CONTENTS
Wednesday 28 April 1993
Election of Chair
Election of Vice-Chair
Appointment of subcommittee
Subcommittee report
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1009 in room 228.
ELECTION OF CHAIR
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): I'd like to call the meeting to order. It is my responsibility to call upon you to nominate a Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I nominate Margaret Marland.
Clerk of the Committee: Mr McLean is nominating Margaret Marland. Are there any other nominations?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): George was going to nominate me.
Clerk of the Committee: There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and Margaret Marland as Chair of the committee.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): See how easy it is, Lynn, when there's no controversy.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Notice that I started clapping first, Margaret.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): But I wanted to be nominated by you. Margaret Harrington was going to do it but --
Mr Bradley: Let's get down to the basics. How much does this pay?
Interjection.
The Chair: That will be the first.
Thank you very much for the confidence of the committee in electing me Chair. I really appreciate having this opportunity. It's one that I've been waiting for for eight years.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
The Chair: May we have nominations, please, for the position of Vice-Chair?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I'll nominate Al McLean.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): As his neighbour to the north, I'll even second that.
The Chair: Mr McLean has been nominated for Vice-Chair. Are there any other nominations for the position of Vice-Chair?
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Nominations closed.
The Chair: Nominations moved to be closed by Mr Grandmaître. All in favour of nominations being closed? Carried unanimously. Congratulations, Mr McLean. You're Vice-Chair of the committee.
Mr McLean: I'm just a worker, not a speaker.
Mr Grandmaître: Madam Chair, this will be the last time this committee is ever unanimous.
APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE
The Chair: We would like to appoint a subcommittee, please, for committee business. I'd like to have a member nominated for the subcommittee from each caucus.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Mr Waters.
The Chair: Mr Waters to be the subcommittee member for the government members. For the official opposition?
Mr Bradley: Bernard Grandmaître.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître for the official opposition and Mr McLean for the third party. Thank you.
We need a motion to appoint the subcommittee members of Mr Grandmaître, Mr McLean and Mr Waters.
Mr Mammoliti: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you. Moved by Mr Mammoliti. We will have a brief meeting of the subcommittee following this meeting this morning. Is that motion carried? Carried unanimously.
I would like to advise the committee that there will not be a meeting next Wednesday, 5 May, due to the fact that two appointments that are to appear before the committee are not available next Wednesday, 5 May, and will be available the following Wednesday, 12 May.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: There is a subcommittee report attached to your agenda. It's a subcommittee report dated Wednesday 31 March 1993. Could we have a motion for approval of that report, please?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I move adoption.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, thank you. All in favour? Carried.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: Now we'd like to move to item 5 on the agenda, which is the review of the operations of agencies, boards and commissions. I would like to ask Mr David Pond to make comments on his report and we will need a motion following that report.
Mr David Pond: The first one in your package should be the revised draft report on the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. I'll start with that one, if you like. The only change here appears in shaded ink on page 13. If you recall, at the last meeting on February 3, I pointed out to the committee that its original recommendation with regard to eliminating sexism in liquor advertising had been overcome by events in the sense that the government had already started to move on the issue, and I was directed to rewrite the passage on that point as it appears on page 13, namely, simply to note that the government has initiated a policy on this issue and that the committee commends the government for moving on the issue. So that's the only change to the LLBO report, the shaded ink on page 13.
The Chair: Any comment?
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, I move that we adopt this report and that it never come back here again.
The Chair: Any other comment? Can we send this report for translation then? All in favour? Carried unanimously.
Mr Pond: The next one I have is the draft report on the Ontario Board of Parole. Once again, the committee has already approved all of the recommendations, the last one being approved at the meeting on February 3, and this report is simply before you for the purposes of formally approving the complete draft, once again for the purposes of sending it off to be translated, I suppose. There are no changes in this draft from the last time.
The Chair: Any comment?
Mr Grandmaître: I move the report.
The Chair: The report has been moved. Is there any comment? All in favour -- oh, just a sec.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, on recommendation 2 -- I'll just find that report in a second.
Mr Pond: Page 14, top of the page.
Mr Marchese: Page 14, yes. Here we go. We have a suggested change that I think might be helpful, because we understand that the Ministry of Correctional Services doesn't necessarily have this information. It would have to get it, and that's fine, but I think the wording change that I'm going to recommend will be helpful both in terms of what is there and what isn't there. The recommendation would read:
"Victims should be informed of their rights in conditional release decision-making processes such as temporary absence and parole. The ministries of the Attorney General and Solicitor General and Correctional Services should cooperate to ensure that victims are informed of these rights during the sentencing process so those who express an interest in participating in subsequent release decision-making can be contacted."
Mr Grandmaître: Recommendation 2?
Mr Marchese: That would be recommendation 2, substitute recommendation 2 with the one I've just read. Can I just give you that wording so you can look at it?
Mr Bradley: Where did this come from?
Mr Marchese: This comes from Marchese moving it.
Mr Bradley: No, but I mean, is this the government? I'm not trying to be flippant. Did the government recommend this change or is this your change?
Mr Waters: We've been asked for specific wording to accommodate our concerns. It had been raised in debate, as you probably remember, Jim.
Mr Bradley: I well recall that.
Mr Waters: We had debated, because Correctional Services are not at this point privy to what happened at sentencing. All they get is a person and a sentence. That day we had tried to come up with some language, so we went back and said no, no, and this was the language that we came up with it.
Mr Bradley: So this isn't a government plot to cover anything up?
Mr Marchese: No, Mr Bradley. I mean, it's a good question. The point that we've had discussions on this -- the motion that we put forward says the same thing. It says that the Attorney General and Solicitor General should be involved with the Minister of Correctional Services in order to get at what is there. So we're saying the same thing. We're just adding the correct process to get to it.
Mr McLean: I think what you're trying to say is that you want the victim to know more about what's happening.
Mr Marchese: Exactly, which was the intent of 2. It's still the same intent there.
Mr Mammoliti: Madam Chair, it's not on the same topic, but I'm wondering whether or not I could reserve a spot later on for a different issue altogether.
