CONTENTS
Wednesday 5 October 1994
Intended appointments
Janis Sarra, Social Assistance Review Board
Jane Darville, Advocacy Commission
Herb McGirr, Ontario Racing Commission
Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet, Ontario Human Rights Commission
A. José Mut, Ontario Development Corp
Donald Curry, Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship
Zoltan Simo, Innovation Ontario Corp
Baljinder Singh Sidhu, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Janet Richardson, Board of Parole, western region
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Ferguson
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Waters
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Frankford
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in committee room 2.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order. Today we are reviewing appointments by the government to our official agencies, boards and commissions.
JANIS SARRA
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Janis Sarra, intended appointee as member, Social Assistance Review Board.
The Chair: The first appointment review this morning is a selection by the official opposition party. I'd like to welcome Janis Sarra to the committee. Please come forward and have a seat and be comfortable. Ms Sarra is an intended appointment as a member of the Social Assistance Review Board. We will start with Mr Curling.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too would like to welcome you to the committee. It is the government's intent to bring you on the board of a very responsible committee. Actually, the government of the day has been considered a backlog government. Now everything is backlogged, even in the social services there's a tremendous backlog, so you're going to face a situation with a lot of workload. I presume you are quite familiar with backlogs and heavy workloads?
Ms Janis Sarra: Yes, I am.
Mr Curling: The social policy area, the social review area, is one that will be quite focused on in the months to come. The pressure will be for reviews and all the appeals and the reassessment of people on social assistance. What makes you think you will bring qualifications to deal with these kinds of situations, where there will be a heavy backlog and there will be a stricter process of reviewing people who are appealing for social assistance?
Ms Sarra: In terms of the position at the board, first of all, I bring eight or nine years of adjudicative experience in an administrative tribunal, which I think will stand me in good stead. Part of those years were very heavy backlogs -- or not backlogs so much; heavy case loads with limited resources. We were called upon to meet that need and I think that will stand me in good stead.
The other thing is that I also worked at city hall for a municipal councillor back in the mid- to late 1970s. One of the things I did was appear on behalf of constituents before SARB. I also worked with municipal administrators in trying to resolve some of the problems in terms of GWA.
So I'm lucky in the sense that I bring both an advocacy role from many years ago and, more recently, for the last eight or nine years, an adjudicative experience.
Mr Curling: This is one of many appointments coming through here. Some come through with per diems and some come through as nice contractual jobs that are offered to people. How did you come to know about this position?
Ms Sarra: I've been a full-time adjudicator, as I said; I've been with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal for the past six or seven years. I recently had my third child, and what I was interested in doing was moving to a part-time position with a tribunal where I had some expertise. I actually called quite some time ago, but they weren't looking at part-time positions at that point; they later contacted me and said they were trying to find new and effective ways of dealing with their case load and that they were going to consider this as one option. That's how it was initiated, anyway.
Mr Curling: The minister floats, from time to time, about social reform. Do you have any comments about the direction? I know it's a very difficult question in some respects, but you must have some thoughts about social reform, what the government is doing, because it will impact on what you do and the decisions you make. Do you have any comments about that?
Ms Sarra: From my perspective, I guess I would distinguish what my role will be as a board member, which is basically to deal with the cases in front of me on the very specific facts, from whatever the choices are of legislators generally in terms of passing legislation and regulations and implementing policy. My job is to interpret that policy as per the facts in front of me, so probably that's where it's more appropriate for me to comment now. I understand that may have implications for case loads, and presumably we'll do the best we can. I will, if I'm appointed, and I'm sure the board is right now.
Mr Curling: There's limited time. I'm going to ask my colleague if he has a question of you.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. The one thing I would have to say is that local social assistance committees, municipal, feel that the Social Assistance Review Board leans towards the individual, that if they appeal a decision, most times the individual gets their way and gets a ruling in their favour rather than against them.
Ms Sarra: Would you like me to comment?
Mr Cleary: I'd like your comments on that.
Ms Sarra: Sure. From what I understand of the appeal rates, only about 50% are allowed, and in fact I think that's a drop from previous years, slightly. I think it used to be more like 60%. But I think the larger comment is that municipal administrators have a very difficult job and they're dealing with a huge case load. They're making decisions without the benefit of an oral hearing, and one of the advantages the board members have is that they have the parties in front of them, they can take the evidence under oath or affirmation, and they're in a better position to assess if all the information is there. I suspect that's where in fact the appeals get allowed, where the full information is on the table, both for the municipal administrators and for the person who's appealing.
Mr Cleary: Apparently, they had a workshop recently. I don't know where it was; it may have been in eastern Ontario, in the Kingston area. I know we had got letters from many of the administrators and that they felt very strongly about that, that with tight budgets for the municipal people, they didn't figure the cooperation was there with the Social Assistance Review Board. They figured that some of the claims they were having to pay weren't justified, and they would have liked to have appeared ahead of a commission like this, but time didn't permit.
Those are my comments.
1010
Mr Curling: Maybe I could follow up on a couple of things. There are a lot of images out there in regard to social assistance that are attached sometimes to certain ethnic groups, that they are the ones who are on social benefits more than anyone else. How do you feel about that? Are you familiar with the statistics? Do you feel they have been classified in the wrong way or in a bad way? How do you feel about that?
Ms Sarra: I certainly have my own personal views, but again, if I can come back to the appointment at hand, I think what an adjudicator really wants to do at the board is to take each application as it comes and try and deal with it as carefully as they can on the merits, being very careful about issues of natural justice and fairness, to assess the facts and then decide whether the person is eligible or not. There's probably a broader spectrum of people now seeking assistance just because of the economy generally. Really, our role as adjudicators is to separate out any kind of images and talk about the evidence that's before us.
Mr Curling: Sometimes it is very difficult for you, the people who are in areas to judge and make decisions; sometimes the media, sometimes interest groups focusing on new immigrants, feeling they are more so on the social assistance Ferris wheel. Do you think the government is doing enough, or that there is more that could be done, to dismiss that kind of image? It makes your job a bit more difficult, I would say, or anyone who is on the Social Assistance Review Board, when you're reviewing things. Of course the impression outside is that there are people more so on welfare. We've gone through one of the most rigid recessions, and most of the time the people who are more vulnerable to all of this are minorities, women, those who are constantly being subjected to some discrimination. Do you think there is more that should be done to make the kind of work you're going into -- that image disappear, or the reality hit home?
Ms Sarra: From my perspective, as you can appreciate, the Social Assistance Review Board is arm's-length from the government. I think its role and responsibility as a tribunal needs to address certain things, and from what I understand, although obviously I'm not there yet, I think they're trying to: for example, travelling to 50 or 60 centres and being more accessible to people who can't economically afford to travel to hearings, making the decisions in a much more simple language format. All of those kinds of things are things that can and are being done, as I understand it, to deal with what, as you characterize, are very severe times, and where new strategies are needed to deal with enormous case loads.
Mr Curling: Do you think statistics should be kept of who is on welfare, who is getting social assistance; in other words, how many women, visible minorities, what age groups? Do you think these statistics should be kept, so that policymaking should reflect and direct some of the benefits, respond to those individuals in a proper way? Do you think statistics should be kept because of those reasons?
Ms Sarra: It seems to me that's probably a question more appropriately for the people in this room, in terms of legislators. I am not sure that, from my perspective on the board, it's for the board to do that. As you said, we want to approach each case very fairly and on the facts, so I don't know if it's really a good one for me to comment on.
Mr Curling: Good luck in your job.
Ms Sarra: Thank you.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee. You indicated you were familiar with the Social Assistance Review Board and its operations?
Ms Sarra: Yes.
Mr McLean: I have a case in northern Ontario where an individual applied for welfare and got a cheque. The welfare worker realizes that they don't feel the person should be collecting welfare. They have a right to appeal. That appeal could be 10 months, and during that 10-month period they are still collecting welfare. Then they send somebody from Toronto to Kenora or Thunder Bay to review what's happening. Do you think the system could be improved in any way?
Ms Sarra: That's a very good question. There are several parts of that, I'd say. The first is that interim assistance, which is probably what this person was on, is really defined in terms of hardship, so that's one part of the whole system. Another part, which I think you correctly identify, is that there is a growing period of time before the cases get heard. From what I understand, the board is trying to find new strategies to tighten that up. Certainly, the fact that they've just expanded the complement and added six new members to hear cases is a big part of trying to speed that up, and I think that would address some of the concerns of your constituents.
The other thing is that they've also moved towards regional appointments, which means that more people are being appointed out of the communities in which these cases are being heard. I think that is economically more efficient, and also probably they're more sensitive to what welfare administrators and also the people in the community are facing.
Mr McLean: So that is being done. Instead of a 10-month wait, they may be able to do in it two perhaps.
The other question I have is with regard to the minister's announcement on September 21, where he released the ministry's preliminary findings in the general welfare assistance cases. He found that clerical errors and fraud were about in 20% of the first 40,000 files examined, resulting in overpayments of about $21.3 million.
What opinion do you have in terms of solving some of the problems with regard to the system? I know you're going to be reviewing them -- that's your job -- but there's more to it than that.
Ms Sarra: I think there are two issues here. The first is that my job, presumably, as a board member will be to decide the eligibility in terms of applicants, based on the evidence in front of me and obviously the statute and the regulations and what they provide. The issue of fraud, of course, as I'm sure you're aware, is a criminal issue, and there are people who are actually investigating that and there are criminal sanctions for that; that's a very separate process. But from my perspective, we want to be as careful as possible when we determine eligibility so that we're making responsible decisions and certainly doing what we can at our end.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd just like to pursue the direction Mr McLean was taking, that is, regarding the mismanagement and fraud that was discovered. It's a phenomenal amount of money that's being lost that obviously could be put to better use to serve the citizens of the province of Ontario. I would say to you that there is much that needs to be done, and I would assume that if you're going to become involved you also become involved in some of the problems associated with the system. What suggestions do you have personally for reforms or measures that could be implemented to ensure that fraud is eliminated to the greatest degree possible and that the system is better managed?
