr Haskett: I have no familiarity with the new home warranties plan at all.
Mr Wiseman: I have a feeling you will be, because there are 189 cases before the Ontario new home warranties plan. You only hear funeral directors' appeals, is that correct?
Mr Haskett: That is my understanding, not new home warranties.
Mr Wiseman: I misunderstood. It is good to have you here to clear these things up. What is your background there then?
Mr Haskett: I have been licensed since 1971. Our firm has been established since 1882. I am fourth generation.
The Chair: That was pretty easy, Mr Haskett. We appreciate you taking the time to appear here today. I wish you well. Thank you very much.
Mr Haskett: Thank you.
MICHELE SCHLUETER
The Chair: The next intended appointee is Michele Schlueter. Welcome to the committee.
Mrs Schlueter: Thank you. After watching Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill all weekend, I do not think I am going to be nearly as exciting.
Mr Wiseman: We do not go in that direction either because we are targeting a different type of process.
Mrs Schlueter: I am pleased to hear that, Mr Wiseman.
The Chair: Mrs Schlueter is the intended appointee as vice-chair of the motor vehicles compensation fund. Again, she was selected for review by the committee by the official opposition.
1020
Mr McGuinty: Mrs Schlueter, in going over notes we were given to acquaint us with the Motor Vehicles Dealers' Compensation Fund Board of Trustees, we are told that a claim has to be filed within two years of a dealer's refusal or failure to pay. Is that period of time practical?
Mrs Schlueter: From the point view of of the board or from the point of the view of the claimant?
Mr McGuinty: From everybody's point of view. Why would a claimant not advance a claim prior to two years?
Mrs Schlueter: Why it takes that long? I am having trouble understanding.
Mr McGuinty: Well, there is limitation. If I put down a payment, I have two years to make that complaint. It would seem to me that if I am out a couple of thousand dollars or $500 I should move forward more quickly.
Mrs Schlueter: Yes. As an owner-manager, I am used to seeing things resolved fairly quickly when they land on your desk. Unfortunately the process does not work that way. This might help you a little bit. If I might beg the indulgence of the Chair, I have some samples of claims, how we receive them. It will give you an idea of the process involved. It does involve affidavits and things like that.
It takes two years, first of all, because the consumer probably does not know exactly how the process works. Obviously they first have to attempt to reconcile things with the motor vehicle dealer in question. There are very specific criteria for the fund. One is in a judgement from court. A dealer goes bankrupt and you have an undelivered vehicle and a deposit is at stake. I just think the process takes that long to make sure that all parties are being truthful.
As my industry's representative on the board, which is financed entirely by the motor vehicle dealers of this province, I have an obligation to the dealers to ascertain the validity and the extent of the claims. I think the process just takes that long. Some people do not come forward right away. Once a complaint has been lodged with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, they make a very good effort to try and contact the claimant. We have an administrator who prompts the claimant how to go through the process: what you fill out, what we need to make sure there is a quick resolution.
Mr McGuinty: With respect, I think you are missing my point. What the act allows is that a claimant has two years to file a complaint. In other words, two years are allowed to elapse. Memories fade, documents get lost, and it is sometimes difficult to determine what happened in a financial transaction. Why are we not saying, for instance, "Listen, if you're going to complain about not getting your deposit back, you have to do that within a year"? You said two years.
Mrs Schlueter: I had no idea that was under the legislation when the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was amended and the fund was conceived.
Mr McGuinty: The maximum amount the board can pay out for claims against any one dealer is $10,000. I am wondering if that is too low today, especially if you have a large dealer who goes bankrupt and a number of customers or clients have been in and put large deposits on many automobiles and that dealer goes under. Is $10,000 going to protect the consumer?
Mrs Schlueter: The representatives on the board from OADA, the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, and UCDAO, the Used Cars Dealers Association of Ontario, put forth a motion last March that we did not feel the ceiling was high enough. So on the initiative of the three car dealers on the board, in conjunction with our associations and the ministry people, that ceiling has been raised to $15,000. As for numerous vehicles, each claim would be treated individually, if you had more than one vehicle deposit. You would be really amazed how many people come in and put $10,000 deposit on a vehicle. I do not see them in my dealership, but they do do it.
Mr McGuinty: I understand the board meets four to six times a year. If I was a complainant, how long would it take for me to get my money after a complaint had been formally filed?
Mrs Schlueter: You can call directly to the administrator of the fund, Michele Mitchell, and depending on how quickly she gets the paperwork -- we meet every other month -- if all the paperwork is in order you could be on the agenda for the next meeting. We have had conference calls when we had a failure of Avis car rental up north, and Harley Davidson was another big one. We had lots of people named Snake wanting their bikes. Things like that happen, so you deal with it quickly, as a priority.