The Chair: Sure. So is there any further discussion to Mr Marchese's motion for a change, for the revised recommendation 2? All right, could we have approval of this revision, and when you've approved it, is it all right for us to include it in the report and still send it for translation?
Mr Waters: Madam Chair, may I recommend that with this revision we would recommend that this report be adopted with this revision and be sent on for translation?
The Chair: Okay, so that's the motion on the floor. All in favour of that motion? That's carried. Thank you.
Now, Mr Mammoliti.
Mr Mammoliti: Madam Chair, you have to forgive me. I'm new on this committee and I'm also new in my PAship in terms of being the PA to the Solicitor General.
Mr Bradley: How much does that pay?
1020
Mr Mammoliti: This may not be the appropriate time to talk about this, and I'm going to ask for the committee's indulgence for a second and ask whether or not this is the appropriate time.
Recently, I had the opportunity to tour old city hall. I actually went up to the parole office, and the accommodations there were somewhat, in my opinion, small, being away from all of the action as well. I'd like to know what we can do, perhaps, to make the Attorney General aware of the accommodation aspect of the office and perhaps recommend something. I'm not sure whether or not this is the appropriate time to do it. If it isn't, I can respect that, but I thought I'd bring this up, because it has happened recently, within the last couple of days, actually.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, I don't think this is the appropriate time. I think there are other opportunities or venues that you could use to express that concern.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay, that's fair.
The Chair: All right. Is there any further discussion on Mr Waters's motion? All in favour? Thank you.
Mr Pond: Excuse me again. The next one I have here is the revised draft report on the Ontario Municipal Board. If you recall, the committee substantively approved this report, I believe in January, and then decided to hear from John Sewell and Dale Martin to hear their comments on the committee's recommendations. Then at the February 3 meeting, the committee reviewed their comments and decided to change the report in light of their comments. The change they requested appears on page 15 in the shaded ink.
If you recall, the original recommendation here on this page had read, "The committee recommends that Mr Martin should adopt alternative dispute resolution techniques in the exercise of his duties." Mr Martin appeared before the committee and told us he was already doing that, so we had to change the language here; hence the shaded ink. That's essentially it. The other comments by Mr Sewell and by Mr Martin, which the committee reviewed, didn't substantively alter any of the other recommendations, in the committee's judgement.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Grandmaître: This report doesn't reflect the latest announcement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, where three municipalities in this province have been designated or chosen to implement a pilot project to speed up the process. I'm just wondering if our report should reflect or recommend or approve of these changes. I'm just asking.
Mr Pond: I think the issue Mr Grandmaître is referring to is that when Mr Martin appeared, he mentioned that three municipalities had been chosen as sort of the pilot projects for his style of mediation and conciliation. I don't think he actually mentioned which ones they were.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton and --
Mr Pond: We can look that up.
Mr Grandmaître: Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton and Kitchener.
Mr Waters: If I may, Mr Grandmaître, what you're suggesting is that indeed we find out how Mr Martin's new concept is working out. Is this what you're suggesting? Just for clarification.
Mr Grandmaître: No, not exactly. I think Mr Martin was very clear as far as his responsibilities were concerned. But since then the Minister of Municipal Affairs has designated three municipalities, three regions, Ottawa-Carleton, I think it's Metro -- it's not Toronto; I think it's Metro; I'm not too sure -- and Kitchener, where the minister will implement three pilot projects to speed up the process; in other words, pre-hearings and so on and so forth. So I'm just wondering if our report should reflect these new changes.
Mr Frankford: I note on page 15, recommendation 2, it doesn't specifically mention those locations, but it does recommend that the ministry should monitor the efforts of the provincial facilitator. It seems to me that this is just moving on, that this has actually been started in those locations.
Mr Grandmaître: Could we then, Madam Chair, ask the ministry to provide us with a report within a year from now, 12 months from now, and find out how effective these pilot projects are?
The Chair: Do you wish to add that as an additional recommendation? Do you want to place the motion?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. I move that the three pilot projects designated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs report back to this committee 12 months from now on the success or failure of these three pilot projects.
The Chair: Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr Frankford: I think that's quite acceptable.
The Chair: Okay. All in favour? Are you voting all in favour of this motion? Thank you. That's carried.
The report can go for translation and be adopted as amended. All in favour?
Mr Bradley: Before you're all in favour, Madam Chair, all these recommendations in these reports, particularly this specific report, are going to be influenced by the government's announced program. I look at this and say that if you are recommending all of these things, you're going to see that the withdrawal of funds from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General will very much affect this. People talk about backlogs, people talk about intervenor funding. I suppose the report can still go forward, but it's certainly going forward in the context of less optimism about the recommendations being adopted because of financial constraints.
It's the old story that you've dealt with, Madam Chair, of long-term care and matters of that kind, returning people who are in institutions back to communities; very good in theory, except there never seems to be enough money to have those other places for those people available to them, the other services available, and I fear that's going to happen with this as well.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, Mr Bradley raises an interesting question in terms of implications of the announcements we've made and how they impact on the recommendations we make. We could extend Bernard Grandmaître's motion to have the same review not just on the pilot projects but on all of the recommendations that we made and how they have been dealt with by the ministry in one year's time.
Mr Bradley: That's reasonable to me.
The Chair: Apparently the ministries, under the standing order, have an option of reporting back within 120 days of a report after it's been tabled. If you want to ensure that they're going to use that option, then I think you would need a motion from the committee making that request when the report is tabled.
Mr Waters: I think what the committee is saying, therefore, is that they would like to make that request.
The Chair: So you're asking for a report back only on the report on the OMB, or would you like --
Mr Pond: It's been the practice of the committee since 1991 to not only request a speedy response to the committee's recommendations from every agency reviewed and the ministry responsible for that agency, but to publish those responses in the committee's next report. So if you recall, in our 18th report, which came out last September, there was a lengthy section explaining all the responses that the committee heard to its 17th report and, as the clerk can tell you, we've already received responses from the ministries with regard to the agencies reviewed in the 18th report, and they can go into the next report when and if it comes out. So this has become the practice in the last two years in this committee.
Mr Marchese: So it's almost redundant to request it?
The Chair: No. To make sure that it happens, it should be included in the motion.