Ms Sarra: If I can just back up, I haven't read the minister's report, in part, as I said, because it's relating to criminal matters. But I do understand from a number of the media reports afterwards that in fact the overall rate is still about 5%, as it's been for about 20 years, so I speak with that understanding from the various columns and news reports.
Having said that, it's obvious that there's been a continuing problem and there has been for many, many years. From my small part of the role, which would be as an adjudicator with the board, you have to work to ensure that the part you're responsible for -- that you're scrutinizing each case and receiving the evidence with as open a mind as possible to ensure you're getting everything you need to make a decision, and really to give assistance to those who truly require it, based on how the statute has defined it.
Mrs Witmer: Your answer has been very vague. It certainly wouldn't help me if I were in charge of that area. I'll ask you specifically a question related to home visits. As you know, the home visits now have been put on the back burner and they won't take place except every two years. Unfortunately, that can be interpreted that this government in many ways is encouraging fraudulent behaviour, because people know there's not going to be any checking, that no one's going to come into their home and verify that indeed all the facts are accurate.
What is your opinion regarding the number of home visits that take place? So much of what happens now is verbal communication.
Ms Sarra: I apologize if you thought I was vague. I'm not trying to be vague. What I'm trying to stress is that I think the role of any tribunal -- and I speak from some experience in terms of the other tribunals -- is a very narrow one. It's not for us to make government policy, it's not for us to comment on government policy, whoever the government is of the day. We can only, as adjudicators, do things within our power, and our power comes entirely from the statute. So I don't think it's really appropriate for me to comment on the home visits, because that's really policy questions about the provincial government and, frankly, the municipal governments.
1020
Mrs Witmer: The problem we face is that right now people who are on welfare, unfortunately, have a stigma attached to them. Anybody can tell you they know oodles of people who obtain welfare in a fraudulent manner, whether or not that's true. I suspect in most cases it's not, because I think most people who do receive welfare receive it because they truly are in need. But that's why it's so essential to eliminate the fraud and the mismanagement, because unfortunately that stigma now is attached to every individual, and it's really quite unfair. Those people are suffering enough as it is, in an attempt to get through that stage in their lives where they're receiving that interim type of help.
I personally feel we need to work collectively together, everybody needs to, to make sure we eliminate those two problems and help to raise the self-esteem of the individuals who are collecting welfare and seem to all be tainted by the same brush. It really hurts those individuals.
It's a really big problem. I did a TV show on Monday night and this was raised as an issue; I couldn't handle all the phone calls that came in. This is an issue the public is extremely concerned about, and there's tremendous misconception out there too. As I say, we need to deal with the issue of fraud and mismanagement and also, obviously, manage cases a little more effectively than we have in the past. I wish you well.
Ms Sarra: Thank you.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): First of all, Ms Witmer made the statement that this government was encouraging fraud. I find that extremely misleading, so I just want to make sure that is said.
The other members raised the issue of the case load and the backlog. Obviously, you're not on the board yet or in this position. Do you know what has been done or is going to be done to address the question of the case load?
Ms Sarra: From what I understand, a number of things have been done. Partly, I understand this because as an adjudicator with another tribunal, some of us think SARB has actually done an extraordinary job in terms of having very limited resources. For example, the pay equity tribunal was looking at some of the innovations that have been done by SARB as a way to deal with its limited resources and increasing case load. For example, they've gone to simple-format decisions, which means that rather than causing delay from the point of the end of the hearing to the decision being rendered, the simple-format decision gets the decision out as quickly as possible so that someone knows whether they're entitled or not.
Similarly, they had a backlog project last year where they sat basically days and nights until they wiped out what was then the backlog before the last big burst of cases, and used their resources as efficiently as possible.
I'd say my appointment part-time is also another measure; they haven't in the past few years had part-time members. They've appointed two of us, and basically they'll get double the work for the same amount of money.
I think they are looking at a number of measures and are trying very hard to see, given that there are limited resources, what they can do.
Ms Harrington: Do you have any idea what the waiting period would be now?
Ms Sarra: I'm afraid I don't know what the current one is. I apologize. I'm not yet there.
Ms Harrington: I understand. As we all know, we're in the middle of substantial change on this -- our JobLink initiatives -- and everything is in a state of flux at the moment, and hopefully improvement. Obviously, that's the whole idea of this: to break the welfare cycle and enable people to have more choices in their lives and to have a job. I'm very hopeful that within the next short while real improvements will be made, and I hope you're part of this process as well.
I'll leave it at that; I know my colleagues are ready.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): You've pointed out that this is an adjudicative body at arm's length from government and not a policymaking body in any way. I believe that is your background, that you have a lot of experience in an adjudicative capacity. I wonder if you could just tell us something about the experience you have that is relevant to this board.
Ms Sarra: Certainly. I was most recently, for the past seven years, a vice-chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, and in that capacity I was originally appointed by the Peterson government. We basically did the startup of the tribunal and dealt with the adjudicative issues surrounding pay equity legislation. Prior to that, I was an adjudicator with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and, as I said at the outset -- I'm not sure if you were here -- I also, in a former capacity, worked municipally for a municipal councillor and had a great deal to do with the advocacy and administrative part of social assistance. So I have the advantage of having worked with welfare administrators and also in terms of policy around social assistance, but I can hopefully bring my adjudicative skills to bear on some of that substantive information.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I wanted to make a similar kind of comment, and wanted to comment that I found the answer you'd given to Ms Witmer not to be vague but to be quite appropriate. The job of the person we are agreeing to hire is "to hear appeals from decisions of the director or welfare administrator, to refuse, cancel, suspend or vary the amount of an allowance or benefit available under the Family Benefits Act." That's your job, so it's not your job to respond to policy questions or to produce policy papers. When you're asked political questions, you may or may not answer them, or you may answer them in the way you did, that is, what you are asked to do under the act and what the job role of this person would be.
I was quite impressed with the kind of experiences you bring. I was almost about to ask you what some of the skills of mediation you have are, and examples of some of the difficult questions you've had to handle as an adjudicator. Is there an instance that comes to mind which was difficult to mediate, that you would refer to as something you would want to share with us?
Ms Sarra: I can't think of a particular instance, but I can say I probably have a few reflections as coming out of the years. I think the biggest thing for any adjudicator and administrative tribunal is to be as fair as possible and as accessible as possible. The Ontario Legislature has crafted these tribunals as a way to provide an accessible means for people to have appeals, whether those appeals come from the director or a municipal administrator or in fact from an individual, so I think our job is to not lose sight of the fact that we provide that service, and the hearings themselves have to be conducted in such a way that people feel comfortable and that people, whomever they're representing, can basically tell their story and get their evidence on the table and have a sense at the end of the day that, whether the decision is to approve the assistance or to decline it, they've had a fair hearing and they've been fairly treated.
Mr Marchese: Ms Sarra, thank you very much, and we wish you luck.
The Chair: Any further questions? There are four minutes.
Mr Curling: I do, Madam Chair.
The Chair: No, further questions by the government party.
I'd like to thank you, Ms Sarra, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Ms Sarra: Thank you very much.
1030
JANE DARVILLE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Jane Darville, intended appointee as member, Advocacy Commission.
The Chair: Our next appointment this morning is Ms Jane Darville, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Advocacy Commission. Welcome to the committee, Ms Darville. This is a selection by the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. What is your appointment for, a three-year term?
Ms Jane Darville: I believe so, yes.
Mr McLean: Were you approached for this position?
Ms Darville: Yes, I was.
Mr McLean: By whom?
Ms Darville: It was through some conversations with representatives from the Ontario Hospital Association.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the functions of the commission?
Ms Darville: Through the legislation I've read, yes.
Mr McLean: Of the six recommendations there, which one or two do you think you would be most appropriate appointed to look after: the vulnerable persons who are incapable of instructing an advocate, or what?
Ms Darville: I think the strength I would bring would be being aware of the health care system, the macro issues that would evolve through it, certainly an awareness of the vulnerable and potentially vulnerable people in the province and their relationship to particular parts of the health care system.
Mr McLean: What qualifications and training would you support for advocates?
Ms Darville: Qualifications I think can vary. I wouldn't see them as all having the same type of qualifications. Personal attributes I think are as important sometimes as academic qualifications. In terms of training, I think that will be an evolving issue. Obviously, that's one of the first roles of the commission. The training would vary from a true understanding legally of the act and the other acts: consent to treatment and substitute decision-making.
Mr McLean: I see Mr Reville's here this morning, the chair of the commission.
Ms Darville: We just met.
Mr McLean: Have you been briefed by him with regard to the procedures here?
Ms Darville: Not particularly. We just met a moment ago.
Mr McLean: Great. Welcome, David.
Mrs Witmer: Whom do you feel you represent on this commission?
Ms Darville: Clearly, I represent the hospital and the health care community. But I think any commissioner, whether they're a public member whose name came forward from a particular part of the community, has to represent and be concerned about the vulnerable people the act was written for, as well as the other citizens of Ontario, those people like you or I who potentially may be vulnerable at a particular point in their life. I don't see that it's any one area in particular. I obviously bring some strength, but generically I would perceive that I would represent all the groups.
Mrs Witmer: You're probably well aware of the fact that there are some people who perceive this Advocacy Commission to be just another intrusion into their private lives and the lives of their families and their loved ones. It's a very serious problem, by the way.
Ms Darville: It is.