Mr McLean: As a dealer-owner or with your family, do you feel that curbsiders are hurting your business?
Mrs Schlueter: I think the government would feel they are hurting their existence. A lot of tax revenue is lost. There is no sales tax collected when curbsiders sell their vehicles, first of all. There is no recourse for consumers. If they buy a car from a curbsider they cannot go back under the repair act. There is no recourse whatsoever if that car falls apart, if it is misrepresented, if it has been put back together or if it has been in a derby.
Mr McLean: The definition of a curbsider is?
Mrs Schlueter: An unregistered motor vehicle dealer or a person acting as a motor vehicle dealer without formal registration.
Mr McLean: The other aspect is a private individual wanting to sell his or her car. Do you have any problem with that?
Mrs Schlueter: Absolutely not. Everyone has done that and the difference is that you are doing it once every few years privately, you are not doing it eight times a month to make a living and turning cars over.
Mr McLean: Once you are appointed the vice-chair of the board is it your goal to curb curbsiders?
Mrs Schlueter: That is already the very active goal of your very aggressive registrar, who works very closely with the registered motor vehicle dealers and has a special project going.
The other thing I might add, Mr McLean, is that there is no recourse for people through the motor vehicle compensation fund if they buy from a curbsider. This is only for registered motor vehicle dealers who have paid into the fund. They cannot claim, they cannot get their money back. I reiterate that there is absolutely no recourse for the consumer out there and it goes on all the time.
Mr Wiseman: Mr McLean asked some questions I was going to ask. I would like to go back. As a vice-chair, what exactly will be your responsibilities? Do you know?
Mrs Schlueter: I am vice-chair of our association's government relations committee; I am past president of our local motor vehicle dealers' association; it is like Dan Quayle, you really do not have to do anything when you have a strong chair. We have a very strong chair.
Mr Wiseman: I do not think you would want to compare yourself to Dan Quayle.
Mrs Schlueter: Not in a million years, sir. I do not mean to be flip, I am simply saying we have an extremely strong chair who takes his position very seriously and has never missed a meeting. I know that because I have never missed a meeting. We obviously provide backup to that chair; we have good strong government support from the consumer ministry; the agendas are sent to us early enough to do research on it and do all kinds of things. I really feel I have the functional expertise to step very confidently into a general advisory capacity. I can look at both sides of the car deal.
Mr Wiseman: I was just flipping through these, and of course I have not had time to read them in depth, but could you walk through the process with us so we have an understanding. For example, let's say I go to a dealership, I buy a new car, the engine blows out of it and the next day the car dealership declares bankruptcy.
The Chair: Mrs Schlueter, before you get into that, Mr Wiseman has made a request with respect to this material you have circulated. Following the completion of this I would rather that we return these to you.
1030
Mrs Schlueter: Oh, absolutely.
The Chair: I cannot get into specific names that have been placed on the record.
Mrs Schlueter: These have all been resolved, sir. There are none that are pending.
The Chair: In any event it could create some difficulty, so I prefer that you did not refer to any specific individual.
Mrs Schlueter: No. The consumer makes a claim and it starts at the dealership level. Unfortunately this is not a resolution to complaints versus people saying things like, "My repair wasn't done; I'm in for the third time." Five specific criteria have to be met before they can make a claim. If I might, I would like to refer to my notes. I am not as adept as you people are at thinking on my feet.
These are very specific: a final judgement against a motor vehicle dealer that has lapsed and has been unpaid for 90 days, a dealer who has declared bankruptcy, a payment for an extended warranty or service plan that has not expired but where the dealer is bankrupt, a transaction --
Mr Wiseman: Would that have applied to the international warranty?
Mrs Schlueter: Yes. We would take the balance of that, the unearned premiums, and make some resolution. It happened in the Avis claim. When Avis collapsed up north numerous people had purchased vehicles and extended warranties, and the warranty company at that point stepped up to its obligations. You were going in to buy an extended warranty for a vehicle and the dealer was not sending it in to the insurance company. That was not the warranter's fault. The dealer was at fault there. He stepped up right away and there were three options made available: People could get their money back if no claims had been made, they could take a financial settlement right then and there, or he accepted responsibility for the warranty.
Mr Wiseman: Where does the money come from that is paid out under that circumstance?
Mrs Schlueter: Under the fund every cent of it is funded entirely by the motor vehicle dealers of this province.
Mr Wiseman: So there would not be any tax dollars involved?
Mrs Schlueter: None whatsoever.
Mr Wiseman: What happens if a claim is so massive -- I see you can only have a maximum amount for $10,000 against any one dealer.
