CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 May 1992
Appointments review
Beverley E. Wexler
Howard Restoule
James Robert Pettit
Trent Gow
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Waters
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Marchese
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
BEVERLEY E. WEXLER
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Our first witness this morning is Beverley Wexler, who is an intended appointee as alternate chair of the Review Board of Psychiatric Facilities. Ms Wexler, welcome to the committee. This is a half-hour review, and we'll begin the review with the third party. Mr McLean.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): How long have you been on the board?
Ms Beverley E. Wexler: Four years.
Mr McLean: And you're going to be reappointed?
Ms Wexler: I have been reappointed.
Mr McLean: You have been? When?
Ms Wexler: Last year.
Mr McLean: For how long?
Ms Wexler: I can't recall. I believe it is a two-year reappointment.
Mr McLean: Why are you here today, then?
Ms Wexler: I have been recommended to become an alternate chair. I'm not sure why I'm here today, to be frank.
Mr McLean: If you were appointed for two years, I was wondering why --
Ms Wexler: It requires a special designation to become a chair, so I suppose this has instigated a review process.
Mr McLean: I read somewhere that you attended meetings in Toronto.
Ms Wexler: Yes.
Mr McLean: Do the chairs or members of the board meet once or twice a year as a group?
Ms Wexler: Yes. The board has held annual conferences. I'm not sure if there's going to be one this coming year because of budget restraints. Last year we were subsumed into the conference of administrative boards and agencies to save money and carry on at the same time.
Mr McLean: There are 12 regions and 12 chairs.
Ms Wexler: I believe so.
Mr McLean: Do you have any idea how much those chairs of those regions make on a per diem?
Ms Wexler: It's $550.
Mr McLean: Five hundred and fifty dollars?
Ms Wexler: It's set by the legislation.
Mr McLean: That's right. Most of those, I believe, are lawyers?
Ms Wexler: The chairs are lawyers.
Mr McLean: You have not had any hearings in Thunder Bay and you indicate somewhere that you would like to be able to hear in Thunder Bay. Why?
Ms Wexler: They haven't called me in because it's an extra expense to the board to convene a five-person board instead of a three-man board. They would have to pay my expenses into Thunder Bay and then perhaps the intended review could collapse at the last moment and they'd have spent a lot money to bring me in. It hasn't been necessary to bring me in. I haven't been needed to replace anybody. Ken Tilson has been sitting regularly.
Mr McLean: Is the board still experiencing administrative difficulties as a result of the Dayday decision?
Ms Wexler: Not that I'm aware of. I believe they've addressed that issue and have convened boards composed of different members whenever required to do so. I believe it's cost their budget somewhere in the area of $1 million to address that need, but I believe it's being met.
Mr McLean: What percentage of the cases you've been on would result in the patient or the resident being released from the psychiatric facility?
Ms Wexler: I can't give you those statistics. I have not sat on any boards in Thunder Bay.
Mr McLean: But in Kenora?
Ms Wexler: In Kenora there have been several boards. They don't come up as often. I have not sat in Kenora as yet. I had conflicts in some other matters that came to Kenora, when my clients were on the other side.
I can't give you those statistics; I'm not sure they keep those statistics in that fashion, as to how many are released in the province or in a particular district. I don't know if they record it in that way.
Mr McLean: So if you haven't sat on the board in Thunder Bay or in Kenora --
Ms Wexler: No, I haven't.
Mr McLean: Where have you sat?
Ms Wexler: I haven't.
Mr McLean: You've been appointed but haven't been acting?
Ms Wexler: That's correct. I've kept up with the educational process, and I'm interested; I've sat in on a hearing. I haven't been needed.
Mr McLean: So as a vice-chair, will you be able to sit in Kenora?
Ms Wexler: Yes. That means I could convene a board in Kenora without bringing in a chair from Thunder Bay and save some expense there. I can also go down to areas like Penetanguishene and other places where I'm needed, especially because of Dayday, where they would need a different chair for the same patient; so I would be available to do that.
Mr McLean: I'm curious. From Kenora to Penetanguishene would be fairly costly. Wouldn't there be somebody in Metro or some closer area who could do this?
Ms Wexler: Not necessarily. It's a matter of finding somebody who may not have had any previous contact with the patient. It's expensive to travel anywhere in the province when you have to do it at full rates.
Mr McLean: That's right. Some time ago we had a committee that looked at and toured Penetanguishene. That's in my riding so I'm very much aware of it. I'll leave the rest of the time for you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr McLean has given me about four and half minutes. Ms Wexler, about Dayday: As a lawyer, do you have an opinion on that? Do you think that's an appropriate decision? I gather the government hasn't appealed that decision. I don't know whether there is a statute of limitations in respect to an appeal.
Ms Wexler: There's been no appeal of Dayday. It's been out for some time. I don't have an opinion on it; I haven't worked with it; I can't give you a personal opinion. If I were an alternate chair, I would have to apply the law as it stands. It's not my job to make assessments.
The Chair: I agree with you that it's very costly.
Ms Wexler: It is very costly, but there are other issues that Dayday dealt with which make sense.
The Chair: In some respects. Anyway, we could debate that all day.
I wonder how you feel about the treatment of victims and victims' families in respect to these hearings. I represent a riding that has a psychiatric forensic facility, and we've had a number of incidents and a murder last year on the grounds. There is an inquest upcoming on that matter.
But I know of an instance previous to that where a "gentleman" -- I use that word loosely -- was found responsible for the death of a young boy in my community and was then released. The mother tried to keep track of this individual, but the review board would never give her the opportunity to appear; wouldn't even advise her of the time of the hearings to review this gentleman every time he wanted his warrant loosened. I wonder if you would be an advocate for stronger rights for victims and victims' families.
Ms Wexler: I'm sympathetic to the rights of victims and their families. I've acted for both sides. I have extensive experience in prosecuting. I have extensive experience in defending. I've worked in family areas and welfare areas so I come at it from all different directions. I have sympathy towards the community. I'm very often the one who is asking the doctors to keep my clients in the hospital because I don't want them out on the street and I don't want them in the correctional system. So I approach it from a broad viewpoint.
All I can say is that as an adjudicator, I'd have to apply the law and allow people to speak who are allowed by law to speak and be courteous and give everybody a hearing.
The Chair: As a co-chair, or whatever the terminology is, you wouldn't go that extra mile? I think you would have that latitude to ensure that perhaps a victim who has expressed an interest in following a particular individual's progress, if you will, is alerted and has the opportunity to appear, if not testify.
Ms Wexler: I'm not unsympathetic to the question you're asking, but the problem is a matter of time. The Mental Health Act provides for these hearings to take place as quickly as possible, especially when treatment concerns are an issue, and the board is convened as quickly as possible. Parties are notified as best they can be, and I understand that it's up to the hospital and then again to the patient's advocate to prepare their parties as quickly as they can.
The Chair: The patients have an advocate -- you're right -- at the expense of the taxpayers, but the victims do not have a similar advocate. In my view, you're sort of dancing around this issue because, as a co-chair, I think you would have that latitude. I guess I'm not seeing the kind of sympathetic ear I would like of the concerns of my own community about victims and victims' rights not being given the priority they merit.
Ms Wexler: Mr Runciman, the place you're going to get that sympathy is when the board itself considers whether the patient is fit to go into the community. That's what the hearing is for.