Mrs Witmer: Obviously, one of the functions of the commission, as it embarks on the task in front of it, will be to give some feeling of confidence. What are some of the things that can be done by the members such as yourself to give that reassurance to people that indeed this is not another intrusion into our private lives by government?
Ms Darville: I think actions speak better than words, but, as you say, at the beginning there may not be great actions to fall back on. Very clearly, as we go along we have to communicate well to those groups what it is we're intending to do and why we're intending to do it. That's not just the vulnerable groups and their families; clearly, the more traditional official groups out there -- the health care community, whatever -- have some concerns.
Mrs Witmer: They do.
Ms Darville: There's a fair amount of controversy about how this will all play out in the scheme of things, so I think there may be different approaches that will need to be taken with those different groups.
Mrs Witmer: Pursuing that, what assurances can you give us that the commission is going to be able to deal impartially when dealing with advocacy cases that involve complaints against government bodies? That could be perceived to be a conflict: You in essence are a government body, and obviously some people will have complaints against it. How can you guarantee that there won't be a conflict?
Ms Darville: How can one ever make that guarantee? If I'm speaking for myself, I consider that I have enough personal integrity that that won't be the case. I would hazard a guess that the other intended commissioners would be similar to me. As I said, one has to trust the process and believe that the people who are before you understand and are committed to that.
Mrs Witmer: Pursuing the concern about the role of the Advocacy Commission, there are some in this province -- for example, the Ontario Advocacy Coalition -- that support the development of a system that would emphasize consultation with local community. Is that the model you support, or is there another model that you would recommend be examined?
Ms Darville: Without probably going deeper into some of the models that are out there, I don't know how one can avoid the model of consultation, particularly, as you say, as there are concerns out there by individuals, groups and other organizations. While sometimes it's difficult to be out there in the consultative mode, one has to do that to truly be a responsive commission, to get your message across and to hear the concerns of the people.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that's part of the problem with so much of the legislation during the past four years, that really the control becomes very centralized. We see it in the long-term care legislation as well, where you've got the creation of the MSAs. Our regional chairman, Ken Seiling, is on record as saying, "There are other models; you should be involving the community," and we don't seem to be doing that.
That's certainly a concern I have. If this Advocacy Commission again does not consult, does not allow for some local autonomy into the process, there will be a great deal of unhappiness. I personally believe that local autonomy and responding to local needs is important. I'm concerned about this commission, I'm concerned about any agency that takes away the independence of the local communities to best provide for their own citizens.
Ms Darville: I think one of the first things one would want to do as a commissioner is look at all those issues that are out there. Certainly, through the process of this legislation there would be some feedback from those particular groups. As one of the things I talked about in my interview with the minister, one of the first things I would feel I would want is: what has been said through those official or unofficial channels, so we can respond appropriately. Everyone, I would think, would want to mitigate that in whatever way they can. You don't want to create land-mines, you want to avoid them. If this legislation is supposedly to protect the vulnerable people, or you and I, should we become vulnerable, one can't avoid having those conversations.
Mrs Witmer: I wish you well. It will be a challenge.
Ms Darville: Thank you. It certainly will.
Ms Carter: Congratulations on being appointed to the Advocacy Commission. It's certainly something that's very close to my heart. I'm parliamentary assistant to Elaine Ziemba and of course this is a Citizenship development.
I really don't take kindly to some of Mrs Witmer's comments that this is somehow another big bureaucracy that's going to be centrally run and impinging on people's privacy. I don't think that's the image that those of us who have been involved with this thing have of it.
As you know, most of the commissioners have been appointed by a different route, which was in fact extremely democratic and involved all those groups that are most concerned because they're the consumers of the kind of service that's going to be offered. To me, it does seem to be a very grass-roots type of thing, and although ultimately it's responsible to Citizenship, it doesn't have that direct connection with Health or Community and Social Services or other ministries which are much more likely to be the object of complaint than Citizenship is, because Citizenship doesn't deliver these front-line services. Although ultimately it is paid for by government and sponsored by government, it seems to me this really is a grass-roots things.
And it's certainly not going to intrude on people's lives, because an advocate will come when called, when somebody is in dire need or somebody else thinks a person is in dire need, to interact with that person solely. If that should involve, say, family members -- well, in real life sometimes family members can be part of the problem, although usually they're part of the support.
I just wonder what you feel about this concept of it being something that isn't another bureaucracy but something that is genuinely different.
1040
Ms Darville: I'd like to think it won't be part of a bigger bureaucracy and that, through the evolution of the commission, it will be proved not to be intrusive, that it will be what I think it's intended to be, which is an enabling and facilitative piece of legislation for those who need it, at the time they need it.
As you say, I guess we'd all like to live in a world where we might not need advocates, but there are situations, and I would be naïve not to say it, where things don't go right for people, with or without family support. But certainly my intent as a commissioner would not be to promote anything that would turn against the people you're actually trying to help.
Ms Carter: Naturally. Why do you want to be a commissioner?
Ms Darville: For a number of reasons. It's exciting to be involved in something new. There's no road map for this. There are very few commissions of its type in the world, if any. I think I have something to say. I think I can bring to it some skill in terms of my management experience, as well as my knowledge from a pretty broad background in health care, both community and the formal institutional sector. It's time to do something like this.
Ms Carter: So you feel your experience so far is relevant, that you can bring to this commission.
Ms Darville: From the early days, when I was a visiting nurse, part of what I perceived my role to be was to advocate on behalf of those patients I had in the community who, whether formally defined as vulnerable, at times were vulnerable. Much of what you did as a visiting nurse wasn't the particular physical or emotional care you gave them, it was helping them through the process. So yes, I think I have something, very clearly, that I can bring to this commission.
Ms Carter: As you say, this is a pioneer. I don't think there is anything like this out there anywhere, as far as I know.
Finally, I'd just like to ask you, what do you see as the greatest challenges to the commission?
Ms Darville: I think the greatest challenge has already probably been addressed in the few questions I've been asked this morning. The challenge will be getting across to the people who need the service how to access it quickly and reasonably, and how not to frighten people about the intent of the legislation.
Ms Carter: To make it clear that you're working for them and not as some representative of some big "them."
Ms Darville: No one wants their life interfered with, particularly.
Mr Marchese: Ms Darville, I've a question as it relates to advocacy services. Obviously, the advocacy services will take three forms in terms of care advocacy, rights advocacy and systemic advocacy. I was looking at your curriculum vitae and saw that you have extensive experience in this field. Can you, drawing on those experiences, tell us how that would benefit care advocacy, rights advocacy and systemic advocacy?
Ms Darville: That's quite a question. I think I've answered that a bit already. As you know from my CV, my experience has been community-focused for a number of years, moving into Casey House. I think we experience there, and I believe it can happen in larger settings, a situation where advocacy was actually part of the fabric of that organization. Advocacy was what you did as one of the care givers there. I've seen it work in reality and believe it can work in other places.
From my background, I can participate in the conversations about the systemic and macro issues, and from my more personal, individual experience can understand, both from the client and from the care giver's point of view, issues that I think would help in the development of the more individual or micro issues.
Mr Marchese: I would have pursued that specifically, but I know Mr Malkowski has some questions, so I'll leave some time.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'd like to ask just a quick question. In your experience, with your qualifications -- in your background obviously you're a service provider -- could you tell us a little about how you think a service provider could be more sensitive to consumers, and how would one then bring a balance between consumers and service providers on the commission if the goal is such that we want to empower consumers? How would you develop a plan to provide something of a compromise or something of a working relationship between consumers and professional service providers on the commission?
Ms Darville: I'm a little confused about the question. Could you just say the first part again?
Mr Malkowski: Let me rephrase it. As an appointee to the commission, there sometimes are conflicts in some areas between advocates or advocacy services that are proposed by consumer groups and service providers; there are sometimes differences in philosophy. As someone appointed to this, how would you bring about a balance to some of that?
Ms Darville: That's at least a two-pronged response. Throughout the process, you've got to be very clear with those service providers about what the intent of the legislation and the role of the advocate is. More importantly, to try to avoid some of those issues as much as possible, the whole selection process and training for the advocates needs to be as refined as possible. Undoubtedly, initially the advocates will be looked upon, I think, with some hesitation by the professional community, and I would then expect that a lot of our attention is going to have to be placed on how you select and pick and define the role of the advocates who will be out there.
Mr Malkowski: Can you tell the committee, or tell me, from your own experience in working with disability groups or consumers, why you think you are qualified to work with some of these people? Could you tell me a little bit about your experience with the consumer movement?
Ms Darville: Not trying to go back too much to creation, as I said, as a visiting nurse I became fairly in tune with those issues of advocacy, particularly through my work at Casey House, not only as a member of the original steering committee and board but, more latterly, as the executive director. If anything, that was probably the 1980s event in Toronto that proved that grass-roots advocacy did work. Casey House wouldn't be there if it weren't for the advocacy of the gay community and some other well-meaning people in the city of Toronto and Ontario, including some politicians at that time. I think I experienced through that process, on a number of different levels, the experience of how that can work positively and how you can take that energy and turn it into something that serves a community.
1050
Mr Curling: Ms Darville, I want to thank you for coming before the committee.
Ms Darville: Thank you for asking me.
Mr Curling: I should say at the outset that I'm not a great advocate of this Advocacy Act. I agree with the description of the problem, but I totally disagree with the prescription that is laid out by the government. Therefore, I have a little difficulty here, and you must have seen the difficulty expressed by the government side too. They're continually asking for explanations of certain things because some colleagues over there are not quite fully understanding of what the act does. I presume it's an ambitious thing to couple these three acts together and hope it will work effectively.
One of the things I have concern about is what I heard during the hearings, and maybe you'll be able to give me your feeling. How do you feel about the criticism that the rights of the parents, of the family, are being taken away and Big Brother or Big Sister now will be looking after it? How do you feel about that criticism? What would be your response to people who feel that way?