Mrs Schlueter: The ceiling is $15,000 per claim. That was just recently raised and passed.
Mr Wiseman: Against the dealer?
Mrs Schlueter: Against the fund. The fund is now paying. The dealer has to be bankrupt, so the consumers have no recourse; they cannot go anywhere and get their money back. The manufacturers do not step up to it because we do not have franchise laws in this province. The dealers are absolutely on their own. Perhaps similar to your profession, there are misconceptions about my profession as being shifty, corrupt car dealers. We are trying to do everything we can to alleviate that. There are professional automobile dealers in this province. We are trying to aim towards a self-regulatory board where we can regulate ourselves.
Mr Marchese: I have a general question. I know very little about what you do in spite of what I am hearing. What kinds of frustrations do you experience as a board member? What kinds of challenges, problems and difficulties do you confront on a daily basis or whenever it is that you get together to deal with these matters?
Mrs Schlueter: I have to be really honest and say we do not have that kind of frustration. That is experienced at the ministry level and they are doing a wonderful job. They get the information compiled for us, there are people who search out the complaints and make sure the affidavits are there and those kinds of things. We experience some frustrations when we do not feel it is fair that the board pays out. It does not happen often because, as I say, there are very specific criteria. We only have to go to this mission statement and it is very easy to make a decision: "It falls into that category." I wish all my decisions in a day were this cut and dried.
Sometimes we will reduce the claim if we feel there has been a little bit -- I am there to try to ascertain the validity of the claims. I guess the frustration would be with my own industry, the fact that these dealers are making it so bad for those of us who are trying to do a good job. The way the industry is now it is in an abysmal state. We are suffering. Profits are down 50% across the board. We do not need these hassles with dealers going bankrupt and taking liquid amounts in dollars from consumers. It does not do anybody any good at all.
I come from a small town. My business thrives on repeat business. I need to see the person who bought the car in my showroom. I need to see people in my service department and parts department.
Ms Carter: To get back to the point Mr McLean raised about private dealers, the co-signers and so on, do you see any way in which anything can be done about that?
Mrs Schlueter: Absolutely. Some of the blame has to be accepted by the automobile dealer as far as whom they wholesale the vehicles to is concerned. That is an education process which my association is working very hard to do. With respect to educating the public, local dealer associations such as mine -- we are non-profit, so there are obviously dues, aside from golf tournaments and things -- we spend the money on advertisements in the paper and in our dealerships promoting the reasons and the benefits to the consumer of buying from a franchised automobile dealer. It is an education process and it has to start at that level.
It is a catch-22. The consumer cannot complain to the ministry because nine times out of 10 chances are they have not paid any sales tax, so they have committed a fraud on some level. It is a vicious circle. They cannot complain. You do not know what is going on. How do you clamp down unless somebody complains?
Ms Carter: So you would say, "Buy from the guy next door that you know, but not from" --
Mrs Schlueter: I would say, "Buy from your franchised car dealer." Even if you know the person you bought the car from, there is still no recourse for you. They do not fall under any kind of legislation, at least as specifically as the automobile dealers. But it is definitely a problem and we are aware of it, as your ministry is.
Mr Hayes: Mrs Schlueter, would you deal with cases -- I know you would not deal with a case if it were from your own dealership, for example.
Mrs Schlueter: I would hope I would never be there. I am not going bankrupt.
Mr Hayes: That is good. What about dealing with another dealership that is sponsored by the same corporation as the cars you sell? Would that be a conflict?
Mrs Schlueter: Absolutely not. No, that is not a problem. I would think, as yourself, you have had to oppose pieces of legislation that have been proposed, but once it becomes law, there is no choice. There is a difference between opposing proposed legislation and compliance with law.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Schlueter. We appreciate you appearing here today and we wish you well.
NANCY TORAN-HARBIN
The Chair: The next witness is Nancy Toran-Harbin, an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Film Review Board. She was selected for review by the government party. Welcome to the committee. Would you like to make a brief statement before we begin, or shall we get right into questions?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: No, I do not really have any statement.
Mr Wiseman: I do not envy you coming to the film review board at this time when there is so much controversy about the board allowing certain films to be shown and then the police going out and confiscating them. Do you have any comments on that now, or what you would like to see happen before you make any decisions on that process?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Not really. I think individual members of the board can only use their own consciences in viewing something, and, I suppose, their own views of what they believe community standards are. If it is a matter that films are being approved and then subsequently being taken off the market by the police and being prosecuted in court, then I would suggest the community standards are not being adhered to. A very clear evidence of that is if there is a conviction. If that is the type of thing that is going on, it gives the review committee a chance to stand back and have a look at what the community standards are. Perhaps they are not meeting those standards.