1030
Mr Waters: But I believe what you're saying is 120 days, and I think what we were looking at was a year. I don't like putting words in my friends' mouths over there, but what they're feeling is that the impact of the announcements may not be felt in 120 days, and therefore they would like the year.
Mr Grandmaître: Due to the fact that it's a new program, I think it's only fair that we should ask them to report back in a year.
The Chair: What you're dealing with when you're talking about a yearly review is on this Ontario Municipal Board report, isn't it?
Mr Grandmaître: Not exactly; on the three new pilot projects. I'm not too, too concerned about --
The Chair: But I think we should deal with the Ontario Municipal Board and ask for that specifically, for that one-year review, if that's what you wish. If you're happy for the report back on the other reports, which has become the practice of the committee, we can do it that way; whatever the committee wishes.
Mr Grandmaître: I wanted to have it included in this report. Is it possible?
The Chair: As a recommendation.
Mr Grandmaître: As a recommendation.
The Chair: That's the motion that has been made, and we were about to vote on that motion, I think, when Mr Bradley wished to speak. So if we can vote on Mr Grandmaître's motion, all in favour? Carried.
Now it's Science North. Mr Pond.
Mr Pond: At the February 3 meeting, if you recall, the committee had one of its brainstorming discussions about possible recommendations, and this memo is the result. I think it's probably fair to say that most members, or the committee as a whole, was generally impressed with Science North and they only had a few queries, specifically three queries: (1) the Big Nickel Mine; (2) the purchase of the Bell Grove Arena; and (3) the success, or lack of it, with which Science North was marketing its services.
The committee agreed that the first two items, the Big Nickel Mine and the Bell Grove Arena, could best be addressed by the Provincial Auditor.
Let me go through this very quickly. With regard to the Big Nickel Mine, members will recall that the agency admitted when it appeared before the committee, and certainly in its internal corporate planning documents which it shared with the committee, that the facility itself had identified a problem with the Big Nickel Mine. Very briefly, attendance was falling, the facility wasn't up to date and the staff at Science North had concluded internally that a major influx of capital funding would be necessary to bring this particular site up to speed.
Members will recall that at the same time, Science North had decided that perhaps its next big capital project would be an IMAX facility, and indicated to the committee that if it were put in the position where it had to choose between an IMAX facility and fixing the Big Nickel Mine, it might go for the IMAX facility.
Secondly, the Bell Grove Arena: Some members, not all the members, felt that the purchase of the arena, which is immediately adjacent to Science North, should be reviewed by the auditor to determine whether it had been a sound financial purchase. Members who were on the trip to Science North will recall that the existing office space in the main facility is rather cramped. The immediately adjacent arena had been bought to allow Science North to expand. Some members felt perhaps Science North should have been a bit more diligent in reviewing possible alternative purchases. Other members felt that it was a good purchase. I'll leave it at that.
As I said earlier, the committee agreed that perhaps the way to handle these two concerns was to have the Provincial Auditor do a general audit and focus on these two particular items. Our information was that the Provincial Auditor had never audited Science North.
The third item was the business of marketing services. It is part of the statutory mandate of Science North to market its services and exhibits, its consulting services. The internal corporate planning document shared with the committee indicated that the centre recognized it had to do more of this in order to generate more revenue internally, as opposed to relying on the government.
However, it was also evident, from the Science North revenue projections shared by the committee, and also from the testimony of the witnesses, that in the immediate past and in the foreseeable future very, very little revenue had in fact been or would be generated by this branch of the operation, so members had a number of questions for the witnesses.
Some members felt the agency should be focusing more of its energies on this aspect of the statutory mandate, specifically with regard to the film, Shooting Star. When the witnesses indicated they anticipated marketing that film internationally but had had little success so far in doing so, some of the members pointed out, "Probably the problem there is that when you put it together, you weren't anticipating future marketing efforts."
The film is very site-specific. Members who saw the film will recall that. In order to show it, you have to have this twin-projector, 3-D laser, 70-millimetre technology. I don't really know what that means, but apparently it's very expensive technology and very few facilities around the world have it.
So the final recommendation was that in the future, when Science North is planning these major crowd-pleasing exhibits, which is what the film is designed to be, when they're still at the planning stage the agency should take into consideration their future marketability. That's it.
Mr Grandmaître: On the purchase of the Bell Grove Arena, recently in the Sudbury Star, as recently as -- well, right around Easter, I guess, the transfer of the Bell Grove Arena was already in place.
Mr Pond: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: So, Mr Pond, are you saying that even though the transfer has been made, the auditor general should still poke his nose in it?
Mr Pond: I think that was the feeling of the committee at the last meeting. The committee was divided on this issue, if you recall, and I think the compromise, if I may put it that way, was to recommend that the Provincial Auditor review Science North.
As you know, the auditor reviews spending which has already happened, so to speak, so it would not be unusual for the auditor to review an agency after the fact, if you take my meaning. I'm just trying to reflect what the committee told me at that meeting. If you want to change this, of course, it's perfectly up to you.
Mr Grandmaître: Okay.
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, I had some concerns on first reading. I was trying to re-read it now to see whether or not my first impressions were correct, but on first reading I thought the report reflected rather negatively on Science North and I felt a bit defensive for them about that.
I don't know whether the other members share that view or not, but in direct reference to what Mr Grandmaître is saying, I feel a bit odd by the way it's written with respect to the Provincial Auditor, where it says, "A more intensive scrutiny of Science North operations is needed," which almost suggests that there's something insidious or something there that needs to be probed in a deeper way.
I'm just a bit concerned because I feel that what Science North has done is very good, given the resources it's had, and that the way it's written it reflects rather negatively.
The Chair: Do you want to change the wording, then?
Mr Marchese: The point is I'd like to do that, but I don't know how we do that, given that I haven't put specific words to my concerns.
The Chair: But it's the committee's report, so the report has to say what the committee wishes it to say --
Mr Marchese: I agree.
The Chair: -- and I think you have to give direction to Mr Pond, so if you would like to change that wording, that's the option of the committee.