The Chair: I agree that's what the hearing is for, but in most cases, probably at least 90% of them, the victim does not have an opportunity to participate in that hearing when a warrant is going to be loosened or sometimes lifted.
Ms Wexler: What happens is that the doctor generally presents the viewpoint of the community and the people who have been affected by what a patient has done. All of that information comes in the doctor's diagnosis and recommendations, because we have to hear the medical diagnosis and the recommendations and then deal with it as it affects the community.
The Chair: I think it's failed in a number of instances. I guess you haven't been involved in any adjudication.
Ms Wexler: I haven't sat on any board so I can't say that I have that experience.
The Chair: I know it's a difficult job and that in some instances, you're making these decisions that could come back to haunt you and haunt the community.
Ms Wexler: No doubt.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm a little concerned that the Chair has been questioning a witness. I'm not sure what the --
The Chair: I'll respond to that. If you want to object to that in a serious way, if I were taking a partisan position I would agree with you. I'm not doing that. I think I have every right as a member of this committee in a non-partisan matter like this to express those kinds of concerns and questions of a witness. If you have a strong disagreement with that, I would suggest you take it to the Speaker.
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): We're heartened that you've clarified that these in fact are non-partisan appointments.
The Chair: I didn't say that, Mr Ferguson. I wasn't questioning the partisanship of this witness; I was simply asking about my concerns about the operation of this board.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You realize you're just supposed to bow down and say yes to everything around here.
The Chair: I'm not one to do that, sir.
Ms Carter: We'll leave that for now, anyway.
As you've been saying, you haven't actually sat on a panel. I understand that's partly because there's one lawyer per panel and that if the Chair is normally a lawyer then you would automatically not be required -- if you're not the Chair. So now the way will be open to you to function much more effectively in that way.
Do you feel that your location in Kenora can be an asset in that respect? Can it serve the regional demands of the board?
Ms Wexler: I'm concerned about that. I've advised the board of that in the past when my reappointment was considered. We have a very high native population in our district. We have a scheduled hospital in Kenora. It's a very good hospital. We try very hard to keep psychiatrists there.
It does come up that hearings are necessary and I believe it'll be coming up more often in the future. I think it's important for our district to have a voice and for it to cost as little as necessary for the taxpayer. I do have extensive experience in the area.
1020
Ms Carter: So now there will probably be more hearings based in Kenora and that will be convenient and save expenses in travelling arrangements and so on.
Ms Wexler: Yes, although the hearings are at the request of the patients, so I couldn't predict how many patients would be asking for them.
Ms Carter: But the potential is obviously there. Previously, were people generally having to travel from Kenora to hearings?
Ms Wexler: Yes. The previous representative from Kenora is now a provincial court judge. She used to travel quite extensively around the northwest of the province to participate in hearings. That was before the full board was established in Thunder Bay.
Ms Carter: Does the board have any contact or share information with the local community advisory board?
Ms Wexler: I don't believe so. I believe our board is simply there to carry out the hearings according to the Mental Health Act. I have participated in discussions with the doctors at the local hospital. I don't believe I've participated with any members of the community advisory board. We're really two separate entities. I'm sure if there were concerns that had to be addressed it would just be a matter of speaking about them, but the hearings don't address that relationship.
Ms Carter: Do you think that board could become more effective, and if so, how could it do that?
Ms Wexler: I'm not sure the legislation allows us to take on a larger role. I think that would be an issue the legislators would have to address. I'm not familiar with the workings of the community advisory board in Kenora. I'm familiar with the doctors and the hospital administration. I approach it from the other angle when I'm dealing with the my clients in the hospital.
Ms Carter: Potentially how many of the people involved are likely to be your clients as a lawyer? Is that a problem?
Ms Wexler: I have a very large criminal practice, and in the past I've had a number of conflicts because of my clients being the patients. I can't say in terms of numbers. Those patients involved in the more serious cases always go to Thunder Bay; they have a little better security at the hospital in Thunder Bay. It's hard to predict if there would be conflicts. I would just have to stay away from the area if I were going to chair the board.
The Chair: Is there a member of the government party? We still have about five or six minutes.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Mr Runciman started to explore the area with respect to balancing the needs. As he indicated, we have seen some fairly significant examples of where the system has broken down. However, we certainly don't hear about the examples when the system doesn't break down and does work. My question to you, and I'm not even sure there's an answer, is how does a panel person or a co-chair balance the needs of the providers, the patient and the receiving community?
Ms Wexler: Our job is to apply the legislation, and what you have to do is balance that with the doctor's recommendations. Very often the doctors don't appreciate what the legislation means in terms of the treatment of the patient and you have to sift through that to find out whether they're following the legislation or not in their recommendations. What's required is a careful analysis of the doctor's diagnosis and the history of the patient. I think from that you can assess the risk to the community of potential release of a patient into the community. You can also assess the needs for treatment of a patient against the patient's will. I think the board has a lot of leeway in terms of treatment against the patient's will, even though the legislation sets it out very narrowly.
So all those interests are dealt with in that forum. It would be hard for me to say anything from experience because I don't have that experience, but I have worked on both sides. I've defended and I've prosecuted, and I think with that appreciation you can assess what a doctor is saying, assess the diagnosis and decide how risky it is to let somebody go.
I've always been on the other side, where I've been begging the hospitals to keep my clients because I don't find adequate resources for them in the community.
Mr Owens: That leads me to a second question, about the Consent to Treatment Act the government is currently working on. From the perspective you have now, and perhaps into the future should the appointment be accepted, how do you see that impacting?
Ms Wexler: I'm not familiar with the new legislation; I haven't read it. I'm not exactly sure I can answer that question structurally. I know in general that combined with the new Advocacy Act that's being proposed it's going to give the patient a lot more of a voice and more consideration of the patient's concerns and more consideration of the whole issue of consent than the doctors have previously given. But I can't even guess the impact. I don't know what it's going to say in the final run; I know it's probably going to have a lot of changes before it reaches that stage.
Mr Owens: Maybe a year from now we can have you back and you could share an opinion.
Ms Wexler: I'd be happy to share my opinion at that time.
Mr Bradley: A couple of very brief questions along the same lines. I was very interested to hear one of your last comments about what side you were on in some of these issues because of the lack of adequate facilities within communities.
Ms Wexler: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we suffer greatly from a lack of resources in the north of the province. I'm very sensitive to that issue.
Mr Bradley: A concern I would ask you to respond to, perhaps at the risk of a bit of repetition, is that about psychiatric patients going back into the community. When the pendulum swings one way or the other, everybody gets on the pendulum as it goes. Virtually everybody thought deinstitutionalization was the route to go because it offered a lot of advantages to people. Has it been your experience that people who have come out of institutions, however, have themselves, and their families and others, often been placed in jeopardy by the lack of adequate facilities?
Ms Wexler: Absolutely.
Mr Bradley: I guess the only answer that leaves you with -- it's a bit of a leading question perhaps -- is that you almost have to keep these people in institutions or take a big chance and put them back into the community. Where do you see it going?
Ms Wexler: If you can find the grounds to keep them in the institution, you'll keep them in the institution as long as the doctors are willing to treat them.
Mr Bradley: Because people who have psychiatric problems usually require an advocate or tend not to phone the constituency office of a member, I suppose I tend to get a lot more calls from the families of these people, saying they'd like to see the law changed so they can't get out and hurt themselves and so on. In the long term, what do you think is going to be the solution to this problem, or is there ever going to be one?