1040
Mr Wiseman: This raises an interesting question about which group is to reflect community standards.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: This is true, because you are ending up with either having a board stating what it believes the community standards are or having a judge stating what he believes the community standards are. I do not believe it is a perfect process, but I think it is a matter of everyone trying to do the best they can under the circumstances.
Mr Wiseman: The next question is censorship. Do you have a definition of censorship and how you think it might apply to what you will be doing?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Censorship means different things to different people. I think in every society you have certain things which some people would call censorship and other people would say there is a freedom of art or whatever. I think it really comes down to a balance of what can be harmful to a society or members of that society and what is an art form. I think each individual film is to be judged on its own merits, and I do not view something that would be harmful to a particular group, for example, children, to be viewed as censorship.
I think it really comes down to, as I say, a balance between interest groups, one being a society and any groups belonging to that society, and one being whoever is propagating or behind films or any particular art form. I have some experience in artistic areas. I studied opera but went into law instead of going to Milan to continue my opera studies so I think I have a sensitivity to art. On the other hand, I am also a mother and I have great sensitivity to children. And of course I have sensitivity to women's issues. I really think there is a balance. I believe it is a matter of trying to find that balance as opposed to being strictly on one side or another.
Ms Carter: Could I just probe a little further on the same kind of issue? I think there is a distinction between films that are made specifically to be titillating and so on and ones that have what you might call a higher motive; yet the ones with the higher motive might actually have more explicit material in them. I remember there were problems over Not a Love Story, which I believe was specifically made to be a kind of counterbalance to pornography, to show what it was really doing, yet it had pornographic episodes itself. Of course, as you said, you get things that are art that are also pornographic or borderline, such as maybe Sons and Lovers by D. H. Lawrence. And there was a hooha decades ago about Lady Chatterley's Lover. How would you draw the line on that kind of situation?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I am not meaning to be evasive but I think each individual thing needs to be looked at on its own merits. Something like Lady Chatterley's Lover seems very mild to us right now, just a fairly standard piece of literature. I remember taking this case in civil liberties at law school, and at the time, it was considered to be quite offensive. Perhaps at that time it was offensive, if you consider that women were wearing skirts down to their ankles. It was considered offensive to see people's ankles. I think each culture and so on has its own standards at a particular time. I do not think Lady Chatterley's Lover is something I would have a problem with. In fact, I am sure I would not.
Something that is a hard-core pornography film or something that is exploiting women or children I have tremendous problems with. I think most films, those I have seen anyway, fall somewhere in between those ranges.
Mr Marchese: I have a question. By the way, I do not envy the position you are getting into because there are many questions that will not be easily dealt with. I want to raise one with you. In September 1990, the board made a policy decision that it would no longer reject for viewing motion pictures and videos containing scenes of explicit sexual activity between consenting adults. However, the police forces around the province continue to charge movie house and video store owners for respectively showing or selling films which fall into this category.
How do we deal with this problem of who determines the community standards? If the board has decided this, the police then say, "We are judging this to be a problem," and then they charge people with showing this kind of film. Who determines the community standards? How do we determine them? Is it the board? Is it the police? What is your opinion on how we solve this problem?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I think the only way it can be solved is by working together. The example given by Mr Wiseman clearly shows there is a conflict. Please correct me, because I may be ignorant of this, but my understanding is that certain indecent acts and so on are still covered under the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, we have conflicting legislation between the federal government and policy being set by a provincial agency.
I do not think it is bad that you have two groups. They are counterbalancing each other and I really believe that having one group as a final say-so could possibly be dangerous. As you know, people on boards change their opinions, they are reflecting their own personal opinions. They experience what they have within their own communities and possibly their own backgrounds as well. I think having the police and the courts involved, as well as a film review board, provides some checks and balances.
This policy statement, which was made about sexually explicit acts, is so broad a definition and perhaps had certain things in mind and not other things. You can have all kinds of things going on between consenting adults which may be offensive to community standards, and you have other acts which may be carried on in film with consenting adults which are not in conflict with community standards.
It is such a very broad area that, as I say, I think each individual film needs to be looked at on its own merits. It certainly is showing a conflict between what the police and perhaps the courts are deciding and the policy being carried out by the Ontario Film Review Board. But having a program of checks and balances is really only to the public's benefit rather than against it.
Mr Marchese: Can I ask you, because it is interconnected -- the board is required to refer to community standards when deciding how to classify -- what is your sense of how we define community standards?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: That is a very difficult question.