Mr Marchese: I personally would like to see the wording there slightly changed to reflect a little more positivity to it. Also, in the introduction of this report, I would say that if other members agreed, we should speak a little more positively about it other than simply saying, "We enjoyed the tour and we were generally impressed by the facility," because I really believe they've done an effective job of managing the facility with the resources it's had, "but here are some of the concerns."
Mr Grandmaître: I think the fact that Mr Marchese is on record as saying this, that the report, as far as he's concerned, was somewhat negative, if we all agree that the report was somewhat negative, then being on record will reflect that.
Mr Marchese: That's true, but I'm only suggesting a couple of word changes. Mr Pond is trying to reflect the discussion, which I think he's done fairly, but I think if we add a few words that speak more positively, that would reflect my views a little more.
1040
The Chair: Would you like to give those, or are you going to just leave?
Mr Pond: Yes, I can bring this back.
The Chair: Can you bring it back?
Mr Marchese: Could we bring it back?
Mr Pond: One other point -- perhaps I'm sort of being mischievous here -- the recent announcements by the government with regard to the -- I believe it's the mini-budget, it's called.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Not by us.
Mr Pond: My understanding is Science North is taking a reduction and I'm wondering if you want me to do any follow-up with regard to how that might affect its plans, or whether we should just leave that alone and just keep going.
Mr Grandmaître: I think it's a good move.
Mr Marchese: I would leave that alone.
Mr Pond: Okay, just to be fair to the agency, when we ask them to reply to these recommendations, it's quite likely they'll bring that up. That's been my experience in the past with agencies.
Mr Grandmaître: I think that's a very good move.
Mr Waters: We could do that with everything in this place.
The Chair: Are these facetious comments or just comments on the record?
Mr Grandmaître: No, by all means, I think it's a very good recommendation. I think we should follow up. These people will be affected by the budget cuts, and as pointed out by Mr Marchese, these people are doing a very good job and they should be encouraged, but if the latest budget cuts will prevent them from doing a better job, what's the future of these people?
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, to be consistent with this previous motion on this, my first part of this motion is to make sure that we reflect what we have seen and how it was managed. If Mr Grandmaître wants to have the second part of that a review of how all the operation is going to be affected by it, we could have a report in one year's time, as we did with the previous report, to see how these recommendations are implemented and how the announcements that have been made on the different programs are affecting the operations of Science North. Is that all right, to come back in one year's time and see?
Mr Grandmaître: Madam Chair, I don't think it's going to take Science North a year to find out how badly, or what the effects are of the latest cuts. It's going to take them 30 seconds to look at their budget.
Mr Marchese: To be fair, somebody can tell you in one minute, "This is going to devastate us," versus the operation saying, "This is what we've got and this is what we have to do to solve it, and in time we'll know whether this has been achieved or not," as opposed to trying to get one reaction for the one week which would not do justice to the whole issue, right?
Mr Waters: Unless you have them come back in a year, what you're going to get, or at some time in the future, what you're going to get, is an initial reaction, not necessarily a reality. I think what we will want to deal with here is the realities of Science North's situation. Therefore, anything short of that, a year's experience, is not the reality. It is what they are initially presuming is going to happen.
Mr Grandmaître: The fact that Science North does have some major projects ongoing, as pointed out by Mr Pond: the Bell Grove Arena, the Big Nickel, they were asking big dollars to improve the Big Nickel Mine. All I'm asking the committee is, how will the latest cuts affect their capital projects of the future? That's all I'm asking.
Mr Marchese: We understood you.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
Mr Marchese: Our answer was that because we understood you, we're willing to accommodate your request by saying let's see how in one period of one year they've managed to deal with this, either positively or not. I mean, we'll know in one year.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, but we were told in Sudbury that these capital projects were initialled to be started in 1993 and 1994. How will these projects be affected in 1993? That's what I'm asking. They were asking $20,000, I think.
Mr Pond: One reason I raised this was that Science North, as you know, is very skilful at accessing government funding.
Mr Grandmaître: That's a nice word, "skilful."
Mr Pond: Many of their future plans are dependent on the assumption they will continue to be able to access government funding. That's my point.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right.
Mr Pond: The other thing, as I mentioned earlier, is bet your bottom dollar that when they reply to this report, the first thing they'll say is, "Well, we can't implement any of this because we don't have any money."
Mr Marchese: That's exactly why I say -- I mean, that's what Ben now wants, and I'm saying --
Mr Pond: I don't mean that critically.
Mr Marchese: -- that's not what we need. But we know that's what they're going to say. What we want them to say is: "Look, you have fewer dollars. How are you going to manage your affairs to manage with that?" And they'll tell us in the space of time, right?
Mr Grandmaître: You're right, but it doesn't take a year.
Mr Marchese: What we're saying is, "Come back after the year and tell us how you've done it."
The Chair: Well, I hear two opinions here. Obviously Mr Grandmaître is asking to hear from Science North earlier than a year, and you're not finding that that's a useful suggestion. So you're happy to wait for a year, are you?
Mr Frankford: They're going to respond anyway.
Mr Marchese: Yes, they will respond. Exactly.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Marchese: I'm not going to support his suggestion that says we want an immediate response on how they're going to deal with it, because that won't be helpful.
The Chair: Under the standing orders, Science North or any of the agencies has the opportunity to respond within 120 days. So if Science North is really upset and worried, then within 120 days it could come back and tell the committee or communicate with the committee what its situation is.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, then, Madam Chair, is it fair to be on record as inviting Science North to appear before this committee in six months?
The Chair: Well, 120 days is less than six months, isn't it?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm generous this morning. I'll go -- we'll give six months.
The Chair: It would have to be a direction given by the entire committee, but you're free to make that motion if that's what you would like.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I am. Go ahead.
The Chair: So you're making the motion to invite Science North --
Mr Grandmaître: To appear before this committee within the next six months.
The Chair: Is that six months from the tabling of the report in the House when the report is finalized?
Mr Grandmaître: As of today.
The Chair: Okay, that's the motion. Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: I guess where I have concern is that I would like to get this particular thing closed, and if indeed Mr Grandmaître or any other member of the committee or subcommittee wishes to in the future recommend that we bring any agency, board or commission before this committee for further hearings, fine. But I at this time would like to suggest to the legislative researcher that we do some word changes as indicated by Mr Marchese, and then let's close this set of hearings on Science North, and indeed, if the member opposite wishes to have a further hearing on the impacts of the announcements, next fall, I would suggest he put that forward and that we deal with that at that time.