Ms Wexler: In view of the recessionary times, it's very difficult to just say that the government has to put in more resources, because it's not a realistic request. The problem is that in addition to this area you have the Young Offenders Act, which was brought in by the federal government, and a whole system set out whereby young offenders are supposed to have a complete structure of resources, which they don't have either. So the two systems working side by side are suffering together, and as far as I'm concerned it's a double problem.
There aren't enough hospitals, and there aren't enough follow-ups to the hospitals. I don't find I have a choice with my clients as to where they should go when the doctors say: "I can't keep them in the hospital. I'm just warehousing them, I'm babysitting them." You want the client to go on to something where he's going to be monitored and not loose in the community, where at least he would be in a setting that's going to do him some good, rehabilitation of some sort or some treatment, but there isn't anything. There's a smattering of group homes.
There's nothing in the north to deal adequately with the issue of solvent abuse for the native people. This is a tremendous problem that's coming into the mental health system now because these people have brain damage from sniffing, and there's nowhere to send them. The hospitals can only keep them so long. They detoxify them, then they let them go back to the community, and the next day they're in trouble again. They can be violent.
1030
Mr Bradley: This is very difficult, particularly for a person from the north. I was born in the north, sort of. You would laugh if I said "north" --
Ms Wexler: I'm not from there originally.
Mr Bradley: But you'd laugh if I defined "north" as where I was born, but in southern Ontario they think it's north.
I know people have resented the fact that in order to get service, they have to send people to the south, at least on a temporary basis. Knowing the danger that presents of making it permanent, is part of the solution in fact to send people to southern facilities?
Ms Wexler: That's what's happening. I've had to send young people to the Syl Apps Treatment Centre just outside Toronto because there's no adolescent facility in our district. We have a choice between Ottawa or Toronto, and Ottawa won't take the solvent sniffers so they come to Toronto -- if they can get in. That's all we have.
Mr Bradley: The danger I see in that, and I think all of us would, is that they are then away from family and friends and so on in an entirely different atmosphere. But I don't know what the solution is if you don't do that for now.
Ms Wexler: There is no solution. They're away from their culture. It doesn't usually work very well. It works for a time and then they go back to the same problems they came from.
Mr Bradley: I wish you well.
Ms Wexler: Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks, Ms Wexler, for coming here today. We do appreciate it. As others have said, you have some very tough and challenging responsibilities, and I'm sure all of the committee wishes you well.
Ms Wexler: Thank you very much. May I be excused?
The Chair: You may.
HOWARD RESTOULE
The Chair: Our next witness is Howard Restoule. Mr Restoule, I welcome you to the committee. Mr Restoule is an intended appointee as a member of the district welfare administration board in the district of Cochrane. Again, this is a half-hour review. Mr Restoule was selected for review by the official opposition, so I'm going to look to Mr Bradley to begin the questioning.
Mr Bradley: Welcome to the committee. I'll ask a general question first of all. Looking at the membership of the committee, we are all from southern Ontario so, again, we may not be as acutely familiar with the challenges you're going to face as perhaps some of the northern members would be. Could you in a general sense share with the committee some of the problems that perhaps are unique to Cochrane, as opposed to those of us who sit in urban areas of southern Ontario, in terms of the job you are going to have?
Mr Howard Restoule: Certainly there is considerably more job scarcity. Employment has been dropping considerably, which has an effect on the welfare system. In my capacity I deal with a lot of native people, who have depended a lot on the welfare system. Travel is a major problem. Transportation, long distances, pose problems not only for native people but a lot of other people; shortage of money and so on. That of course generally ends up with the welfare system having to assist.
Mr Bradley: You face some different problems perhaps even in terms of the base funding you can get, local funding that can be derived. Many municipalities are complaining they're overburdened with welfare costs at present. They would certainly like the senior levels of government to assume all those costs, and senior levels of government don't have much more money.
Are you seeing situations where you've got different kinds of people now coming on to the welfare system, from your observation in your area, people who never contemplated ever having to seek welfare? Are you seeing that in that part of the province as well?
Mr Restoule: Yes, that is certainly becoming a fact of life because of the way the economy is going, the unemployment insurance system being cut as well or periods of benefits being shortened and so on. It ends up that everybody can't find any jobs, so they end up looking for assistance.
We become aware of that because in my capacity as an executive director of a native organization I do help out a lot where the applicant does not qualify, just definitely does not qualify under GWA. Then we step in, because we do fund-raise and so on and we are obligated to some extent to provide community assistance, and we do that. So we do help a lot and that is how we are so well aware, perhaps a lot more than the average citizen is, of what the situation is really leading up to, because we have people coming into the Friendship Centre looking for assistance because they just don't qualify under the GWA eligibility criteria.
Mr Bradley: We have other circumstances being faced probably across the country, but we can only speak for Ontario, I guess, those of us who are on this committee. When the Social Assistance Review Committee looked at the whole welfare system in the province of Ontario, it pointed to this; the government has talked a bit about this and the minister made a statement in the House the other day. It's all to do with, let's say, supplementary assistance to people as opposed to going on general welfare.
One of the problems I encounter as an MPP is almost having to say to somebody -- I wouldn't say it -- but almost having to say, "You're better off to quit your job and go on welfare in the circumstances you're in," because they face some very difficult circumstances at home. They cannot get a lot of the benefits that are associated with someone who is eligible for GWA and they're working at a job that doesn't pay very much money. You never like to advise anybody, but in some circumstances it's so tragic that you almost tell people, "You should at least consider general welfare assistance and quitting the job."
Do you see an advantage to providing supplementary assistance to people who have some kind of income, some of the same benefits that people have who are on general welfare assistance, as opposed to simply telling them to go on general welfare? Do you see that as being the future of our social program?
Mr Restoule: I was raised in a period, of course, where there was little or no welfare at all. There was something you called "relief," and I think you got food vouchers and that sort of stuff. Yes, I think I would have to agree that is something that may very well be worth a try.
I believe very firmly that we certainly have to look at something; we have to look at alternatives. It's very true what you're saying, that "I might as well be on welfare," because the minimum wage is so low and the welfare system pays reasonably well, certainly when you take in subsidized housing and so on and that kind of stuff. It's certain that something has to be looked at.
1040
Mr Bradley: I think we all, and each one of us in our constituencies, encounter this particular problem. I guess what we have to do, and what you will encounter, is that we have to be less quick to criticize when we see some of the people who are receiving assistance. What happens is that it sounds like a good idea; everybody says, "Yes, isn't this a good idea." So some supplementary assistance or benefits are provided, and then a newspaper headline says that somebody making $30,000 a year is getting welfare, and everybody goes in the opposite direction.
But that's essentially what's going to happen if we're going to keep people -- say someone with four or five kids in a family, perhaps only one of the people in the family working, at somewhere around $28,000. Most people would be very annoyed to hear people were getting assistance. I know the limited number of job opportunities you have in your area of the province compared to some other areas where there are at least a few more job opportunities, so I suppose we'll all have to hold our tongues when people who are working are getting what we would generally call some kind of welfare assistance.
Mr Restoule: A system like that would certainly have to be looked at and have a lot of guidelines and maximums and so on. You just can't come out with a specific amount based on so many children and ignoring the amount of money the person makes. I think they have to work together. I believe very strongly that something has to be looked at.