The Chair: It is also your last one.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I think community standards come from what a community is willing to accept or not accept, and it is getting a feeling of that rather than having an absolute. I am getting a feeling in the community that I have been dealing with, for example -- and I am dealing quite a bit with young mothers and have been for a number of years -- that they are concerned not so much at this point with sexual content in films as with graphic violence and how it affects their children. Often they find that when they look to a film and see what kind of review it is given, they are just not getting proper guidance as to what is going on in that film from the rating. The community standard, the feeling I am getting right now, is more a concern about violence than sexuality in films, particularly as it relates to children.
1050
Mr Offer: Legislative research has provided some information and Mr Marchese referred to a September 1990 decision of the board where it made a policy decision that it would no longer reject for viewing motion pictures and videos containing scenes of explicit sexual activity between consenting adults. You spoke in your last response primarily about parents not getting what you felt was proper guidance in the selection of movies through the classification system. My question is, do you agree with the policy decision that the board made in September 1990?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I think it is too broad.
Mr Offer: Okay. Your résumé states that you were a former member of CCAVE, Canadians Concerned About Violent Entertainment. I think we all share that concern. Is this association specifically and only involved in the violent entertainment area, or is it broader in scope?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I have not been involved with the association for some time. I was on the board of directors and was trying to help it to get charity status, and that type of thing having to do with my legal background. At the time that I was involved with it, and I still am familiar with people who are involved with it, it was my understanding it was restricted to violence and not other areas.
Mr McGuinty: What would you do to ensure that you bring your community standards to bear on the kinds of decisions you would have to make? You said something at the outset; you made reference to how you felt it was important that to some extent this was a matter of your own conscience. My concern is what you would do or what efforts you would make to ensure that you brought your community's interests and community's standards to bear, and those may very well be in conflict at times with what you feel personally. What would you do about that?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I think, a matter of one's own conscience is something that perhaps you cannot get aside 100%, because I believe these are the types of things that can slant a person's views. But with the training that I have, I may find something -- for example, I will use violence as an issue -- which I would personally not take my child to, but that does not mean that because I would not take my child to it, that is the standard I would be using. It is a matter of adopting a certain standard and carrying it forward, which any adjudicator ought to be able to do and is hopefully able to do. You cannot just go in with your own personal views. I think my legal training is something that would be very helpful in that way.
Mr McGuinty: You do not see yourself, for instance, as an advocate there for young mothers?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: No.
Mr McGuinty: You understand you would be an adjudicator and you would be accountable to the community at large.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Absolutely.
Mr McGuinty: The Criminal Code talks about obscenity and the review board talks about community standards. What may have been obscene under the code 10 years ago may fall within acceptable community standards today. The board has been, as I understand it, very critical of police decisions to lay charges in cases where it has found certain material to be acceptable according to present community standards. What would your position be? Are you in agreement with the board's position that the police should not be laying these charges if they found material to be acceptable according to modern-day community standards?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: No, I am not. I think in the code definition, as it was when I had studied it, obscenity also came down to community standards, and I suppose it is a basic disagreement on what the community standards are. I think having a check and balance is very important. It is important in government and important in just about anything. I can see that members of the board would not be too happy that they had approved something which the police then lay charges against.
Mr McGuinty: I mean, why are you there? Who is calling the shots here on community standards? You are members of the community, and it would seem to me that you, rightfully, should have the final say on what is acceptable, not a judge.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: It is different legislation, though. It is something where the provincial arena and the federal arena are crossing over. Both are for the idea of protection of the society and for the taste of the society or whatever. In terms of determining what is a community standard, if something is going to court, for example, I would say it would be a strong argument that something did fall within community standards that a community-approved board had reviewed the material and found it to be acceptable. I think that is something a judge should give tremendous weight to. But in terms of a final say, just being very realistic about it, if we have federal legislation which may be in conflict -- and really it comes down to opinions of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for community standards -- theoretically there is always the possibility that there will be conflict in those areas. I do not see how you can get around it.
I am not saying that it is the best thing, for example, for a film review board to make a decision and have that decision just arbitrarily overturned by a judge who may not have the background, who may not have reflected on the material in nearly as exhaustive a way as a film review board did. But on the other hand, it is a check and balance, and as long as we have that federal legislation there, it is something we are going to have to deal with.
I would also suggest that in the event that the courts are finding certain materials obscene, say, or offensive, or certainly going against the federal act, it may be time for the film review board to see whether its definitions are a little too broad, or perhaps it has not been making the right decisions on things it has been looking at. Perhaps they have been making the right decisions. Although I can see that there is an area of conflict, I think in the final analysis it is preferable not to have just one group that makes the final decision.