Mr Frankford: Madam Chair, having been on this committee for some time, I think we often think of or get suggestions why it would be nice to revisit a whole bunch of committees, whether they're ones we're doing specific reports on or things that are suggested by the appointees we see. I think this committee can look at any agency it wants, and I would have concerns about locking ourselves into this one particular agency which in general doesn't raise any major concerns. I think I would not support the motion because I don't feel that we should lock our time into this one particular one.
The Chair: Okay. Is there any more discussion on this motion?
Mr Grandmaître: Can I just, before I get shot down -- I think Dr Frankford is absolutely right. This is the responsibility, and it's our mandate to review every agency, or as many as time permits. You know, our visit to Science North was a very recent one. Now that this report is before us, why can't we deal with it? If you want to invite any other agency to find out how the latest budget cuts have affected them, I'm all for it, but as the report is before us today, why can't we deal with it today, and ask this agency to appear before us within the next six months?
The Chair: That is the motion.
1050
Mr Marchese: We are extending it rather unnecessarily. We should give this agency an opportunity to respond to some of the recommendations we've made. Some of them perhaps require dollars, they say, and some do not. My point is, give them time to respond to this. They will respond to us in terms of how they've dealt with that. Once we've seen what they have done, you will be in a better position, and so will we, to be able to either make other recommendations to deal with this by having them come or other things, but I think we should give the report and then some time to deal with this matter.
Mr Grandmaître: But, Mr Marchese, you're saying it's going to take a year, and I'm saying it doesn't have to take a year.
Mr Marchese: I'm not talking about the year now.
The Chair: Okay, the motion, as moved, is to ask Science North to come before the committee within six months from today. Is there any more discussion on that motion? All in favour of that motion? Opposed? The motion is lost.
Mr Grandmaître: God, I feel lonely on this side.
The Chair: Yes, I think so.
Is there any more discussion on the report regarding Science North? All right. Mr Pond.
Mr Pond: The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority: The first point to make about this is that the committee agreed at the meeting on February 3 -- you can infer this from the fact that this memo is only three pages long -- that there would not be a big report on this particular conservation authority. The hearing didn't raise that many crucial issues.
The one issue that came up again and again, and with regard to which some of the members differed with the witnesses, was on funding. If you recall, a persistent theme in the testimony of Mr Campbell, who is the chief administrative officer of the authority, is that the gradual decline in the provincial grant to the authority, over many years, hampered the ability of the authority to execute its mission, if you like, and undertake new projects.
Some of the members pointed out that if you actually looked at the figures, the amount of money that this authority was getting from the province year after year after year, and certainly vis-à-vis the amount of money other authorities were getting, this particular authority, relatively speaking, wasn't doing that badly. Their grants had not declined precipitously and they more or less reflected inflation.
So the committee agreed at its brainstorming session that it was unrealistic, in any case, for the authority to expect to get large, fresh infusions of government money in the future, either from the province or from the participating municipalities, and the committee agreed that in the future -- the recommendation is in the middle of page 2 -- the authority should consider raising more of its needed revenue internally, and the authority listed many of the things it already does to raise money internally. It's quite a wide variety of methods it uses to raise money internally.
The committee also noted that the only source of revenue which had, at least in percentage terms, increased substantively over the last few years was in fact internally generated revenue. Hence, the recommendation on the middle of page 2.
The only other matter that members discussed at the brainstorming session in terms of a recommendation -- and I have this on page 3 in italics because the committee did not agree on a specific recommendation -- was with regard to the membership of the authority. If you recall, 13 out of the 15 members of this authority are appointed by Durham regional council, two are appointed by the province.
It's the policy of Durham region not to appoint anybody to the council except from among its own members, ie, it does not appoint local councillors who don't also sit on the region, and it does not appoint private citizens.
Some of the members pointed out to the authority that as a result, one might consider that this authority is in effect a committee of regional council, and the chair of the authority said that that in effect is true; he sits on Durham and he said that's the way it's going to continue, because Durham wants to exercise control over how the money is spent.
The only point here, and members raised this, is that the Crombie report, if you recall, reviewed the operation of three or four authorities, including this one, and suggested that in the future there should be some change in the way authority members are appointed in order to bring in people with a different perspective than you might ordinarily get from a municipal councillor; hopefully, people more sensitive to the kind of ecosystem concerns that Mr Crombie raised in his report.
This idea was kicked around a bit with the witnesses, and Mr Harrell said, "Well, maybe we haven't done enough in the past to make the authority more sensitive to citizen input, public input,'' and Mr Campbell said that in principle -- he had no responsibility for this, obviously, but in principle he thought it was a good idea, that more people should come on to the authority who are from outside the formal political system. So I've left this as an italics in the middle of page 3, at the bottom of the text, for your consideration. That's it.
The Chair: As a former municipal councillor, those are really interesting comments.
Mr Pond: I'm just reflecting what was --
The Chair: No, no, I know you are. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I thought the suggestion in (a) is a useful one. We don't want to, I don't think, force them to do this, but we may want to recommend that they do this in light of some of the concerns that were raised in this committee. I think it would be useful to recommend to the Durham regional council that it consider making appointments to the authority from outside its own ranks because we believe it would useful to the authority and to the community to have the expertise of communities to advise on how to deal with issues of conservation. It would seem to me useful to make that recommendation to them.
The Chair: Any other discussion?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, Madam Chair. Mr Pond, we did talk about their financial woes. Are you telling me that they don't have a problem now?
Mr Pond: Well, no. To be precise here, as far as they're concerned, they have a problem, one. Two, it is a fact that the provincial grants to the conservation authorities in general have been declining since the 1970s. I mean, that's no great secret, and as you know, the association actively lobbies the provincial government for a new funding formula.
I think the point the members were making was, relative to other authorities, this particular authority had not been hard hit. That's putting it crudely. Other authorities had taken bigger cuts, proportionately, in percentage terms.