I suppose I'm from the old school where you have to carry your own load, and I have done that all my life. I've been in the workforce all my life, educated myself at 40 years old so I could continue and maintain my being in the workforce. That's what I believe in. However, it can be difficult to indoctrinate a society, I suppose, that has different viewpoints now and has been raised with different attitudes.
Mr Bradley: The last question I had -- is there no time?
The Chair: No time, sorry. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the operation of the board?
Mr Restoule: I would say I am, yes. I've served on several different boards. I attended workshops on parliamentary procedure, rules of order, that sort of thing.
Mr McLean: Have you had the opportunity to review the SARC report?
Mr Restoule: No, I'm sorry.
Mr McLean: It's a major report that was done, and it's what the general welfare mainly is based on today: a lot of the recommendations from that report.
Are the children's aid societies part of the mandate of the board you're being appointed to?
Mr Restoule: I'm sorry. I don't know, really.
Mr McLean: I was reading some of the briefing stuff we got and it said, "Services provided under the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act," and I was just curious if you were familiar with any of those aspects of the operation of the district welfare administration board?
Mr Restoule: I only know that the funding is from the same ministry.
Mr McLean: What would be the case load of welfare recipients in that area? Any idea? We have some statistics that indicate 5,980 in 1991. That doesn't seem to be a large number if it's an area like Cochrane, Kapuskasing. Is Kapuskasing in the Cochrane district?
Mr Restoule: Yes, exactly what I would say: That is underquoted; it has to be. I'm not familiar with the figures, but if I were asked for an estimation I would certainly put it much higher than that, when you're looking at the population.
Mr McLean: In the area you live in, what percentage would be on general welfare assistance: 20%?
Mr Restoule: Are we talking about one community?
Mr McLean: The community you live in, yes.
Mr Restoule: In Cochrane, I would estimate it to be at least 20% of that population, and the population is 4,500.
Mr McLean: You're well qualified, and I wish you all the best in your position.
Mr Restoule: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Frankford and then Mrs Carter.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Just picking up a bit on Mr Bradley's comments about incentives or the reasons people have an incentive to stay on assistance, one of the incentives is non-monetary benefits. I would mention things like prescription drugs and dentistry. I know this happens in areas I've been familiar with. Could you comment on the extent to which this happens in your area?
Mr Restoule: I must say I have a bit of a problem with my hearing; I'm waiting to get a hearing aid. If you would --
Mr Frankford: Are you aware that the ability to get prescription drugs and possibly dentistry -- although I don't know if this would apply -- and maybe other health benefits would be an incentive for people to be on assistance?
Mr Restoule: I've certainly heard it said by welfare recipients. That comment has been made and I've heard it. It's something you take note of, that it is a benefit: "I'll be covered for everything." So it does create some kind of incentive to going on welfare.
There doesn't appear to be too much concern, particularly by the unskilled labour force. There is certainly not much encouragement to continue working, or conversely, not much concern whether they lose their job because the job they have is, in a lot of cases, small industry, small commercial, two, three, four or five employees, firms which don't have benefit plans. So if they have to pick up their own medical costs for drugs and whatever, those things other than OHIP, then there really isn't too much concern, because while they may get a lower amount of income on general welfare, the benefits are there, and if it's anybody who has a family who has to buy drugs all the time, well, it certainly would be an incentive.
Mr Frankford: If I can ask another question just for my enlightenment, am I right that registered Indians in fact are entitled to those benefits from the federal government?
Mr Restoule: Yes. If you are a treaty Indian -- and I'm sure everybody is aware of what that means -- you are eligible for all the benefits there are, whether you are living on or off the reserve.
Mr Frankford: In your experience, do all treaty Indians get all the health benefits they are entitled to, or is this more of a theoretical right?
Mr Restoule: All they are entitled to; there are more benefits. I have employees who are treaty Indians who we do not have on our benefit plan, which is certainly a benefit to the employer, the organization, because the premium is that much less; and some they get our benefit plan doesn't have.
Mr Frankford: Would they get full dental coverage?
1050
Mr Restoule: Yes, they get full dental coverage, eyeglasses I think once a year, things like that. My organization doesn't cover eyeglasses, and for certain things you only get a certain percentage in coverage.
Ms Carter: You have backed up your belief in self-sufficiency both in your own life and through your involvement in the community; you've been involved in projects that provide training and employment opportunities for other people. I was just wondering if you could tell us something about these involvements and how your experience there will help you in this new appointment.
Mr Restoule: You're talking about training. Most of you may have heard of the Pathways to Success native training program. It's federal money provided for training of aboriginal people. I believe, because I'm sitting on that board and becoming much more knowledgeable in the internal and specific functions of the welfare system, I see where I could convince my colleagues as well as people in general of the importance of the training.
Of course, my people in particular I communicate with more than others in my job. It is very difficult to talk to them about what I did in order to maintain myself in society, but I believe if I become more knowledgeable and able to see firsthand a system that maybe has to be reviewed and, I don't know, maybe some cutbacks or whatever, and look at alternatives, my emphasis may be to have a more profound feeling with the other people.
At this training board I'm on, Mamo, the Wichi Hitewin area management board, I see a lot of applications come in that are the same type of applications we have received all over the previous years. It does provide some training, but it's not the type of training these people will get going into urban communities to fill the reportedly 350,000 vacancies that exist in Canada today, all high-tech job vacancies. That is the kind of training I would like our people to get into, and I need something to convince my colleagues. It's very difficult for a lot of these people to deny an application that comes in, because it's your own people, you're living in that community or the representation comes from these communities. There needs to be convincing.
Ms Carter: But you've been involved in quite a lot of aspects. For example, you're involved in a native housing program, which presumably is helping people in your area get established. Could you tell us something about that?
The Chair: Briefly.
Mr Restoule: There was a tremendous shortage of housing for people in Cochrane. Our people, of course, were highly discriminated against, which I believe exists in a lot of areas, and they were living in the worst conditions, so we saw the need, I saw the need as chief executive officer, proceeded to inquire and made application and got what they call the urban native housing program started in Cochrane with 10 units, and it just went on from there. It's subsidized housing, much like Ontario government housing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Restoule, we appreciate your appearance here and wish you well.
Mr Restoule: Thank you all.
The Chair: Before I call the next witness, based on the concern Mrs Carter expressed about the Chair participating in these discussions, I've been chatting with the clerk at length about this. I can, after thinking about it, appreciate the concern you have in that these interviews are restricted in terms of time with segments allocated to each party, so in future what I'm going to do is that if I have an interest, I will reserve time from any party that wishes to give it to me and remove myself from the chair.
But I also want to make the committee aware that this is something I have done and hope to continue to do when we're dealing with agencies, boards and commissions. I intend to continue to pose questions from the chair, and I intend to do them in a non-partisan way. I think when we're reviewing ABCs, we traditionally don't get into -- I have found anyway -- questions of a partisan nature.
If we have difficulty with that, when the time arrives we'll just have to get an opinion from the Speaker or the Clerk of the House. Mr McLean?
Mr McLean: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I've had the occasion to chair the odd committee here myself, and there's nothing in the rules that prohibits the Chairman from taking part in any debate. If there is, I'd like it pointed out to me.
The Chair: I'm just trying to calm the waters here. I appreciate what Mrs Carter was saying and I'm going to try to respect that concern.
Ms Carter: I'm not sure what the regulations are but my feeling is that if you make a point of it and hand over the chair temporarily, that seems to me to be a more satisfactory way of doing it.