Mr McGuinty: You talk about a check and balance system. I think, with respect, that wording is not accurate, because check and balance implies that each body could act to counter the other's thrust. The dynamics of this particular situation provide that when the review board makes a decision, that could still be effectively overruled by a judge if there is a criminal conviction. If I were sitting on that board, I would wonder about my authority being undermined or usurped. How can we resolve this? We have the Criminal Code on one hand saying something is wrong and our community members saying something is right, and effectively the code is going to have the final say, because I cannot see a store owner going ahead and putting stuff on the shelf when he or she will end up being charged criminally.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Unless the legislation is going to be changed, which may be an answer; or instead of having, for example, at the federal level one judge having a look at this, perhaps the federal government should also have some kind of committee. Maybe there needs to be a review of this type of thing. I think at this point it might be appropriate, in dealing with what we have to deal with today, that a type of disposition be given for store owners who might be carrying things which would later be found to be obscene or unacceptable, because certainly store owners need to be able to rely upon the decision of the film review board in terms of their own liability.
1100
Mr McGuinty: Just one final question. I gather then it is acceptable to you that judges have the final say in terms of what we can see, rather than the Ontario Film Review Board?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I do not think it is ideal. Frankly, it is not something I had really considered until this morning. However, it is a matter that if it is not acceptable, then steps need to be taken to try to change it. But at this moment it seems to be the way things are. They may not be ideal. I am not suggesting this is ideal, because I cannot see, frankly, that one judge who just happens to be assigned to a particular case would necessarily be a better person to judge a community standard than a film review board which has had some training, hopefully has spoken with people in its community and has a feeling for its community.
I would also hope that a judge, in terms of judging community standards, as you said just previously, would not be saying, "Well, this is my own opinion," but rather would be looking at the opinion of the board, which purportedly reflects community standards, and would be giving tremendous weight to that. It would not just be a matter of his own opinion. But having one person who can just veto everything, I do not see that as an ideal solution either.
Mr McLean: Have you had the opportunity to sit in the theatre of the film review board to view any of the clips they have?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: No, I have not.
Mr McLean: I am here to tell you it will be one of the biggest surprises of your life. Several years ago, a committee of this Legislature was dealing with that board and we did go to the theatre. It is certainly an eye-opener of what is going on in some of the movie promotions. Do you believe the rules should be tightened with regard to violence in movies, where we would show less violence?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: I think violence can be harmful particularly to children.
Mr McLean: I agree with you, but the point is there are a lot of people out there who are of the opinion that you have no right to tell me what I should be able to see in my home. Therefore, the producers, they feel, have the right to produce what people would like to see, and in doing so, those films get into the hands of the video stores and anybody can rent them. How do you plan on handling that type of situation?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Just as I say, looking at each individual film on its own merits, particularly with a view to rating, hopefully to try to give some guidance to parents. Depending upon the kind of violence that is involved, it may not be something that is acceptable, whether it is saleable or not.
Mr McLean: I think every member of this committee would really do well to attend one of those film reviews. I came away from there sick.
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Really?
Mr McLean: You just cannot believe what is being shown.
Mr Wiseman: Mr McLean, it is hard enough for us to get volunteers now. Let's not turn them off before they get there.
Mr McLean: She has a big job to do. I am telling you, it is going to be difficult. The other question I have is, do you believe the problems of crime in society today have been increased due to what we are seeing on the screen?
Mrs Toran-Harbin: Yes, I do.
Mr McLean: You plan on tightening that up, I hope. You do not have to answer that. You have a big job to do and it is tough. I wish you all success. It is a big area to cover and I hope you do tighten it up a lot.
The Chair: Thank you very much Mrs Toran-Harbin for appearing here today. We appreciate it. We wish you well.
ROSE LYNNE VOYVODIC
The Chair: Our last witness today is Mrs Rose Lynne Voyvodic, who is an intended appointee at the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues. Mrs Voyvodic was selected for review by the government party. Mrs Carter, can you start the questioning?
Ms Carter: This is a fairly general philosophical-type question. I can see you have been involved in all kinds of issues. Now, the most obvious function of this group, the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues, is to make sure that women achieve equality with men in every respect. Does that seem to you to be the real ultimate objective? Or do you think that maybe in some ways women are better as they are and that by giving women more of a say we need somehow to achieve adjustments in society rather than just equalling men?
The obvious example that comes to mind is women who want to be members of the armed forces just as men have always been. Maybe that is not a good example, because there are some individuals of either sex who like that kind of thing and others who do not. But can you speak on that kind of issue?
Ms Voyvodic: If I understand your question correctly, you are asking me whether equality is an appropriate objective or --
Ms Carter: Well, in other words, as it were, leaving society just as it is. It is a trick question.