The second point I think the committee was making was that there's no point in recommending that the province spend an enormous new sum on this particular authority, because it's not going to do that; that's just not going to happen.
Hence the notion that if the authority wants to raise more money -- and I should point out, its grant has more or less remained stable, with small reductions, in the last couple of years; its municipal levy has gone up every year, no doubt about that -- then it should be looking internally, that this was the only other place it could realistically look at in terms of raising its own revenue: in the real world, so to speak.
Mr Marchese: I also recall that this is one of the authorities that raised the least amount of money in terms of revenues that are generated by doing activities such as a boat launch, campsite and so on. I think it was 3%.
Mr Pond: They declined to answer that. Mr Campbell said, "I'm not going to tell you what other authorities are doing, just our own revenues.''
Mr Marchese: So we support the recommendation that's here in terms of them looking at revenue generation ideas internally.
The Chair: Are we moving approval of this report?
Mr Pond: I'll have to come back to you.
The Chair: So this report will still come back to the committee.
Mr Pond: Yes.
Mr Marchese: We can adopt this report by adopting recommendation 1 and saying on page 3 that we recommend to the Durham regional council that it consider making appointments to the authority from outside its own ranks because we believe community involvement is important. So we should move that. I would move that motion and then adopt the report.
The Chair: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?
Mr Marchese: I would move that we accept recommendation 1 and move as recommendation 2 that we send a recommendation to Durham regional council to consider making appointments to the authority from outside its own ranks, and that the report be adopted and be sent for translation.
Ms Carter: Should we add that phrase, "so that more representatives of local, non-government environmental conservation groups are included"?
Mr Marchese: Sure.
Ms Carter: I think we want to get that point in there.
The Chair: And that the report be approved and sent for translation. All in favour of that motion? That's carried.
1100
Mr Pond: The last one is the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. This is not a draft report. If you recall, at the last meeting, February 3, the committee agreed that it had not yet reached the point where there was any consensus on the committee about possible recommendations. The committee, at that point, couldn't agree to draft recommendations, so I was instructed instead to identify the issues which had come up in the testimony and subsequently been discussed by the members in the brainstorming session. So if I may be precise here, that's what this memo covers: those issues that members pinpointed themselves after the testimony. The last page includes a list of other issues which the witnesses themselves brought up, if you like, but which the members of this committee didn't address at the February 3 meeting.
The first issue that members wanted me to pinpoint was with regard to the composition of the police services board. Members will know that on many occasions when it has been discussed -- order-in-council appointments to police services boards as well as this particular police services board -- the issue of whether the province should continue to have a majority of the members on police services boards has come up. Again, the members discussed this at the last meeting and didn't come to any firm conclusion.
Ms Eng, for her part, suggested that in the case of this board it was really an academic issue, since in practice, under her chairmanship, there was a consensus on the board, that the provincial appointees and the municipal appointees didn't divide on that basis. So as far as she was concerned, it was more or less a non-issue.
Mr Lymer, the president of the police association in Toronto, favoured the current arrangement. He felt that if the municipalities controlled the majority of appointments on police services boards, you'd wind up with a situation where it would be very difficult for the province to enforce uniform policing standards.
Mr Chong, who appeared before the committee, a former Metro councillor -- I should point that out -- thought Metro council should have a majority of the members. So that would require a change to the act. That was the first issue.
The second issue was this issue of whether police services board members should be full-time or part-time. Ms Eng is the only full-time chair of a police services board in Ontario. As you know, all other police services board members serve part-time.
There are two issues here. One was raised by Ms Eng herself. She pointed out that, as was the case under the act, the chair of the board was elected from among the members. Given the fact that for this particular board the chair was full-time, this could potentially cause in the future a procedural problem, in that the only people on the board who would be eligible for election to the chair would be those willing to serve full-time. Potentially, you could have a problem in the future, whereby nobody would be willing to serve full-time, so how could they elect a chair? She suggested that the committee address its mind to this and either empower the provincial government to directly appoint the chair of this particular police services board or require that all prospective appointees to this board in the future must be prepared to serve full-time before they're appointed; one or the other. This is an issue she raised.
The second issue was whether part-time board members are involved enough in the job, whether perhaps they should be full-time in order to do a good job on this board. This was raised by Mr Lymer. It's been his position for a while that police services board members, with the exception of Norm Gardner -- this is Mr Lymer's view -- don't spend enough time on the job.
The next issue was Ms Eng's performance as chair of the police services board. If members will recall, this was quite controversial. Some members felt she was unsympathetic to front-line officers' concerns. I'll leave it at that. You can read this paragraph.
The next issue, which was debated extensively, was the issue of the collection of statistics on the basis of race. If you recall, some members of the committee feel that when the police collect their statistics, they should be identifying the race of either the suspect or the offender, if they've arrested an offender. Ms Eng is opposed to this. She feels that if these statistics are collected and released to the public, they'll be used to stereotype various community groups in Toronto. Mr Chong, who appeared before the committee, argued that generally the police should be collecting more statistics, which would give a more complete profile of offenders, and one element in that profile should be the race of the offender. He argued that governments, including the police services board, needed that information as a policy tool.
Allan Andrews, the auditor from Metropolitan Toronto who did a comprehensive study on race relations practices of the force -- he appeared before the committee -- didn't address this issue directly in his testimony, I don't think, but in his report he goes into this quite extensively, and I've summarized his findings on the second half of page 3. I'll leave it at that. That issue, if members will recall, is quite controversial.
On page 4 are other issues which the witnesses raised but which the members themselves didn't subsequently address at the February 3 meeting; for example, the issue of police training, education. As you know, the Clare Lewis task force has strongly recommended there be more training of police officers. Ms Eng, when she appeared before the committee, said, "Yes, I agree with that very strongly, but the province is going to have to fund it in the case of our police services board."
The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, upon which Ms Eng serves, argued that new members of police services boards should get more training about their roles and responsibilities. Ms Eng also supported this recommendation. She raised that issue.
The use-of-force regulations didn't come up so much in this round of hearings. It did come up previously. You will note that the police services board has voted, under the terms of these new regulations, to keep the reports on officers' use of weapons for only 30 days. The other option was two years.