Ms Darville: That that's the intent of the legislation or the fear of the legislation?
Mr Curling: That the whole intent of the legislation is to do that, to say, "We will look after you now" -- Big Brother, Big Sister. Some people who came before us talked about it, that that is what the Advocacy Act is all about. Do you feel it's wrong?
Ms Darville: Do I think it's wrong?
Mr Curling: Do you think they are describing it not in a proper form?
Ms Darville: I think they're describing it as they see it and interpret it. I'm not sure that's how I interpret it. Certainly, if one does interpret it that way, there would be reason to be concerned. I don't think the intent of the legislation is to be Big Brother to anybody. As I said earlier, I think it's meant to be and can be an enabling piece of legislation to be used when required.
I don't think the intent of the legislation is to take away the rights of the individual or their families. Many of the vulnerable people and the groups that represent them have worked very hard for some autonomy and some independence, and I wouldn't anticipate that this piece of legislation would take that away.
Mr Curling: Some people do believe that it takes away their rights as a family and as a parent at times, and they continue --
Ms Darville: I guess we'll have to be clear that that's not the case.
Mr Curling: Would you be able to criticize the act if you find anything wrong with it?
Ms Darville: I've tended to criticize things in my whole life, if I've had some concern. I would, as a commissioner, do that behind closed doors, obviously. I don't anticipate we'll agree on everything, but I guess that's what the working rooms are for.
Mr Curling: So you would be able to say that there are things wrong with the act, to bring it to the commissioner or the chief guru and say that --
Ms Darville: I would hope so, and I would hope that commissioner would want the commissioners to do so.
Mr Curling: Maybe I'm kind of cynical in some respects when I read it, that they must be completely committed to this act and must also demonstrate commitment to that Advocacy Act. Not having a full understanding -- I'm not saying you don't; maybe you do. But I get the impression from the government side that they don't themselves.
I'm looking to commissioners who would be appointed to this commission as people who are extremely sensitive to those people who are vulnerable. I categorize you as being one of those in the minority, because as I read it, the act requires that the majority of the commissioners must be 65 or older or be individuals who are or have been or are likely to become disabled. It's hard to know. What category would you find yourself in?
Ms Darville: Isn't there a category for members who aren't those?
Mr Curling: You are in that category who are --
Ms Darville: I would anticipate. I mean, I could become disabled or vulnerable at any moment.
Mr Curling: I just like the description. It says "or are likely to become disabled." I'll likely become disabled, as soon as I get older anyhow, and unable to do certain things. So you are now in that category, the minority who may not become disabled.
Ms Carter was saying how democratic this commission was because of how they have been appointed or selected to this commission. Were you one of those who was selected by the minister?
Ms Darville: My name went forward from the Ontario Hospital Association as, I presume, one of the public members, and my name was then brought forward through the minister.
Mr Curling: The way I see it here too is that four of the persons, except the chair -- the first appointee was the chair, which I gather was given the blessing by the minister or appointed by the minister directly, and we just go through the rituals here. "...first appointed from persons recommended to the minister by the Appointments Advisory Committee, and two of the persons first appointed by the minister on the basis of their commitment to the purpose of this act." I presume you are not one of those who were blessed with the appointment or selected by the minister.
Ms Darville: Although I would anticipate that I'm committed to the act. I guess that part fits.
Mr Curling: Oh, yes. If we all want a job, we --
Ms Darville: We don't want to separate the two here.
Mr Curling: No, but this is more on the procedure. You're comfortable with that procedure, that some of the people will be coming to this commission by the minister --
Ms Darville: Certainly. Sure.
Mr Curling: Of course you would be.
There are organizations and non-profit community agencies which would be delegated jobs and maybe provided funds and grants to carry out their jobs and maybe assist the commission in its work. Is there a list of those agencies, that you know of?
Ms Darville: Not that I'm aware of. There may well be.
Mr Curling: Do you know how they'll go about selecting those agencies?
Ms Darville: From my point of view, one would look at them based on the mandate they have currently, their location within the province geographically, and whom they represent. Beyond that, that may have to be finer-tuned through the work of the commission.
Mr Curling: But you don't know of any list now or what the criteria would be?
Ms Darville: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr Curling: Do you know how much money the government will be having aside for these agencies to assist the commission in its work?
Ms Darville: You mean what is the budget for the commission totally?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Ms Darville: I think it's somewhere around $30 million.
Mr Curling: Is there a maximum at all on these agencies, a maximum amount that would be given to these agencies, that you're aware of? Or have you not been briefed?
Ms Darville: No, I haven't been briefed.
Mr Curling: You just know there's a $30-million bag out there that will be given to some agencies that will be either created or --
Ms Darville: The $30 million, I think, is for the total work of the commission. In terms of how that's to be allocated, I have not been privy to that yet.
Mr Curling: Neither do you know about the criteria?
Ms Darville: No.
Mr Curling: Would you have any input in this when they start making the decisions about agencies that will be qualified as a supporting factor for this commission? Would you as a commissioner have any input on that, what agency it will be?
Ms Darville: I would anticipate so.
Mr Curling: So it is the commission itself that you feel will be identifying those: "You and you and that group will be the supporting" --
Ms Darville: I think through some input, yes.
Mr Curling: But the selection though: You don't know if the commission will be the one to say, "These are the agencies that will be the supporters of the commission in carrying out its work." You don't know that?
Ms Darville: No.
Mr Curling: Do you feel you have been properly briefed in the sense of being properly familiar with all the procedures of how the Advocacy Commission will carry out its work?
Ms Darville: My briefing up until now has been information on the legislation. I would anticipate further briefing would be once the commission starts to meet.
Mr Curling: The suspicion of people outside -- the government has been criticized for setting up commissions, that it is just another bureaucracy and another backlog will happen. I felt over the last couple of years, maybe even before this government came into power, that there's a stream of backlog and the vulnerable people are the ones who are being subjected to far less services than are required. As a matter of fact, they are more confused. Do you feel this Advocacy Commission, and you as a commissioner, will more or less assist in having services directly, more efficient, faster and a lot less confusing about where they should go --
The Chair: I would ask you to just finish your question, Mr Curling, and then you're out of time.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Madam Chair; I'll be quick. In other words, this will eliminate some of this backlog and eliminate some of the confusion and it's not the creation of another bureaucracy.
Ms Darville: I would like to think it will enable the people it needs to help and that it will, hopefully, decrease some of the confusion, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Darville, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
1100
HERB MCGIRR
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Herb McGirr, intended appointee as member, Ontario Racing Commission.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment is Mr Herb McGirr Sr. Mr McGirr is intended as a member of the Ontario Racing Commission. Welcome to the committee, Mr McGirr.
Mr Herb McGirr: Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: We will start with the government members.
Ms Harrington: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to our committee. Thank you for coming up from Fort Erie. You're from my area.
A lot has been happening with regard to the racing industry over the past few years. There obviously is going to be a rather large structural change in preparing for the future. I'd like to ask you to comment on some of the changes that have been made in the last couple of years, from your knowledge in Fort Erie, and then talk about what you see as the future, the vision for how you would like to see the industry operate. It's a big question, but you can start on it.
Mr McGirr: It certainly is a big question. You're entirely right: There has been a number of changes in the industry, in the gaming industry as a whole. Those changes are not specific within the gaming industry strictly in Ontario, and we have had to adjust.
I have most recently been part of a sector partnership process for the horse racing and breeding industry, and I would be pleased to report to this committee that the industry as a whole, under those auspices, has come forward with some very wide-ranging plans for the future of racing and how the industry and its job base will be maintained in light of a very changing gaming industry in this province and, as I say, around the world.
I'm very pleased that the industry has come together under the sector process, and I feel as though we're making some great strides. My hope is certainly that we will be able to maintain the industry as whole as we know it today, and in addition enhance it by virtue of positioning it for growth in the future and the maintenance of the 28,000 to 50,000 jobs related to the horse racing industry in this province. I feel good about the future of horse racing in Ontario.
Ms Harrington: It's very important to our economy. We have some of the statistics here before us today about the basis agriculturally and for very many jobs across the province. Of course we locally know there are about 4,000 jobs associated with the Fort Erie Race Track.
I wanted to get a little further into the role of the commission and the role of the strategy working group. How would you see your role on the commission as different from the role of the working group?
Mr McGirr: I have been involved in the horse racing industry in this province for about 20 years, and during that period I have been able to watch the role of the commission. Of course we're all aware that it is empowered with broad-based powers to govern and control and regulate horse racing in this industry.
I would be hopeful, with the most recent change in the development of the sector partnership process, that the racing commission would be able to play the role it was intended to do initially, and that is to regulate the industry. It's always healthy for those business people, such as myself, who have been in the industry for years, to be able to in some way take control of their own destiny. I am hopeful that this sector process, with its newly appointed council, which encompasses members from all aspects of horse racing in the province, will be able to carry on and make business decisions that will be in the best interests of the industry. As a multi-sized group with broad representation, I'm sure we'll make the proper decisions to guide the industry forward.
My view is that the Ontario Racing Commission plays and should play a heavy role in the regulatory end of things, the administration of the business, and, wherever called upon, with this newly developed sector to assist to enhance the industry. That's where I see the two roles being played.
Ms Harrington: I see. One is regulatory; the other is more for the industry?
Mr McGirr: With this most recent development of the sector process. I might add that this is probably the first time in a long time that all aspects of the industry have been able to come together in one room and decide the future of the industry, and I think that is truly healthy.
Ms Harrington: That sounds very promising. As part of that coming together and looking at the future, dealing with the realities of the province, I do want to mention the word "casino." If a casino does come to the Niagara region, how would you see this: in a positive light or a negative light? And how would you be prepared to deal with that situation or work with that situation?