Ms Voyvodic: I think the reason for the advisory council's existence is to consult with, or to be available to advise on, issues affecting women. Certainly, among those issues are examples of what may be called inequality in women's daily lives. In that respect, I believe this is an appropriate goal if the committee is broadly based, available to consult widely in the community and bring to the council the kinds of concerns that are being heard throughout the province. I guess that would have to be where the council would take its information, if that is what women are saying or if that is what the groups they are consulting with are saying: that they would like a particular issue brought to the attention of government, and that is what it would do.
Ms Carter: So you see it more as a kind of channel for needs and requests that are coming up from the grass roots level.
Ms Voyvodic: I guess so. That is one definition of an advisory body. I think there probably is room to advise as well as simply report, and that would be my understanding of the function of such a council.
Mr Hayes: The council proposed that the government impose a 25% sales tax on pornographic magazines, films and videos and use the revenue to pay for counselling services and child care programs in rape crisis centres. Did you agree with that proposal? Maybe you could elaborate because the council argues that there is a link between portrayal of women as sex objects and violence against women. They feel the sex industry should actually fund these types of things that are aimed at women who suffer from abuse, whether it be 25%, 15% or whatever. Do you agree with that? Maybe you could elaborate on it.
Ms Voyvodic: This is actually the first I have heard of such a tax. I perhaps have not done the research that I should have into that issue. On the face of it, I think it is something well supported by the research, in that there is a correlation between the portrayal of any group in society and victimization or exploitation of that group, be it women, children, racial minorities or whatever. I would have to really think about the tax issue. It is not something that I have ever really thought of with respect to this particular problem. I am familiar with the concept in the environmental sphere and other areas, of imposing an economic sanction on those who in some way affect society, but in this particular case I would have to say quite candidly that it is something I am just not comfortable responding to.
1110
Mr Hayes: It is something though that you may support in principle.
Ms Voyvodic: Yes, I am intrigued by the idea.
Mr Marchese: I would like to ask you why you would like to be a member of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues, and if you could, in your answer, include a vision that you might have for your own desire to be there, some of the objectives, some of the challenges or frustrations.
Ms Voyvodic: As the committee may be aware, this is a very brief appointment. The advisory council has basically a mandate till December 31 to consult with women throughout the province. Though the vision that I have is, shall we say, somewhat more of a snapshot than a full-blown vision, when there is a time line like that placed on anything, one has to be very realistic and accept that the consultation one is engaged in will have to be fairly clearly and sharply focused on the goal at hand.
I think the goal is to present to government a plan for the future of the advisory council. That is something I find very interesting personally. I have been involved somewhat, I have certainly been informed by the research of the advisory council over the years in its various manifestations. The idea of an arm's-length sort of body which advises government is I think a very good model for advisory councils generally, but particularly when it comes to women's issues.
When you ask what is my motivation or why I would like to become involved in it, there are so many things at this particular moment that are critical to the wellbeing of people in Ontario generally, but I would suggest particularly women and children; and I am thinking of things as widely ranging as social assistance review which, as you all know, concerns those groups in particular as well as the whole of society, and other issues which have to do with mental health, which have to do with housing.
There are so many things that have great impact on women. When a government is charged with policy-making, law-making, etc, to have a body that is a sort of specialist in one area is a very good thing. I am familiar with some of the members of council, who I do consider to be experts in this area and very well informed in many issues touching on women's rights. I am somewhat humbled by that.
I do not want to cast myself as an expert at all, but I think I have had an opportunity particularly in teaching feminist legal theory in the faculty of law at the University of Windsor. I have had an opportunity to do some thinking about some of these issues. In my work as a lawyer in private practice and in a legal clinic, currently I am dealing with a lot of issues that are perhaps more practical and day to day. I have looked at the theory and I am looking at the reality, and I think those experiences have helped me and have made me want to get involved in this way.
Mr Frankford: A broad question: Are other agencies doing the same sort of thing, and where does it fit into the general scheme of things?
Ms Voyvodic: I am not sure this is actually considered an agency, as an advisory council. I do not know the terminology, but I have to say I believe it is unique. Again, I do not really have the benefit of having done a lot of research in other areas of government policy-making, but I know how it differs from the federal Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and some of the provincial councils. I think its track record has been fairly good in the sense that there have been many policy papers and other materials that have been brought to the attention of government, and therefore to the people, touching on these issues. As for how it compares, I would have to suggest that it has a pretty good track record.
Mr Offer: On your résumé, it refers to present employment as Legal Assistance of Windsor. I am wondering if you might want to share with me what that is?
Ms Voyvodic: It is a legal clinic funded by the Ontario legal aid plan and sponsored by the University of Windsor faculty of law. It is a clinic where students from the university spend a semester receiving credit toward their law degree.