The Chair: I appreciate the concern and I'm going to respect the concern. I just wanted to draw to the attention of the committee that when we're dealing with ABCs, you may have reason again to express that concern and then we'll deal with it at that time.
1100
JAMES ROBERT PETTIT
The Chair: Our next witness is James Pettit, who's an intended appointee as a member of the Pesticides Advisory Committee. Welcome, Mr Pettit. You were selected for review by the Conservative Party, and I'll ask Mr McLean to lead off the questioning.
Mr McLean: Thank you, Mr Chair. Welcome to the committee, sir.
Mr James Robert Pettit: Thank you.
Mr McLean: I'm a farmer, so we've selected you as one we want to look at because of some of the rules and regulations with regard to pesticides. The question I want to start out with is that the federal government regulates it and the provincial government observes, I guess, and looks after the storage and that part of it. We in Ontario import a lot of produce, and in a lot of that produce pesticides have probably been used which are banned here in Ontario. How is that allowed to happen?
Mr Pettit: As you point out, it is the federal government, under the Pest Control Products Act, that regulates that. We've raised that issue a number of times with the federal government. The other issue is related to the fact that some of our producers don't have the same products as their competitors across the border.
As to the answers we get from the federal government, they use pesticides in South America, for instance, or in other countries that they say are not considered dangerous to human health, but we consider them, in most cases, dangerous to the environment. We push the point to the federal government that it should be talking both sides of the street.
The Pesticide Act provincially does not allow us to stop importation provincially of products that have been treated with pesticides outside of this country. Some of those issues, I think, have been addressed most recently by Agriculture Canada, and as you probably realize, there has been a federal pesticide review that was released a couple or three months ago.
Many of the issues are still unresolved and we're still banging away at them, but I agree with your point that it seems unfair for Ontario producers to compete with products that are not allowed here because of the fact that they are dangerous to the environment.
On the other hand, from the other side of my shoe, which is food quality and safety, I'm concerned about products being used in a less regulated way in other countries and then shipped to Ontario.
Mr McLean: There's been a lot of bans on pesticides over the years, such as the sprays; atrazine and some of those things are not being used like they used to be. Do you feel that the program we have in place is stringent enough in areas such as the Holland Marsh, where there's a heavy concentration of vegetable-growing, that the regulations are being followed properly?
Mr Pettit: The regulatory side, of course, is the Ministry of the Environment. Our side is mostly the education and laboratory monitoring. Now, we work very closely with the pest control officers of the Ministry of the Environment.
You can never say a situation is perfect, because there is no such thing as a perfect situation. I do think, however, that we've made very major strides, both from the educational side -- we've developed a program, as you realize, Food Systems 2002, which is designed to reduce pesticide use. We've also worked very closely with the Ministry of the Environment in things like getting rid of orphan pesticides. We're doing pilot projects in that area.
I think a lot of the new products coming on to the market are both environmentally and in terms of human health -- if you want to use that term -- safer than the ones we had before. Our integrated pest management programs that we're working very hard on are designed to try to focus the treatment on one problem, rather than the shotgun that was traditional in the past, and I think we're getting a lot closer to being better.
Mr McLean: You're probably very well aware of the advisory committee.
Mr Pettit: Yes.
Mr McLean: Has the Ministry of the Environment given you any directions or any suggestions of certain areas you should be looking at with regard to pesticides?
Mr Pettit: My background is as a veterinarian and then coming out of the livestock business, and now I am the director of the Ag and Food lab services branch -- that has the provincial pesticide lab in it. I've also got background in some of the food safety issues; pesticides are down the list, but it's always an issue on the consumers' list. I guess, along with the experience I had in the past in the area of animal welfare, those are probably are the four or five areas that I can help contribute to the discussions.
Mr McLean: That area of jurisdiction you just mentioned went from about 12 employees to about 121 employees?
Mr Pettit: I'm sorry?
Mr McLean: How many employees increased in that area you're the director of?
Mr Pettit: How many did it increase? It'll be increasing over a number of years, sir, I guess about 55 over five years, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr McLean: I'd read somewhere where it went up substantially, and I was just wondering if there was two areas put together.
Mr Pettit: Yes, actually in the new laboratory we're putting together, there's the provincial pesticide lab; we're moving the veterinary toxicology lab in with it to try to save on equipment, because chemistry is very, very expensive; we're also adding the plant disease or the pest diagnostic lab to it, so these people are coming from other areas into the unit, and then we've added, as you know, an enhanced food quality and safety program, which will gradually build in the building over the next five years or so.
Mr McLean: Would that all be part of the restructuring of the ministry moving to Guelph?
Mr Pettit: Yes, we're on the site where the new building will be.
Mr Owens: I have an organization in my riding called Families Against Toxic Environment, and it's their goal and aim to encourage home owners to move away from using toxic pesticides and herbicides in the treatment of their lawns and trees. Is there any kind of comfort I could give them, from your perspective as a potential board member, in terms of encouraging manufacturers away from the use of chemical agents and moving towards more organic means of the control of pests and other plant diseases?
Mr Pettit: The issue is one that I know OPAC has been asked to comment on and review, and it's one I know the present minister is very interested in. It's a little bit out of the Agriculture and Food area which I sort of represent, but just as a perspective on pesticides in general, one of the things that I see with urban Canada is that I think there's a need to talk to people about what they're doing to their lawns. I counted this morning before I came and I have 11 dandelions on my lawn. I expect by tonight the fellow next door will be talking to me about my dandelions. That's the psyche in urban Canada. I think it's important to realize that a dandelion is not going to do any damage. It may be yellow or it may be whatever, but it's not going to do a lot of damage.
On the other hand, I think some of the research that's been done -- I mentioned the pest diagnostic facility earlier, the plant disease thing -- we've been looking at controlling grubs through organic means. A simple solution for lawns is, don't cut it so short. That's one example. In urban Canada we tend to cut our lawns that high, and as soon as we do that and the sun gets there the roots are exposed. Once those roots are exposed, then the seeds of dandelions or plantain or anything else can get in there and then we turn around and treat them and fertilize them to get them to grow.
I think the basic thing is education. I think the government can show some leadership in some of the programs the Ministry of the Environment is presently setting up in urban Canada. I think our ministry has been very supportive in some of these areas in rural Canada and rural Ontario as well.
Mr Owens: I guess there's always been tension between rural and urban users and consumers of products. If you look at the last big scare with respect to Alar and the tension that was created between the industry and the advocacy groups, do you see a role for yourself in terms of looking at research around pesticides and to determine whether the correct levels of research have been carried out using correct control situations?
Mr Pettit: One of the advantages -- I have been in both the Ministry of the Environment's world and in ours -- is that I have access to both research streams. Our laboratory itself does a fair bit of research. It's mostly minor use in trying to get toxins down to a level we have no concerns on. But I can see the work the Ministry of the Environment is doing, the work we're doing through our Food Systems 2002 program, as being research directed exactly down the line that you're talking about.
What we basically want to do is get away from the broad spectrum. Besides everything we can talk about here about environment, human health and everything, broad spectrum treatment costs money. In the past, when I've worked in the poultry industry at one time, they treated for everything at one time and that cost money, besides the health and all the other concerns, so the idea from the professional support unit is to try to focus it. If you have a parasite that needs treatment, or if it's a fungus or a weed, then let's treat the parasite and let's not go after everything else. That's what we're trying to do in some of our programs. I think the Ministry of the Environment research is very supportive of what we're doing as well and vice versa, so those records of research projects are available. If you're interested in pursuing titles and that, MOE has them.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Wiseman, then we have Mrs Carter and Mr Klopp and you've got about five minutes.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You talked a little bit about physical constraints. How are you going to prioritize the projects for funding that you're going to be looking into? Have you any ideas about how you would structure that?