Mr McGirr: Dealing with the word "casino," I alluded in my opening comments to the changing structure of the gaming industry in this province and, obviously, around the world.
I might cite to you that most recently I read some articles on the gaming industry in France. They have been able to develop a very strong gaming industry composed of both casino gambling and of course a long-time-structured horse industry. The horse racing industry has been able to have been enhanced while the casinos also grow. That, in large measure, has been responsible as a result of 7,200 betting-shop opportunities across the country. Therefore, our enhancement of the teletheatre aspect of the horse racing business most recently might afford us that opportunity as well.
Specific to the Niagara region with respect to a casino, you are undoubtedly aware of the effort that has gone forward in terms of Niagara Falls and most recently in terms of Fort Erie. I think we have to look at the fact that the horse racing industry has long said, certainly with respect to the Niagara region, that if a casino were to open in the Niagara region -- and I would think that's certainly in the cards, be it in the short term or the long term -- we will have to look at ways that we will enhance the racing industry and maintain the 4,500 jobs, in fact 5,500 jobs with the 1,000 jobs that are related to the bingo industry as well in Fort Erie. When you consider that there is only a total of 12,000 jobs in our small community of 25,000 people, were we to lose 5,500 of those jobs, that would be a meaningful impact on the community.
I am hopeful that everybody will look at all aspects of the potential coming of a casino to the Niagara region and I'm hopeful that the decisions will be made in a positive vein so we can enhance and enrich the whole Niagara region. Of course those decisions will be made by somebody other than myself.
Ms Harrington: Hopefully, with input from all the affected parties.
Mr McGirr: Yes. We're all major stakeholders, obviously, and I think we have to look at all aspects of what goes on with a casino coming to the Niagara region. We would put forth the argument, of course, and I think we should also realize that in Regina, when there was a casino located at Queensbury Downs, that track was about ready to close; it enhanced its operation. With respect to California and Hollywood Park, they most recently opened what they refer to as a card room, as opposed to a casino, and that has enhanced and enriched the live racing program there. On the other hand, in Louisiana, where the racetrack went in partnership with a riverboat casino, they certainly thought that was the answer, but it has not worked out.
I know there have been reports that horse racing takes a hit from 5% to 10% if a casino is opened in the immediate area. I would suggest to the committee and to you, Ms Harrington, that if a casino were opened in the Niagara region, the hit on Fort Erie would be much greater than that 5% or 10%. That's a consideration that I think we have to air and look at all aspects of.
1110
Mr Marchese: I have two questions. One was to have you comment on the alternatives you've been exploring to increase the kind of support you've had for the racing industry, and you mentioned that teletheatre is one. I was going to ask you what else you're thinking of doing along those lines to increase the support, but I'll ask you another question because hopefully somebody else will ask that.
I'm noticing in the research that in 1994-95 the racetracks' tax-sharing agreement will likely return approximately $28 million to the racing industry for equine research and also for improving the quality of race stock in Ontario. I'm assuming the industry is happy with that arrangement. Can you speak to that?
Mr McGirr: Obviously, they're happy with that arrangement. Obviously, the provincial government is a major stakeholder in the industry, deriving gross incomes in the range of -- for a figure's sake -- $75 million and then rebating $25 million of that back into overnight purse enhancement and breeding enhancements. It is a very big part of what we do in the industry. We depend heavily upon that provincial rebate.
To the extent that it is being used properly, I would say, heretofore, yes. However, we have a number of changes going on in the industry, and my own personal opinion is that those rebate dollars could be reviewed -- desperately needed -- but perhaps some allocation of those that would find its way down to the multitude of people who are playing in the game, because they have been basically to enhance stake races, as such. We need that, but many of us have played the game underneath that level, and some of that support might in the coming days be directed there.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to pursue this matter of gambling, casino gambling in particular. I happen to have a preconceived notion that a casino would sink the Fort Erie Race Track, which is already in a sometimes precarious position because of a number of factors. You have dealt to a certain extent with that. I take it that the only casino you think would be of any use to you would be a casino be located at Fort Erie Race Track, which would enhance your position rather than detract from your position.
Mr McGirr: To the extent that we have looked at other situations across North America, it would appear that casinos on tracks have enhanced the operation and in some cases have saved racetracks.
Mr Bradley: I'll try to word the next question delicately, because one can't say anything any more without someone finding something wrong with it. But would it not be the case that many of the people who are employed at racetracks such as Fort Erie are people who would not have an opportunity to easily find other employment and that it is absolutely essential for these people, in terms of their ability to make money for themselves, that the racetracks continue to exist? There are a lot of people who are not highly skilled, a lot of people who perhaps have some disabilities, who are able to work at the racetrack and do very well and enjoy it immensely. Would that not be the case?
Mr McGirr: Yes, that is a very true observation.
Mr Bradley: So if the tracks were to close as a result of these casinos springing up across the province, we might see some problems.
I was on your side on the casinos. I know you can't say too much when you're being appointed by the government to a commission, but I can make the observation that I think casinos sink the racetracks.
Lotteries, I guess, have also had an influence. Every time I turn around, there's some new lottery. Every government does it, I can assure you: There's a new lottery of some kind that comes out. Do you see that continuing to erode your base, when people can simply go to the corner store and plunk down their $40, that they can't afford, on tickets rather than going to the racetrack? At least if it were a racetrack they'd have to go down and watch the horses race.
Mr McGirr: Obviously, there's a degree of sport, we like to think, in the horse racing industry. We have, by nature of competition, had to compete with lotteries over the past 10 years. It is a burgeoning business, as we're all aware, and a major contributor to the wellbeing of hospitals etc around the province. Obviously, lotteries are here and they're here to stay. We've had to define a market niche that we have had to try and develop, and I think we've done that relatively well. We've had some fallback in terms of our industry, from a betting standpoint, but I don't think it has been dramatic. I think if we find ways to market ourselves a little bit better, perhaps we can walk and chew gum and be competitive in the gaming industry.
Mr Bradley: The next question is one that is not as friendly to your operation. In addition to my intense dislike of casino gambling in this province or anywhere -- my position is that of the old CCF, the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, on gambling issues, I suppose, and on the proliferation and promotion of lotteries as well, and other ways of gambling. But we now have offtrack betting.
I can understand teletheatre, where at the racetrack there may be another racetrack, that you have the screen and maybe there's some racing going on and they can bet on something else. I understand that, because they're there. But is it absolutely essential that you have these in restaurants and bars around the province, where people go in and do their betting there? They don't even have to go to the track; all they have to do is go in and plunk their money down or however they do the betting. Is that absolutely essential to the future of your operations?
Mr McGirr: It has been stated that the horse racing industry has been in the dark ages for a number of years; that is to say that while we had the market entirely to ourselves and there were no lotteries, no casinos, no Monte Carlo nights and bingos to the degree there are today, being the only game in town we were able to survive. However, most recently, those in the decision-making seats of this industry have deemed that taking the product to the market is one of the ways we can in fact maintain the industry.
I would suggest to you that among the teletheatre groupings that I know the Fort Erie product is going to, our average daily handle last year was in the range of half a million dollars a day; this year, because we are going to 19 different teletheatre/racetrack locations, our handle has increased to almost $1 million a day. That kind of speaks to the future of live racing in Fort Erie, so I would say that the advent of teletheatres has certainly been a coup for Fort Erie and will probably put it on a strong footing for some time to come.
I would, however, agree with you that we should attempt to -- and I think we are, because our racing is going to Elmira Raceway, it's going to Windsor Raceway, it's going to London, among other racetracks, and the majority of that increase in handle has come from our product going back into Woodbine, Greenwood and these other four racetracks across Ontario. To a lesser degree, we are seeing some gains in some of the teletheatre locations. The jury may still be out in terms of the type of locations, but I think the teletheatres overall at some point will contribute, and I think we're really finding our way in that process now.
Mr Bradley: How much time do I have left?
The Chair: Four and a half minutes.
Mr Bradley: Oh, good.
The Chair: Pardon me, three and a half minutes.
Mr Bradley: I liked the first answer.
I'll make an observation that will make me unpopular with some people, but that doesn't bother me any more; that is, I don't like the offtrack betting in restaurants. I remember a person in my own riding, having heard a speech in the Legislature -- somebody was actually watching the legislative channel -- phoned my constituency office to complain bitterly about my remarks, and had I been into one of these places and so on. I noticed that a month later the same person asked that they take the betting out, because he had lost all his old customers and the people who were in there weren't buying food and drinks, they were just throwing their money into the gambling. But I won't ask you to comment on that, because I know how important you believe that to be.
The next question I have is about the future role of the commission. The minister, Marilyn Churley, when she announced in September that Mr Drea would not be reappointed for a fourth term as the chair of the Ontario Racing Commission, indicated that the position of chair would be downgraded from a full-time to a part-time responsibility and that she expected the commission to focus on the regulatory aspects of its role rather than promotion, as I think it had been involved in. Could you comment on that? Do you think the commission should be involved in promotion, or do you think the commission should be relegated to the position of the regulator?
Mr McGirr: I think I commented on that, but it certainly bears repeating. My own personal view is that promoting racing is not a job that is going to be done singularly by one person as chair of a commission and/or together with that commission's members. Certainly in the sector process, we've brought together in a marketing subcommittee many, many bodies from different facets of the horse racing world, and they have come up with a marvellous marketing plan.
If we're talking about promoting the industry, I think the industry participants can probably do a better job overall than could members of a commission. My answer to you would be that, yes, I am so buoyed by this sector partnership process and the gains we've made in some short four or five months, that that's true indication to me that the industry should take hold of its own problems and grapple with them, and perhaps they best know how to promote the industry.
1120
Mr Bradley: The future of horse racing is somewhat interesting. Again Ms Harrington made some reference to it. I assume you believe that under the right circumstances Fort Erie can be kept open and a viable racetrack.