Mr Offer: It is stated that the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues advises government on issues pertaining to the achievement of economic, social and legal equality for women. You are from the southwestern part of the province and I wonder if you feel that there are particular issues unique to that geographic area which you might want to share with the council as a member.
Ms Voyvodic: If I had to pinpoint something specific in answer to your question, I think it would have to be in that area of unemployment, underemployment, day care -- all of the things that revolve around where women work, whether in a city, in a factory or on a farm. Windsor has been affected fairly severely by plant closures and by other examples of the downturn in the economy. Women have been displaced not only as workers, but in many cases as second wage earners within struggling families. These matters will become clearer after the consultations that go on next week in Windsor in which unemployment-related issues may be raised.
Another issue is that of day care, both in urban and rural settings. Windsor is part of Essex county, which has a large farm population. There are other counties -- Kent and Lambton in the southwest -- where there are active women farmers who have brought concerns related to day care, related to safety, those types of things, to the attention of various groups, including the agricultural groups and so on.
Particularly acute in Windsor and in the southwest right now are issues related to the environment, which might not seem like a gender-related issue. But many women's groups have targeted this as one of their areas for involvement.
Violence against women is not limited to any geographical area, but in the Windsor area there have been some needs that have been identified which cannot be met. I am talking here about providing services to victims of violence outside the actual municipality of Windsor.
Mr Offer: Certainly the council has provided advice to the government in a variety of areas in the past. I wonder if you have any thoughts as to what some of the issues might be in the future. I know we can all go through some of the recommendations in the past and ask where you stand on those particular points, but I think we all recognize that as time passes, so do the issues, and some of the sensitive areas change; we do not deal with snapshots in time. I think it would be helpful to the committee, certainly to myself, if you would share any new areas that the council, in your opinion, should be involved in that maybe it has not yet been involved in.
1120
Ms Voyvodic: As I mentioned earlier, the council right now is in a period where consultation is really its key focus, looking at exactly the question you have asked, what the people of Ontario think about that. The questions being posed in the consultations that are going on right now are: Where does the council fit into people's lives? How do they want the government to respond to these kinds of concerns? and so on.
I could give you my personal agenda for what I think should be done in the sphere of women's issues. I hesitate to do that without really having an opportunity to be involved in the consultation in the southwest next week. I suspect that is going to look at issues as widely ranging as health -- many variations within that topic, from senior women or health for the aged population, mental health issues, child-related, midwifery; I just read in the Globe this morning that there is some movement in that area. There are lots of things the council has done research on in the area of mental health in particular, and so on. In the area of family law, there has been consultation done on support, the enforcement of support orders, access. Those kinds of things are continuing to be issues, and as the consultation goes on, I am sure it will be much clearer in my mind what exactly should be the future agenda. I do not really feel at this moment I can do anything more than guess.
Mr Offer: If I might ask just one more question, I think we are all aware of the very good work that has been done by the council in the past and that we certainly know will continue in the future. I indicated that the stated mandate of the council is to deal with issues pertaining to economic, social and legal equality for women. Do you feel there is work that can be done by the council in reaching out to the women of the province, for which the council has the stated mandate to advise upon? In your opinion -- I cannot say this any other way -- do women in the province feel this council is someplace they can input into, that they can share with, that they recognize what the role is and the work that has been done in the past, and whether there is room for improvement in this area?
Ms Voyvodic: I do not think it is being critical to say there is room for improvement. Any time a group is representative, or supposedly representative, it has to conduct very wide outreach in all areas of the province. I am not sure if you are familiar with these consultations I have spoken about that are going on. I understand they started in the spring and have gone throughout the province and are going on right now. Literature has been provided to the communities; footwork has been done beforehand identifying who the target populations are, trying to get some outreach done within the community to solicit attendance by all kinds of women. I know that in Windsor, from what I have heard in the various groups I am involved with, there has been a huge response to this initiative, and I think that speaks well to this idea you are talking about: outreach.
It may be that the work being done is extremely valuable, but if it is not available to the people it involves or should involve, it may be a rarefied exercise and not really accessible or useful to many people. The whole notion of consultation and outreach is one that I think is really vital.
The Chair: There is time for one quick question, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: I have no question, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr McLean indicated to me before he departed that he had no questions and wished you well with your new responsibilities, Ms Voyvodic. Thank you very much for appearing.
The final matter on our agenda is the determination of whether we concur with the intended appointments we have reviewed today. We can deal with these individually or as a bloc or, if any member requests a delay, we can deal with it next week. How does the committee wish to proceed?
Interjection: As a bloc.
The Chair: Mr Marchese moves that the committee concur with the intended appointees reviewed today.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That concludes the agenda for today. I want to remind the members of the subcommittee that we are going to have a brief meeting following this meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1126.