1110
Mr Pettit: In the research area? What happens with research projects is that the committee gets together and decides on priority areas. My priorities on the committee are probably somewhat different from the farmers' and the MOE staffer's and all the rest of it, so we discuss it similarly to what you're doing here and we come up with, "This is a top priority, this is second, this is third."
Now on the OPAC side, on the Ministry of the Environment's side, obviously the Minister of the Environment may have an interest that she wants us to look at in detail and that would be a priority issue we'd consider. On our side, on the Agriculture and Food side, our growers and our stakeholders would have issues they want us to deal with, some of the cross-border things and some of the minor use things. So we would prioritize ours somewhat differently than MOE but we're very close on where we're going.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. I have more questions but I talk too much.
Ms Carter: Just a remark first of all. I like dandelions. They look nice, you can eat the leaves, you can make --
Mr Pettit: Wine.
Ms Carter: Yes, wine, whatever. You can give the leaves to your guinea pigs. You can let kids pick them so they don't have to pick the tulips and so on, but I don't want to go into that.
Just a personal question I have. How do we stand in this province and in this country now as regards irradiated foods? I believe there's a plant doing this in Florida and I haven't seen anywhere whether any of this stuff is actually coming into this country and how we would know if we were buying it.
Mr Pettit: Irradiation has been approved. It's a federal responsibility. National Health and Welfare has approved irradiation for certain foods but it has to be labelled. In any of the tracking studies done with consumers very large percentages of them will not accept irradiated food. The safety issue is aside. It's been shown that it does not affect food, but the consumer perception is that it is dangerous to eat.
Ms Carter: Well, it doesn't make the food radioactive but it does alter its composition in other ways, so that in a sense it does affect it.
Mr Pettit: Yes, you're right there. I'm sorry, I meant the radioactive thing.
Because of the fact that it has to be labelled, consumers aren't buying. People sell food. If they won't buy it, they don't go that way. There's been a lot of controversy over it.
Ms Carter: But I thought that if it was an ingredient in some more complicated food that it wouldn't necessarily appear on the label. I also wonder about things like onions. You know, if you buy a bag of onions, say, at a market, whether you would know if those have been irradiated.
Mr Pettit: You're right on the ingredients. You don't have to label it. On the onions you would have to. As far as I know, there are no irradiated components being used in Canadian food. Health and Welfare Canada would be the source to find out for sure, but that's my impression.
Ms Carter: So any irradiated food would have the little flower logo on it?
Mr Pettit: Well, yes.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): How are you doing?
Mr Pettit: Fine. How are you?
Mr Klopp: Long time no see. First off, I'm glad you've taken this job. In reviewing the process I guess that's where I find a little question coming, from the PA to the minister. How will you find the time with the work you do in the ministry and in this job?
Mr Pettit: OPAC is a top priority for me. It's a monthly meeting, for a half-day. There's a research symposium in January and there are one or two tours in the summer when we go out to those areas. I make the very best effort I can to get there. Once I lock it into my book, I will get there most of the time, and I intend to make it a top priority.
Mr Klopp: Through the ministry then, would it allow me the opportunity to talk to you from that side so that you can take stuff in or give stuff back to the minister? It's a two-way street then, eh? The door's always open?
Mr Pettit: Yes. The role I'm filling is that of the OMAF representative on OPAC and that's my job: two-way communications and input in, that sort of thing, and also our clients.
Mr Bradley: The first question I would have, I guess, is about the food basket. You will recall that at one time there was a report put out on the food basket of the province of Ontario where tests were conducted of the food and then the results were provided to the people of Ontario. I have not seen one of those for 18 months or more. Are there any plans to put that out so that the public may make a judgement on the amount of pesticides that are found in foods and the poisons that are there for one reason or other?
Mr Pettit: The majority of that work comes from Health and Welfare's food basket. We do participate and the Ministry of the Environment's lab does participate in the regional area here, so the data are still going in to the federal government. If it isn't coming out, it's beyond my control.
One of the things we will be doing in the new food laboratory, though, is looking at those types of issues. I can't promise that you can do everything in one lab, but as issues come up, that's what we'll be trying to do.
Mr Bradley: Very often when Health and Welfare Canada won't do something, the provincial governments take the initiative to do it. We don't just say it's the federal government's responsibility and then run and hide in the corner. We have tended to be aggressive in Ontario in fact in doing these tests and providing information. There's always the danger, of course, when you provide that information to the public they may become alarmed, although I suspect in May 1992 it would be found on page 62 of the newspaper rather than page 1 in glaring headlines, for a variety of reasons I won't get into.
Is there any thought that you're aware of that the province in fact may initiate these tests exclusive of the federal government and provide the information to the public of Ontario in a timely fashion?
Mr Pettit: If you're focusing strictly on pesticides, yes, I expect we will continue to do that.
What we've done traditionally in the past is produce scientific papers and they don't get the press that you required or were requiring. So what we are doing in the new program is trying to put a consumer-friendly communication front on it and the idea is, we'll take the information we've gleaned from our work and from elsewhere and try to put it into language that can be understood by the shopper and by the consumer in general.
Some of the time, as you know from other experiences where you get a point something part per billion, people get frightened and yet if it's not explained they -- it should be explained. It's only fair that it should be. Yes, we are trying to do that as part of the food program.
Mr Bradley: I can remember when points per quadrillion were alarming to the people in the province of Ontario.
Mr Pettit: Yes. I remember Hagersville and a few places.
Mr Bradley: In lots of places they were very much concerned. That seems to have abated somewhat as we get into a difficult economic time. I know people on the committee who are concerned about the environment are concerned that it gets buried now in the back pages, because they were very concerned years ago about the environment and that concern remains.
Termites in Toronto: How are we going to get rid of the termites in Toronto?
Mr Pettit: A long way from Agriculture and Food. Actually, there's an individual I did discuss that with. Unfortunately, I didn't listen enough to be much use on this particular question.
Mr Bradley: That's fair. I realize it's something you will have to deal with because the products that are used to kill the pesticides in Toronto aren't always products -- pardon?
Mr Wiseman: Kill the termites.
Interjection: Kill the pesticides, that's a good idea.
Mr Bradley: Kill the termites. The products used to kill the termites in Toronto are not always popular in other places, except in Toronto.
Further regulation of commercial use of pesticides is something that's going to annoy some people, but if it annoys them, that's too bad. Do you see the committee moving into further areas of restriction such as recommending mandatory prohibition of the government of Ontario, the government of Canada -- well, I can't regulate Canada -- but the municipalities and so on in terms of the use of pesticides on properties they look after, such as playgrounds and so on? I know some municipalities have taken the initiative. Others, when you mention the very idea of that, the director of parks and recreation has arrows pulled back like this.
Mr Pettit: In an attempt to answer that, I think much of the question is political or policy, but in regard to the committee, generally speaking when we are asked to respond to questions of whether it's practical, how you would do it or how you could encourage it, those types of things, I think the committee is wide open to discuss that type of thing. I don't think the committee, since it's an advisory committee, has the power to go to the city of Toronto and tell it, but I'm sure, the minister or others could. That would be as good as I can do with that.