Mr McGirr: I know, Mr Bradley, that you stood in the Legislature one evening when I happened to be watching on TV and spoke very eloquently about your concerns for the future of live racing at Fort Erie, and on behalf of everybody at Fort Erie we thank you for that. We've had a tough fight down there for the past three or four years, and we appreciate all the support we've got from all levels of government. Yes, I feel as though now, given the fact that we're able to steer the ship properly in the coming years, we do in fact have a future at Fort Erie. I'm pleased to report that to you. Thank you for your assistance.
Mr Bradley: I wish you the very best on the commission.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. You were answering Mr Bradley with regard to the part-time or full-time, and I'm not so sure I heard you. You're saying there is no need for a full-time chair any more.
Mr McGirr: I guess I did not get to answer that question, but I would be happy to answer it for you. I cannot speak for the minister or for the government, but I assume that with the good work that's being done by the sector, perhaps it was decided that the role of chair could be filled on a part-time basis. I read only with interest that Mr Sadinsky has stated he is certainly very happy to put in whatever time is needed to get the job done. He has served on the commission for four years and part of that as vice-chair, so I'm sure he's aware of the obligations he's going to have, and I'm sure he'll fill his duties there.
Mr McLean: I had some other questions, but I want to go back to the teletheatre operation. I too spoke with regard to the problems the racing industry was having, especially the Barrie Raceway, which is very familiar to me, and Jane Hutchins, who is the manager there. Do you think teletheatre's going save Fort Erie, Barrie, these types of tracks?
Mr McGirr: I would be hopeful. I spoke to this at the only time I had ever attended before the commission, in the date allocation hearings three years ago. There were two days of hearings, one for the live dates and a second for simulcast dates or intertrack dates. I said on that occasion that my vision was that we have 20-odd supervised tracks in the province, some of them of course much smaller than others, and it was my hope that we could certainly take horse racing to all those venues first and try to help and support them, and then later see what other market share would be available to us.
I would hope that everything could remain whole. I would have some concerns, obviously, about the future of perhaps some of the smaller tracks, but tracks like Elmira with simulcasting have come along, and I understand that Barrie is starting to experiment with some of those issues.
Mr McLean: How many teletheatres do we have now in the province?
Mr McGirr: It's my understanding that there are some 75 at this point. I know the previous chair spoke of 300 perhaps at some point in time. I don't know that that level will be reached in the short run, but, as I stated earlier, while we have seen some tremendous gains and they have resulted in increased handle, I'm sure this initiative is under review as we speak today, to take it in the directions that will show growth for the industry.
Mr McLean: Is there one at present operating in Windsor? I know they are looking for a new one when the new casino is built, but is there one there now?
Mr McGirr: It's my understanding that Windsor Raceway, Tom Joy and John Millson, who's president, are running a simulcast, because they're not live-racing now. In speaking with Mr Millson at the most recent sector partnership process meeting, he informed me, and I guess it's certainly public knowledge, that their simulcast or intertrack handle is up about 42% this year. I think that could be a direct result of some improvements they have made to their facilities there as much as it is perhaps any other issue. But certainly they seem to be pleased with what's happening there.
Mr McLean: The board adjudicates complaints against Thoroughbred and Standardbred licensees. A subcommittee of this appeal board is the drivers' review committee. Who would be on that appeal board of the subcommittee? Are they appointed by you? Who appoints that subcommittee?
Mr McGirr: To adjudicate appeals?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr McGirr: I assume that the chair, in the past, has brought together the members of the commission who would attend hearings.
Mr McLean: So you probably will be doing that now.
I observe that the hearings have run at about 100 a year since about 1990. Before that, there was a maximum of 43, 47, 45, but they're now running at 100 a year. Would you see that decreasing or changing? That's a lot of hearings. There were 100 hearings held, and I presume those hearings would be held on disciplining drivers or some --
Mr McGirr: Jockeys, drivers, trainers, just about any licensed participant in the industry. It could be owners, it could be trainers.
Mr McLean: But it doubled in one year and has stayed consistent ever since. What would be the cause of that?
Mr McGirr: Perhaps that might be a bearing down of the stewards at the racetracks and/or perhaps the participants felt that by putting forward appeals, they would delay the process to some degree and perhaps get out of penalties that have been levied by the stewards.
Mr McLean: What really interests me is the funds for equine research at the Guelph Equine Research Centre, located at the University of Guelph campus. The provincial rebate is 2% of the 7% tax; in other words, the research centre is getting 2% of the 7% that the government used to get?
Mr McGirr: No, I don't believe that's the case. I believe the rebate in total is some 2.25%, the $25 million I referred to earlier, and that a small portion of that $25 million is earmarked for Guelph. It is not the full 2%. The full 2% comprises the total $25 million, of which a small portion goes to Guelph for its equine research. That's my understanding.
Mr McLean: So we don't really know what amount Guelph is getting. Perhaps the member could enlighten himself and let us know what that is, but I know it will be a substantial amount.
The other question I have was with regard to the impact, back to what Mr Bradley was talking about, of the casinos on the business we have. There's more than casinos involved: There's bingo, which you mentioned earlier on, and increased sales on Nevada tickets. What do you think is the future with regard to the 22 tracks we have listed here. Is it going to be a positive aspect?
Mr McGirr: Obviously, I'm here today to speak to horse racing issues and with respect to my intended appointment to the Ontario Racing Commission, but I think I would be remiss if we did not include gaming as a structure, because we know that's what it is today. It's no longer singularly horse racing. I have stated here previously today that I certainly feel that we can walk and chew gum, and that with the proper marketing approaches, I'm sure everybody will be able to coexist in the market and there can be a growth factor for the horse racing industry. I feel relatively good about that.
Mr McLean: Do you think Greenwood should be kept as a racetrack?
Mr McGirr: Obviously, it doesn't appear as though that's going to happen. There may be some other moves that may be made. I think the Ontario Jockey Club made its move with respect to Woodbine and Greenwood for financial considerations. Certainly, it is a marvellous facility as they have developed it, and maybe that is the wave of the future, but that's yet to be seen.
Mr McLean: The bottom line is that there are about 28,000 people or more who are involved in the racing industry. There are farmers who sell hay, there are people who have jobs. It's a substantial industry in this province.
Mr McGirr: Without question.
Mr McLean: I hope you will make sure it stays substantial. I'm a farmer too; I sell hay. I wish you all the success in your appointment.
Mr McGirr: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr McGirr, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Mr McGirr: Thank you, Madam Chair.
1130
ELIZABETH HUNG SORFLEET
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet, intended appointee as member, Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Chair: Our final appointment review for this morning is Ms Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet. Welcome, Ms Sorfleet. This is an intended appointment as a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and it's a selection by the government members.
Ms Carter: I'd like to welcome you here this morning. The obvious question is, why do you want to be a human rights commissioner?
Ms Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet: It's a very exciting opportunity to assist the society we have in Ontario to address social justice issues and issues of equity. I think it's also a very exciting and dynamic time to join the commission because of some of the recommendations for changes and also because as times change -- the commission is now 32 years old -- situations, people and the demographics change, so the needs have changed as well. With my background in advocacy as well as my background as a person in business, I think I can bring some perspectives of those two parties.
Ms Carter: Could you enlarge on that a little, what life experiences and work or academic experience you do bring to the Ontario Human Rights Commission?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I'm a former refugee from mainland China, and that is a country that has had a very poor history of human rights, as you know. Human rights and the kind of legislation and protections we have in Canada and Ontario are ideals that I hold very dearly, professionally and personally.
What I would be bringing as a commissioner is a professional background as an advocate. My background was in social work. I have experiences working at the front line as a service provider; at the middle management level, where I'm supervising staff and ensuring that they're conducting their business in accordance with the Human Rights Code; as a senior manager representing the employer; and as an employer myself. My experience has been in the fields of disabilities, ethnocultural race relations, age, gender and anti-poverty issues. Presently what I'm doing is having a consultant firm which does a lot of training on ethnocultural-based relations and on employment equity issues. I also have a pretty substantial record of activities in the community as an active volunteer, looking at issues of equity and access and integration of the designated groups.
Ms Carter: You have quite a rich background to bring to this commission. Given your background and your familiarity with all kinds of different issues -- the situation in a country that maybe doesn't have human rights, disability issues etc -- what is your vision for human rights in Ontario? Where do you think we're going?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think now more than ever the Human Rights Commission has a leadership role in terms of the kind of culture or society, country and province -- the kind of Canadians we want to be and the kind of Ontarians we want to be.
Looking at the pattern of increases of the workload of the commission, there's certainly been substantial increase over a period of time in requests for information and in the number of cases that come for investigation and follow-up to the commission. Now, I understand, the commission is looking towards a very exciting direction of continuing to support and investigate the individual cases but also looking at it in a systemic way. I think that is the way to go, because we know these are not random phenomena that happen to individuals, but there's a pattern by reason of their membership in certain groups.
Ms Carter: That's right. Obviously, if you have a systemic approach, hopefully the number of individual problems will diminish, and that of course would reduce the administrative load and the backlog we've heard a lot about in connection with the commission. Do you think the employment equity legislation we've brought in, or other legislation, is going to help in that respect?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think so. That certainly is a move that many advocates in the community have been waiting for for a long time. We're very excited by Bill 79. I think there are also other developments, for example, in the Ministry of Education, Bill 21, on ethnocultural equity. There is a number of converging directions in different agencies and ministries that are addressing what we would like to move towards: a more just society.
I'm excited by the fact that the commission is going to be working, as I said, more on systemic issues, and also by the fact that there's going to be opportunity for interministerial work together.