Finally, the special investigations unit. Members will remember that this has come up regularly when it has reviewed appointees to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. It's probably fair to argue that Ms Eng's criticism of the SIU reflects that of many police officers; ie, the SIU investigations take too long and the SIU needs more highly trained forensic investigators to do a good job.
That's it.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Mr Grandmaître: If I may comment on the part-time or full-time board members, Madam Chair, I don't agree with Ms Eng that we should empower the provincial government to directly appoint the chair of Metro Toronto police. I don't think that we should politicize the police services boards of this province more than they are politicized now.
By appointing -- I think the Premier gave a very strong signal that he wanted Ms Eng to be the chair, and he was very successful. This committee appointed people to the police services board to make sure that Ms Eng would become the next chair of the Metro Toronto police board. So I totally disagree with Ms Eng that we should empower the provincial government to directly or indirectly appoint the chair, and I don't think that we should have more full-time members of any police services boards. I think we have to give Joe and Mary Public the opportunity to sit on those boards, and a lot of commoners cannot simply sit full-time on police services boards. I think we should give the opportunity to every citizen, not only in Toronto but in every community, to sit on these boards. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other comments?
Ms Carter: I'd like to just comment on the collection of crime statistics on the basis of race and say that I agree with Ms Eng on that. I think it would be very problematic as to how you would do this, who would decide what race somebody was.
As far as employment equity goes, we're going to say that it's self-definition, that people say what they think they are, what race or whether they're disabled and all the rest of it. That is reasonable, I think, because it's going to work to their advantage.
Now, if somebody's in trouble with the police and you ask them what their race is, it seems to me it would be to their advantage to say they were something other than what they actually were. So I'm just wondering where this definition would come from, even if we decided that it was a good idea, which I'm inclined to think it isn't.
Mr Mammoliti: On that same note, I'd like to argue another point to this, if I may. Most of the crime out there that currently exists exists because of a particular reason or reasons. A lot of individuals who commit crimes are high on some sort of a substance or are addicts or perhaps have a particular problem that they're trying to address in their lives. A lot of the addicts who exist -- and a lot of the crime -- exist because of particular cultural problems. I'm trying to think of a way of perhaps addressing the concerns of stereotyping, because I know that might be a potential problem, but at the same time trying to address the real problems that exist out there.
1110
Enforcement isn't always the answer. Sometimes statistics are important to deal with things like addiction. Addiction is caused for the most part, I would say, because of particular problems that exist in households. A lot of them are cultural, and those groups might not organize themselves unless they know that there is a particular problem that exists within their culture or within their particular organizations or communities.
I'm wondering whether or not statistics might help in that way. Can we find a way to address the real concerns of crime? Instead of just locking people up and not worrying about their cultural backgrounds, instead of just saying we're going to throw away the key, maybe we should start looking at why these crimes are being committed. So statistics like this -- and maybe some of my colleagues might disagree with me -- are necessary. I think, personally, that there's some merit to more discussion on this.
Now, I realize that we're going to want to perhaps adopt this package today, but I also think that there's some merit at a future date --
The Chair: We don't have to adopt the report today. This is actually just an interim --
Mr Mammoliti: I think there's some merit to discussing. If you'll bear with me for one second, I'll explain the reasoning behind my logic.
Recently I took a tour of our jails in and around Metro and some right around the province, and a lot of the inmates, a lot of the clients, are from different cultural backgrounds. There's no question about it. The majority of our inmates, as a matter of fact, in Metro and the surrounding areas are just that. In the north they're of course aboriginal. In the north, we know that the aboriginal community has a particular problem when it comes to substance abuse, and unless we gather these statistics and find out the reasoning behind the crimes, we're never going to solve the issues.
So there is some logic to gathering up statistics, and I don't want to see us just say no to it because we're afraid of the stereotyping. I think we should be using these statistics in a way that could be positive, and that's why I'd like to keep the door open.
The Chair: You're looking at perhaps some way of identification in order to solve the root cause.
Mr Mammoliti: Exactly.
Mr Frankford: I tend to agree with Mr Grandmaître on leaving it more open for the community and that the members might decide among themselves about the status. I think that we probably should continue to see part-time members.
On statistics, for a start let me mention something which David Pond mentioned to me this morning, which is that there isn't uniformity about producing annual reports among police commissions. Metro does, but this is not consistent policy throughout the province. Apparently some big cities -- I believe Ottawa -- do not even produce an annual report. I think reporting is very important.
If I can refer to what my colleagues have said here, I think the definition of "race" is very problematic and there's a question of who decides. Is it self-reporting or is it an assessment by the police officer? What is "race"? Does it really mean skin colour, or is it something that is definable? Is it nationality?
I think there are some real definitional problems there, and I'll point out that, even leaving that aside, there are a lot of problems about producing consistent statistics about crime, even defining the crimes. I think it's fair to say that the existing crime statistics leave a lot to be desired, that criminologists would say there's no real consistency about how the crimes are defined, so that isn't even getting into the question of how you define "race" and then how you correlate the two. I think it's superficially very easy to say you can do this. I think, in practice, to do it in a meaningful manner is very problematic.
On Mr Mammoliti's questions about having enough statistics to do some real planning and understanding, I agree with that, but I think this means that one has to collect many statistics and I think there are other things which I imagine would correlate every bit as well and which I think in fact are easier to obtain, things like place of residence, level of education, income. Substance abuse has been mentioned. I don't know how easy it would be for the police to consistently identify substance abuse. Obviously, when someone comes in high, it is easy enough. But I suspect there's a lot which you really couldn't accurately identify unless you started doing routine urine tests on everyone. I would suggest that that's not practical and would cost far too much.
I guess I'm saying I think we have to be moving towards more comprehensive crime statistics. I think that race is in fact a very minor aspect of it. I think the other things which can be put into it are probably much more meaningful. If there are any questions about this, I would suggest that we might want to get some academic criminologist to come along and give us an outside opinion.
Ms Carter: Following up on what has just been said and Mr Mammoliti's comments, I think the point is taken that crime is often caused by problems in people's backgrounds. I think we know that and I think we can work on problems to do with housing and schooling and cultural deprivation, if you like, and drugs and so on without having to compile lists of the racial origins of people who have these problems.