Mr Bradley: The Minister of the Environment at this time of year, and probably earlier, will have on her desk applications and will have on the telephone the people at the other end of the line saying if it's not approved the entire potato crop is finished for this year.
Have you been able to determine if there is a way of dealing with the applications for new products more expeditiously, without taking away all of the safeguards that are there, other than hiring a new raft of people?
1120
Mr Pettit: We have shortened the turnaround time, if you want to call it that. As you know, you have to have time to review this stuff and do a reasonable job on it.
Mr Bradley: Yes, that's the problem.
Mr Pettit: We're trying to cull out any wasted steps and wasted time. It seems now that we can get things within a couple of months. I don't think we can realistically get much shorter than that. We've got to train people to come to us earlier in the spring, earlier in the winter. One success recently was Nova fungicide; it was a product the people in rural Ontario wanted this spring, and they got it. There's another one that hasn't been so successful. So you win some and you lose some from our side and, I'm sure, from the Ministry of the Environment's side.
Mr Bradley: A question about public education: Most people in the public and some members of the committee who've had farm experience would know that the public wants good-looking food. The Alar situation allows for the apple to stay on the tree, I understand. It's not a pesticide but a hormone, I think, and it allows the product to stay on the tree a week longer so it's nice and red. Most people who've bought apples in years gone by, the general public at least, want good-looking food, "But please don't use pesticides to make it good-looking."
What kind of public education programs do you contemplate in the future or are going on now to show the public that if the apple isn't as red as this, in fact it is still just as good to eat?
Mr Pettit: What we've tried to do and are trying to do as part of our communications area, along with the Ministry of Health and the federal government, is develop a program we're calling the community food adviser program. It's not designed to be a food safety program so much as a food handling point of view. It gives us opportunities to train trainers in different communities and have them work similarly to what we've done in our master gardener program. It takes a big load off government which we can't afford, but it also allows us to disseminate federal and provincial information out there.
Involved in that can be some effect on the issue you raised: It doesn't have to be a perfect apple to be nutritiously safe. The goal is for consumers to be knowledgeable shoppers. If they buy Ontario products or Canadian products they'll know they're under a certain control system, that this or that thing might or might not be significant; we want to tell them that. So that program's one.
The other thing we're attempting to do is put together a number of food facts articles. One recently was on sensible nutrition for seniors that we produced with the Ministry of Health. That goes step by step through how to handle foods, what it means, where they come from and that sort of thing, and how to put things together at the end for single servings and that sort of thing. We're going to target that at some of the other areas as well.
I think the issues you raise are the same issues we pick up on our consumer information centre lines about 50,000 times a year, and we're trying to put packages together so that we can supply people with that type of information.
Mr Bradley: My last question, Chairman: Now that I've spent four decades and a little more on earth and I have accumulated so much dioxin, could you tell me what percentage it is likely that I have accumulated from food products as opposed to air and water?
Mr Wiseman: Preserved you well, though.
Mr Bradley: It has, but it's made me venomous.
Mr Wiseman: We noticed that too.
Mr Pettit: Percentages are dangerous, and it's really hard to read the literature and get a feel. It would appear from the work that the Ministry of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare have done that food, although it's a source, is not a major source. It's mostly the world around us now.
The Chair: Mr Pettit, you're going to have to sum up.
Mr Pettit: Okay. That's the impression they give me. Now, most of the literature I've read will say food is 60%, 70% or 80%. It's obviously a research issue that has to be sorted out in the next decade.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here today; very helpful.
TRENT GOW
The Chair: The final witness this morning is Trent Gow. Mr Gow, take a seat and welcome to the committee. Mr Gow is the intended appointee as a member of the board of directors of Innovation Ontario. The review was the selection of the government party.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to thank you for coming. This is an area I think is of crucial importance in terms of the next five to 10 years for the economy of Ontario. I say that because some of the reading I've done in the area indicates that in terms of innovations and patents, Canada has one of the poorest records anywhere in the world and that in fact the nations that are patenting and creating new products are the wealthiest nations, like Japan and Germany. Even the United States is falling way behind.
I'm wondering what kind of things Innovation Ontario can do, and what are you bringing to Innovation Ontario that will help to turn around this kind of problem?
Mr Trent Gow: First of all let me say I'm really happy to be here. I'm looking forward to this experience and I look forward to the appointment, if you choose to make it, because I would agree with you that high-tech innovation is a very important part of Ontario's and Canada's economic development. I don't have a professional knowledge of the issue you're speaking of with respect to patents, but I would agree. My sense of that issue is that you're right, that in fact a lot of Canadian inventions, if you want, or developments, through the educational system we have, have ended up being developed elsewhere in the world, in Japan and in Europe and to some extent in the United States.
Innovation Ontario on the one hand is really an investment agency. I think there really is a serious problem in this province and in this country with the conservative nature of the financial system, particularly in the recession, in terms of providing pre-venture capital and equity investment and helping entrepreneurs with good ideas, good business plans, good management and good people, to pull that together for their own benefit and also very much for the benefit of the economy or for the sector they're addressing: environmental sector priorities, the medical area, biotechnology, for example.
Innovation Ontario as an organization makes those investments. It's a small organization, consistent, I think, with its mandate; 15 or 16 people very much looking at the business plans and making the investments. It's on the financial side. I'm sure that on occasion it's consulted with respect to policy aspects in terms of intellectual property and things like that, but I think it would have to work much more through its sister agency, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, in terms of some of those policy developments, and through the people in that organization.
I guess my own personal background, as I said teasingly to Mr Green, the board chairman, is that I'm the token schizophrenic on the board in the sense that I have a half government and half private sector background. The first 10 years of my career were in the financial agencies of the federal government, working very much at that level in terms of developing policies and programs to encourage economic development. The second phase of my career has been much more working in the private sector, working with several banks in terms of the interface with government; not so much commercial lending, but dealing with governments in terms of cash management and protecting the Canadian dollar and issues like that.
In the course of my consulting career, which is the business I'm now in, I've taken my government background and my financial services background and have a firm I created several years ago. I guess I would call myself a professional policy analyst. With that kind of background I think I have a good sense of the kinds of issues that entrepreneurs are facing, with respect to technology development, access to capital and help with business plans. I think I have a good sense of the public policy process and I hope therefore I can make a modest contribution to the board in terms of reflecting some of that understanding and being helpful to the board with the variety of excellent backgrounds others have and providing perspective to making strategic investments so that we make the best use of our moneys.
Mr Wiseman: My second question, and then I'm going to pass it to my colleagues, has to do with branch plants and the fact that much of the research that is done here is in fact owned by the head office. If Innovation Ontario or any other level of government gives them money to do this research, how are we able to make sure we have the benefit of that research here? Should we be giving them money? My own feeling is that if we're giving them the money and the patent isn't registered here in Ontario or in Canada, and if the money that is being paid by other users of the patent is not coming to this part of the province or Canada, then I don't see that we're really gaining anything by lending or giving grants -- the taxpayers' money -- to branch plants of multinational corporations.
1130
Mr Gow: Basically, I agree with that point of view.
Please say if I don't speak loudly enough. I tend to speak quietly at the best of times, but I don't carry any big sticks.