Ms Carter: I agree with you: It is exciting. What do you feel are the challenges you'll be facing in the near future?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think it's one thing to have policies and legislations in place; the challenge comes in how we practise and are really walking the walk rather than just talking the talk; it's implementation. Also, the commission, like many other agencies, boards and commissions, has the challenge of living with our present economic realities, where there's a limitation to the degree and the amount of resources there are.
So it's to look at how the commission is going to address both the need to continue to support systemic cases as well as individual cases, and to look at strategic use of resources in interventions. I think that is going to be a major challenge. I feel the Ministry of Citizenship has a very important portfolio because it does talk about issues of equity and of citizenship.
Ms Carter: I agree with you.
We did have hearings on the Human Rights Commission, and, as I mentioned, there has been a problem of overload and backlog. I guess some people are of the opinion that applications should be screened and some people who feel they have a human rights problem should nevertheless be turned away, but I think it was the commissioner's attitude that everybody should receive due consideration. Do you go along with that?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: Ideally, what I would like to see is that every person who feels a grievance can have that investigated to the thorough degree that the complainant wishes. One has to also balance that with realistic workloads and the issue of the ongoing backlog. The work of the commission, the fact that there's a need for it, is very much validated by the fact that there is a consistent workload. I think one has to look at that.
I understand that there have been a number of examinations of procedures, infrastructure issues and questions, as well as looking at the structure of the commission itself, as to how it could work effectively and efficiently to serve the people.
Ms Carter: And of course quite a few changes have been made recently, and I guess we're hoping that is going to solve a lot of the problems.
I just have one more philosophical question, if you like. There are two opinions, basically. One is that when we have different immigrant communities or whatever, they should be assisted to keep up their own traditions and so on and thereby add to the mosaic of life we have in Canada. Others say: "Well, they came here. They should just learn English and forget everything else and be good Canadians." I just wonder what you feel about that.
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think we have to go back to not only the exact wording but the spirit and the intent of the Canadian multicultural legislation. What that really means is something beyond celebration of differences. What it goes to the heart of, again, is: What is a Canadian and who is a citizen, and how long are immigrants or refugees immigrants and refugees before they're Canadians?
We also have to look at the issue that integration is a two-way street: that there is an onus on adaptation of newcomers to the key norms, values and practices of the host society, and also there is an onus on the host society to adapt, because culture is not static; we continue to change. We can say we have a different culture than our children will have. It's an evolving society.
I also feel that the economic times right now are not good, so therefore the work of the commission is even more key to ensure that we are addressing issues of discrimination.
Ms Carter: There tend to be jealousies and spitefulness and so on; when people feel unfortunate they look for somebody to pick on.
Ms Hung Sorfleet: Everyone is hurting.
Ms Carter: Thanks very much. I wish you well.
Ms Hung Sorfleet: Thank you.
1140
Mr Curling: Thanks for coming before the committee. Your appointment to the Ontario Human Rights Commission is, as you know, the way you spoke to: You understand the kind of commitment and the importance to serve on this commission.
The commission I feel has needed a lot of direction and somehow to be focused. To the worst degree, it had suffered from poor morale at one stage, and maybe still continues to have some morale problems. This is not a good sign whatsoever.
We expect that the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is looking after the rights of all -- and I emphasize all. Too often I have a feeling that some people feel they're not included in this process.
Having said all of that, I think it plays an extremely important role. I also feel it's very difficult because it's under the microscope all the time, and any slippage at all will come under severe criticism by the media and individuals who need to use its service.
I have a concern and of course I will voice it, but I don't expect you to comment on it. I feel the minister herself is not fully committed to this kind of process, and that's where leadership has to start in this respect.
While we have a human rights commission that serves all, there are individuals in our society, Canadians, who feel -- and I will be specific -- that they will not be properly served by coming forward, especially talking about equity rights, fairness to be dealt with. Individuals in our society, like white males, feel, "I don't think I can be properly served by the Ontario Human Rights Commission because of the attitude and the feeling out there." How do you respond to a criticism or observation of those people who feel that way?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: First of all, the commission is there to serve everyone who has a grievance, where they feel they have been discriminated against under the provisions of the code, so everyone should get quality service. We're aware that because of demographic changes and social changes, persons who have perhaps in their past enjoyed more power and privilege may feel that their needs and their issues are not being attended to right now. I think we need to acknowledge from the beginning that what we're doing is addressing some very, very old issues of injustice and that the playing field is not level yet. I think there's a need to educate and to support people, because what we're talking about is changes in attitudes and perceptions and values.
Mr Curling: Let me follow through on that cliché about the level playing field, that the playing field is not level yet. We all consider ourselves tall if we can make the other individual short; it does not necessarily mean that others should grow. In fact it's to recognize people's differences and to make sure that the barriers or the discriminatory practices are being eliminated.
Do you feel the reason we can't get the playing field level is because of the enforcement procedures of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, that it does not enforce the legislation, or the government itself doesn't want to make sure this legislation is enforced properly, so what we do is create bureaucracies, or we create bigger bureaucracies to deal with other systemic issues?
We created employment equity to deal with systemic discrimination in the workplace, where basically sometimes it's not in the workplace that has most of the impact but maybe the schools, and it goes on and on in society. We created pay equity, and women would have been more addressed in that situation, so we got cloudy in all of that.
But in the meantime, the enforcement aspect of the Ontario Human Rights Code would have eliminated it and made sure the playing field is level. In other words, if we fine individuals who are violating these laws, what we'll do is come down with the fullness of the law on them. The question then is, do you feel the Ontario Human Rights Commission goes about in administering its powers effectively?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think the things you're talking about are very large macro-level issues, and that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is one mechanism that addresses these issues of inequity and injustice. In terms of what might be effective ways of addressing the macro-level issues, one way is education and policy development and communication, and another way is corrective action. When we're talking about enforcement, I think we're talking about the second alternative; that is, the enforcement aspect, which is more corrective.
Because I'm not in the commission yet, I don't think at this point I can give you a valuable or informed response to that specific question. I think we have to take a look at what the procedures are. I know there has been a great deal of concern from stakeholders, including consumers of services, elected officials, the media, advocates and the community at large, about the backlog, and that's a valid concern. At the same time, in fairness to the commission, I think one has to look at some of the infrastructure issues.
For example, as someone who has considerable experience as a senior manager in service-providing organizations, I think an organization will not survive very long in a healthy way if it doesn't evaluate and take periodic assessment of its own procedures and if it doesn't address the infrastructure, because it's the infrastructure upon which the service provision is based.
I think the commission has been working towards resolving some internal and external issues. To what extent they have progressed on that, I'm not privy to that right now.
The Chair: There are only three minutes left, if you wish to give Mr Bradley a turn.
Mr Curling: I'll give Mr Bradley a turn. If there's any more time, I will ask more questions.
Mr Bradley: In our courts of law in Ontario, an individual who is the subject of a complaint or a charge is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. There has been considerable discussion of the fact that when one is the subject of a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, one is assumed to be guilty and must prove his or her innocence. Do you believe a person should be presumed to be innocent, even though that person is the subject of a complaint, and not necessarily be in the position of being totally on the defensive, having to prove that the person is not guilty?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I would hope that the staff of the commission and the commission as an entity approach the situation where there's a complaint with an open mind, conducts fact-finding activities, and takes into consideration the views and the statements of both parties. As you know, the first level attempts to mediate, the second level attempts to conciliate, and only at higher levels does one get into adjudication and arbitration, so I think there are step procedures to look at that.
Obviously, if we're approaching an educational way, which I think is a better way and a more positive way, one of the things one has to do is to provide a mechanism that is fair and seen to be fair -- and those two things are very important, both fair and seen to be fair -- and open and neutral so that the party against whom a complaint is made feels less of a pressure to be defensive. That's not a comfortable position to be in either.
1150
Mr Bradley: A second question, unrelated: Do you believe the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as it serves all of the province of Ontario, should reflect fairly accurately the demographic makeup of the province of Ontario? As we are making efforts through government today to ensure that agencies, boards and commissions do so, do you believe the Ontario Human Rights Commission should fairly accurately reflect the percentage of the population in terms of demographics in the province?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think it's advantageous to have representation, for several reasons. One is that there is nothing like making a statement of a commitment that is demonstrated in fact, where people see that the commission is representative. It gives a very clear message of the philosophy and the intent of the code in terms of inclusiveness, equity, access and integration.
I also feel it's important to have representation not just for the perception of inclusiveness and equity and access but also because people who come from different walks of life can bring different experiences, knowledge and skills to the kind of role they're going to play on the commission.
Mrs Witmer: One question that I don't think has been asked is, who approached you to apply for this position?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I learned that there was an opportunity to apply for the commissioner's position -- I understood there were some vacancies -- so I applied.
Mrs Witmer: Can you give three reasons why you feel you are particularly qualified? You have an extremely impressive résumé here, but just highlight for me three of the reasons you think would qualify you.
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think I can bring to the position both personal experiences, in terms of what it's like not to be treated in an equal way, and professional work experiences as well as community experiences. For example, I'm experienced, as you can see from my résumé, in policy development, public education, communications, program development and evaluation, research, strategic planning, organizational change. In the last few years I have been working at the level of institutional change in terms of identifying and addressing systemic barriers to full participation of different equity groups. That is part of what I can bring.
I feel also that I have personal attributes that would be a valuable contribution. As I was saying to Mr Bradley earlier on, it's important to be fair and open and neutral and it's important to be perceived to be that way. While I'm fair, I'm also objective, and while I'm passionate and committed to social justice issues, it is not based on rigid ideology. I think that's very important, because we will on the one hand be looking at individual situations and on the other hand be able to look at it on systemic issues. So I think it's also important that I can contribute the analytical, critical analysis kind of experience.
Mrs Witmer: As has been pointed out, this commission has been under tremendous review in the last few years, and change and what have you, and it appears that Rosemary Brown has made some progress.