I agree with Mr Frankford that this would just compound the problem. Of course, the trouble is that once statistics are available, if they do show that certain groups are overrepresented, then this does open the door to prejudice and all kinds of adverse reactions, which I think we are all agreed would be stereotyping. In fact, it isn't the race that causes the problems; it's the situation that a particular group may find itself in. So I still feel that we can combat these problems better without having the statistics, although we know there are these causes.
1120
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Three comments, Madam Chair. One is on the whole issue of a full-time board member and the appointment to be made by the province, as opposed to the current system.
Mr Grandmaître raises an interesting point in terms of how having the province make the appointment might politicize the appointment. I would argue quite the contrary, that the present system is highly political and in fact it encourages political divisions internally, even though it's made by those different community members that are there. In fact there's a great possibility that if you had the province do it, it could depoliticize, as opposed to doing exactly what you're saying. Your point is, because an NDP government makes the appointment, it's by its very nature political.
Mr Grandmaître: Any government.
Mr Marchese: Okay, but to argue that a municipality, for example, or at least the members of that board are any less political in the way they appoint a person is not necessarily all that clear either. There's a lot of politics there is what I'm arguing. The other might be even less political than the other. I offer that as a counterbalance to that argument, without making a recommendation in that respect.
On the other matter of statistics, I agree with Mrs Carter on that, but rather than saying "cultural deprivation" I would add "poverty deprivation," because it's poverty that deprives young men and women, as opposed to culture. It's whether people have money or not, whether they have adequate housing, as you were saying, or not, and education, whether they're limited by other problems, all of that. I'd rather leave that issue alone, and I don't know, in terms of the variety of views that we've heard, that we would come to any conclusion today and would recommend that we adopt this report, as a final comment, without recommendation. That would be my motion, Madam Chair.
Mr Mammoliti: I don't have a problem with the recommendation to adopt the report. My recommendation would be to just keep the door open for discussion on this, on the issue that I've brought up. I, being of Italian descent, know that in the Italian community there are a number of different cultural problems that lead to crime.
I don't say that because I just feel like saying it; I say it because it's fact. I've spoken to a number of experts in this area and they feel the same way. The community itself would like -- in my opinion anyway, and I haven't had the opportunity to really investigate -- but I believe that the community itself, my community, the Italian community, would want to know information, would want to know what types of things are happening within the community, so that it could start some type of educational process within its own community. Unless we get statistics like this, it will never happen.
The only way to address the racial aspect and the racial problems that exist in society is through education. Realistically, withholding certain information will never get rid of your racial problem. We need to address that through education. We have to get into our schools and we have to do the appropriate things that government does to educate the public on racism.
But in terms of a particular problem, and this being crime, I sincerely think that the door needs to be open on this and we need to discuss this further. I would agree with my colleague Mr Frankford that we perhaps invite a criminologist, an expert person, to talk a little bit to us about this particular issue. It might be a good idea. I know I would have a few questions to ask and I know that my colleagues might as well. Maybe that's a motion that I'd like to put on at this point, and at the same time agree with Mr Marchese and adopt the report as is, without any recommendations.
The Chair: All right. There is a slight problem with Mr Marchese's motion, because he's moving adoption of a memo in fact, not a report. You have the option of going through this memo and giving a comment, a motion on each part of it, and then the memo becomes the report, or you can refer it back to Mr Pond to come back with a complete report as a result of this memo. Maybe Mr Pond would like to explain.
Mr Pond: As you can see from this, all I've done here is lay out the issues. I haven't laid out any recommendations. What we've done in the past with other similar agencies is either go through this and specifically adopt recommendations one way or another or simply decide not to issue a report on this agency at this time.
Then what we've agreed to do with, for example, the Grand River Conservation Authority and Ontario Northland Transportation Commission is, in the introduction to the next report, simply spend a few sentences noting that the committee has heard from this particular agency the following dates, that certain issues came up but the committee, for whatever reason, decided not to issue a formal report at this time, and leave it at that, one or the other. I mean, if you want to issue a report, you're going to have to come up with some recommendations.
Mr Frankford: I think that Mr Pond could, having listened to what we've said today, go back and produce a report or a draft report, because I think there are some important issues being raised.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, you had a comment too.
Mr Marchese: Yes. My sense was that because there is no agreement on a number of different areas that we have talked about, I felt that we could send it off in that way and presumably the ministry would have this memo -- do you call it a memo? -- as it is, with issues that are raised, and they could lift what they wanted or not, respond to something or not, and that would be the report.
The Chair: But I think the responsibility of the committee is to complete -- the committee has reviewed this matter, and I would think that the committee has to finalize the review in a formal way.
Mr Marchese: I understand that. My sense was that to simply have Mr Pond go back and again put in the report suggestions or statements that we've made and bring that back wouldn't be useful to us unless that produced a recommendation of some kind. I'm not sure it would do that, so it would be my sense to move that we not issue a report.
Mr Pond: A question of clarification: What we can do, and I think this is what you meant -- as you know, in these reports the first half is a narration of the agency, how it works, and in the second half are the recommendations. What we can do is do a report on this agency where we have the first half, and then the second half is essentially this, with a brief intro saying, "These are the issues that the committee pinpointed for discussion. Here is the discussion, but we're declining to issue formal recommendations," if you like.
Mr Marchese: Move that.
The Chair: Would you then include Mr Mammoliti's comments from today?
Mr Pond: Yes.
The Chair: All right. Is that acceptable?
Mr Marchese: That's fine, yes.
The Chair: Then when Mr Pond has done that, the committee can look at that again before we approve it. All right? That doesn't require a motion, no. Thank you.
That concludes the committee agenda, but I do need one final motion. The motion that I would like someone to move is that the Chair, upon receipt of the four translated reports, instruct staff to prepare the report, including responses to the last report of the committee, and upon receipt of that printed report, the Chair table the reports pursuant to the standing order requesting a response.
Mr Grandmaître: Carried.
The Chair: That motion covers the four reports. The four reports are the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, the Ontario Board of Parole, the Ontario Municipal Board and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
All in favour of that motion? Carried.
Thank you very much, committee members, and the committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1129.