On average, the profile of the person or the organization approaching Innovation Ontario would be a small Ontario-based entrepreneur or company. The equity provisions they will be provided with are in the range of no more than $1 million and more in the range of $250,000. I'm not likely to go to the large companies. You'd like to think that some of them would develop into the Northern Telecoms of the world, and I think there is a track record in terms of the Ontario Development Corp and Innovation Ontario of having made some good investments.
I don't know what the technical answer is in terms of branch plant investments and Innovation Ontario, but certainly the board members, in assessing relative investment opportunities, would want to take those kinds of things into consideration. It's very much within their prerogative, I think, to say: "This particular company is in Ontario, owned and based, and the intellectual property is here and will be developed in Canada and Ontario. That's the kind of company we would like to invest in." So very much my own perspective, should I be a member of the board, would be to bring that kind of view to bear.
The Chair: Mr Gow, we have at least three other questioners, but limited time, from the government party.
Mr Frankford: When I look at what Innovation Ontario is doing, it makes me think of the Ministry of Health which, in its recent reorganization, I believe has set up a section to develop an industrial strategy. Are you aware of that?
Mr Gow: Not in detail, no.
Mr Frankford: Do you see that you would want to cooperate with -- or how would you work with a ministry that is doing something like that?
Mr Gow: One of the things I feel personally is that there are certain areas in which Canada has natural advantages in terms of technology or education; telecommunications has very much been one. But my personal view is that two areas that are very important, that can be job creators but are also important in terms of issues that are addressed are health care -- biotechnology, if you want to broaden it -- and environment.
With regard to Innovation Ontario's support of ideas or technologies or innovations that have potential benefits in terms of economics but also have very direct applications -- I guess you have to define your boundaries -- whether that might be in terms particularly of medicine development or drug development or technology development in the health care sector, I do think there's a lot of interface between a well-functioning Innovation Ontario and the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of the Environment in particular. I'd like to see those kinds of associations fostered through the board, perhaps, but also, as I said, through the ministry, which is our policy wing, with which we work very closely.
Mr Frankford: No doubt you read the article in the Globe and Mail last week advocating cross-border shopping by Americans for medical care here, an area where I think our price advantage is every bit as good as the differential in gasoline prices -- probably better. Is this something you could see active involvement in?
Mr Gow: I'm not sure I would promote that. I think Americans sometimes identify the benefits of education in Canada because it's such a relative bargain. My own judgement, I guess, is that the Canadian health care system is in many ways so superior to what it is for the average American that I could see some very attractive advantages to them -- despite some of the rhetoric to the opposite that Americans like to give in election years.
But my primary priority in the health care area would be to see that Ontarians are well served by their health care system; then, if there is a way to profit from it and to develop in addition, that would be great. But the first priority should be reduced waiting lists and providing quality health care, particularly in regions like the north and the east, where there's just not the access to some of the high-tech -- not that high-tech in and of itself is the answer in the health care area.
Mr Frankford: But still, they've got a potential market of 40 million uninsured consumers who could provide a great deal of revenue. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: You alluded to a problem with respect to conservative attitudes around pre-venture capital. One of the difficulties I've had on behalf of my constituents is called funding interruptus, where the project is given support up to a point. For instance, a constituent had a wonderful computerized heating, ventilating and air conditioning control system, but he was constrained by the fact that, first, he didn't have the money to go through the testing process required for CSA and Hydro certification; second, there was the issue of the marketing.
What do you see as your role and the role of the board in terms of advocating dollars from the developmental stage right through to the marketing stage, so we can preserve some of the technological advantages we have in this province?
Mr Gow: I think that's a very good diagnosis. I've done some work in the area of the commercialization of environmental technology. I think there's a role that government can play here. You don't want the government to be providing massive amounts of money to winners and losers, but you'd like the government to facilitate the investment process.
For example, I think Mr Philip made some announcements yesterday, and one of them was with respect to an investment centre and facilitating the transfer of business and information about Ontario. I think that's a good role government can play; similarly with technology transfer, through a modest investment of money the government can provide to organizations that provide information with respect to regulations and marketing and provide business assistance and perhaps provide access to or information about venture capital.
So Innovation Ontario Corp could be the venture capital wing, if you want, of a strategy that looked at the opportunities we have in this province and saw where the barriers are with respect to regulations or business or management. You can stop that interruptus.
The Chair: We're well over the time, but given the absence of some other members, I'm going to give Mr Klopp a quick question.
Mr Klopp: It's a pleasure to see you. I noticed you're with the Ontario Development Corp.
Mr Gow: Yes, I'm on the board of the Ontario Development Corp.
Mr Klopp: Which I think would augur well with -- I like your attitude. Unfortunately, I've dealt with ODC; your ears have probably rung. Maybe that's just because we don't get to see the board of directors.
The process, from dealing with small companies, is that unfortunately they have to go broke first before they can get a loan at ODC. In one case the chap said, "If he wanted $200,000 we'd probably give it to him, but all he wants is $100,000, so he doesn't get it." When I've fought through the system, they've said, "Well, that's just the system."
I mean this in a nice way: Does the board of directors have a process to get out there to hear what's going on in the grass roots? Do people like me send letters to you, so that you in turn can ask your -- you know, so we're not being too small-c conservative at ODC.
Mr Gow: I think that's very valid feedback. I've been on the board of ODC for about five years. Over that time, I've seen a real transition. I would say there's still too much bureaucracy, it takes too long and it can be at the very last moment. I guess we can be accused of being conservative on occasion.
We have a fine line sometimes. We're very sensitive to communities that the industries we're looking at are so important to. On the other hand, we're very sensitive to the fact that we have a responsibility to taxpayers for the money they are investing. So we're trying to balance that, in terms of the things we've done over the last five years and will hopefully continue to do at the ODC level and at the Innovation Ontario level: to make it more decentralized; to make the administration systems more streamlined and responsible; to make the lending officers more accountable; to provide scrutiny as we now do through the audit committee in terms of the operations, to make them more effective -- and to listen very carefully to the kind of comments you have.
So I would encourage you, if there are problems, to make them very directly to us, not as criticisms -- although that's certainly valid -- but in terms of being constructive, because it's only when we know that kind of thing that we as the board can take steps to work with you to make it better. Our motivation is very much to try to improve in those areas.
Mr Klopp: I always give constructive criticism, as all these colleagues know. I appreciate very much the opportunity to vent that. You're right, I think they have made some great improvements -- I appreciate that -- but every year there's a new way to make a machine and there are always new wrinkles. I was getting to the point where I thought it was no use sending to this body because they wouldn't read the letter, they weren't going to ask, "Can we modify these things?" Thank you for telling me my letter will be read.
Mr Gow: I hope it will be.
The Chair: Mr Gow, thank you very much for your appearance here this morning. We appreciate it.
Mr Gow: Thank you for your time.
The Chair: As the agenda indicates, David Burn, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation board, couldn't attend this morning. He was a selection for review by the government party. I think the problem with extending this now is that we're going to run into the time restrictions of the standing order, so I don't think we really have the opportunity to establish another date, given as well that the House won't be sitting next week. Unless we want to take a position in opposition to that appointment at this stage, we'll simply have to let it go through.
Can we have a motion or motions, depending on how the committee feels in respect to intended appointees we've reviewed today, to concur?
Mr Ferguson: So moved.
The Chair: It's moved by Mr Ferguson that we concur with all the intended appointments reviewed by the committee this morning. Any discussion? All in favour? Carried.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: That concludes the meeting. We're having a subcommittee meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1142.