When this committee looked at the commission, the recommendation was made that the commission should not deal with a complaint filed 12 months after the date except in exceptional circumstances. Can you comment on that recommendation?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I think the rationale behind that recommendation was to deal with the ongoing concern over backlog; that would be my guess. I might wonder whether that in itself might cause a barrier in terms of seeking justice. I would need to know more about how that really impacts on the affected parties before I could answer that correctly.
Mrs Witmer: I guess there is the escape mechanism --
Ms Hung Sorfleet: Exceptional circumstances.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. It would be at the discretion of the commission to decide. I think that needs to be there, that you would not want to arbitrarily -- because I agree with you: I think that in itself sets up a barrier. There are people who sometimes need that time to develop the confidence to come forward with a concern and complaint.
The other one was a recommendation that what constitutes undue hardship in accommodation cases arising under the Ontario Human Rights Code should be clearly articulated in regulations promulgated by the government. Can you comment on that particular recommendation?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I would guess that the rationale of the genesis of that particular recommendation would be speaking about accommodation needs for persons with disabilities. This was a debate I was having as an employer last night with another employer. There's always the concern, as an employer, what is this going to cost? That is a fair question. At the same time, if we're really committed to equity, I think we really have to take extraordinary means and measures to make sure that within our resources, we undertake what is necessary for accommodation.
I notice that the single largest group of equity-seeking consumer service users has been persons with disabilities, and that does not surprise me. In terms of access to services, quality of services, housing and particularly employment, I think our record has been deplorable and needs considerable improvement. It is quite unacceptable that, depending on the study one bases, unemployment is anywhere from between 30% to 80% of persons, who are employable, who happen to have disabilities. There is still the attitude that disability is equal to inability, so I think some of these are really attitudinal changes, regardless of which equity group.
As we were discussing last night as a group of employers, some of the changes in accommodation need not be tied to dollar figures; we need to be looking at creative solutions. I think one has to look at every means to try to accommodate. That's something I really hope the commission can take a real, strong, proactive leadership role on.
Mrs Witmer: When we were taking a look at the issue of employment equity legislation, there were a number of disabled people I spoke to. For them, for example, transportation was a barrier to employment. It simply wasn't available to them.
The other issue that was raised by some of the employer community was the issue of tax credits, that obviously we need to make the workplace more accessible for the physically disabled; however, in some cases there are tremendous costs involved. They were looking at tax credits. What would your opinion be? Do you have any comment on that suggestion?
Ms Hung Sorfleet: I appreciate the financial concerns of employers. I can understand that, like everyone else, we're all living with budgets. If there is a way employers can be assisted and supported so that they can be more equitable, I would really like to see us pursue that actively, assertively and creatively. My concern is that when we speak about employment or services or accommodation for persons with disabilities and the whole question of cost of accommodations or changes comes up, it would be very seductive, looking at Bill 79, to accommodate certain groups of persons with disabilities who are -- how shall I say? -- easier to accommodate financially. That's a real concern.
Mrs Witmer: And I think that's going to remain a concern for many people. I wish you well in this endeavour. I'm sure your experience will enable you to do an outstanding job.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Sorfleet, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Ms Hung Sorfleet: Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you.
A. JOSÉ MUT
The Chair: We have one matter of business before we adjourn for lunch, a matter of one of the selections by the government party: Mr A. José Mut, an appointment to the Ontario Development Corp. Mr Mut was unable to appear before the committee; he declined to appear before the committee because of his business and vacation plans. It is a government selection, so if a government member --
Ms Harrington: On behalf of the government side, I move that his appointment go through without coming to the committee.
The Chair: All in favour of that?
Mr Curling: One second, Madam Chair. Ms Harrington said it goes through without committee review. I presume all she meant is that the committee has a right to call him again if we need to, and she may not choose to call this one.
The Chair: But it was a government selection to come before the committee, so it rests back with a government member to say it's all right for the appointment to go ahead without him appearing before the committee. You would have the same option with one of your appointments had it been your selection, Mr Curling.
That motion is carried.
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We recess for lunch.
The committee recessed from 1201 to 1403.
DONALD CURRY
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Donald Curry, intended appointee as member, Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
The Chair: We will resume the hearing. Our first intended appointment for review this afternoon is Mr Donald Curry. Welcome to the committee. The appointment is as a member of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship. This is a selection of the government party and we will start with Ms Carter.
Ms Carter: Welcome to the committee. Could you tell us what you think is the importance of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, why you think it needs to be there?
Mr Donald Curry: Its importance is to provide province-wide feedback and consultation to the government, and to the Minister of Citizenship in particular, on any matters relating to multiculturalism and citizenship. In my past experience on the committee, we reacted to position papers and consultation papers of the government and we met with the minister a number of times. It gives the minister an ear to the various regions and concerns of the province.
Ms Carter: Why is it multiculturalism and citizenship?
Mr Curry: You've got me there. Historically, I don't know how the two came together. In my last term on the council, there was a special committee on citizenship matters. I was part of that committee and what we looked at was new citizenship curriculum for the school system. We worked with the Ministry of Education. But I think multiculturalism is certainly the main thrust of the committee.
Ms Carter: Right. Could you tell us what kind of experiences and skills you bring that are relevant to this council?
Mr Curry: I've been involved in this field since about 1987-88. I used to be an administrator at Canadore College in North Bay. In that position I was responsible for the college's race relations programs. We started one program in particular, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We started with a number of schools in North Bay. It then branched out, over the next few years, to include pretty well all of northeastern Ontario, all the major centres, and actually expanded into three other provinces as well. I was the director of that project, working with a project team.
I'm past president of the North Bay Immigrant Support Services in North Bay, a body which I've been associated with for five or six years, and chair of the race relations committee for the city of North Bay police service.
Ms Carter: Some people might think this wasn't a big issue in North Bay as opposed to, say, Toronto, so could you explain a little more what the issues are as far as northern Ontario goes?
Mr Curry: My own particular concern and area of expertise, if you will, is anti-racism, and I think that's a concern right across Ontario. It perhaps gets more media play in Toronto, but it's certainly an issue right throughout the province. Aboriginal populations in northern Ontario have been experiencing racism ever since time began, so there are lots of examples. Also, the population of northern Ontario is becoming increasingly multicultural, not to the extent and the quickness that Toronto is, of course, but it is happening slowly. Along with the aboriginal population, it is getting much more diverse, and the problems that creates will be there as well, and they're there already.
Ms Carter: Do you think we've made some progress, for example, with the Employment Equity Act as far as relations go?
Mr Curry: Oh, yes. I think it's probably the best piece of legislation I've seen come out in years, and it's certainly going to have an effect. I know there's an extreme backlash against it in some quarters, but I think time will prove that it's going to be extremely effective. When the minister was coming out with that, she did enable the committee to have a look at the discussion papers leading up to the legislation, so we did have some input there. I think it's a good piece of legislation, long overdue, and is certainly going to help the four target groups.
Ms Carter: Thank you very much. I will proceed to my colleague.
Mr Marchese: I have a few questions that are of interest to me. I'm a strong supporter of anti-racist and multicultural policies; I've been a supporter for quite a long time. I am happy that we have moved away from what Mr Hassan has described as festival multiculturalism, which we used to call song-and-dance multiculturalism, moved away from that to a much more proactive approach to what we, some of us, think multiculturalism should mean, having to do with issues of access, issues of equality and issues of participation.
While I'm interested in hearing that, I haven't heard much about what the advisory council on multiculturalism has been doing in the last little while. Have you heard about some of its activities that you can share with us?
Mr Curry: I'm sorry; I've been out of the loop for the last year and half, I guess, since I've been off the council, so I haven't kept in touch with its activities. They've gone through a fairly severe restructuring: The number of committee members has been drastically reduced. The office staff and where they're situated -- I understand there are three different advisory councils sharing office staff. I think for the last number of months that has been their preoccupation. Where Mr Hassan is headed over the next number of months, I'm sorry, I don't know.
Mr Marchese: That's all right. There has been some backlash against multiculturalism in the last many years, but more so in the last five. There are many proponents of different political parties that express this view. Somehow there is a belief that supporting multiculturalism or even -- no, I suspect they wouldn't say this of anti-racism -- that somehow it's to be less Canadian when we argue for a multiculturalism that speaks about equality issues, access and participation as opposed to song and dance.
Do you have a view on this in terms of what you think an advisory committee could do or should do? How do we combat that? What is your view about some of the opposition to multiculturalism?
1410
Mr Curry: In my view, that should be a major role of the advisory council. I believe it is in the mandate to help promote multiculturalism throughout the province. I think it can do that a number of ways just through our own local organizations that most of the members are involved with and the council itself. Certainly, there's a lot of confusion out there as to what multiculturalism is. The song and dance, as you refer to it, is still ingrained in many people's minds as being that's where all the government money is going, but in reality there's no government money going to song and dance. There used to be, but that's no longer the case.
Much of the money is going for access issues, equality issues, anti-racism issues, as it should, and that certainly has to be the thrust over the next decade at least and probably longer, because there is a backlash out there. I read in this morning's Globe and Mail, on the back page of the front section, that somebody is sick and tired of multiculturalism, a writer writing in. You see that day in and day out, in letters to the editor, newspaper columnists. The employment equity legislation has certainly taken a beating from newspaper columnists, but you find that a lot of it is based on inaccurate assumptions, inaccurate data, and probably you wonder if these people have really stood out on the street and looked at the people who are going by and said, "Hey, gee, things have changed in the last 20 years."
Mr Marchese: Again, there are many Canadians who are of different cultural and linguistic origins who have no problem saying, "I am Canadian Italian," or Canadian Portuguese or Canadian whatever, and find that you can't leave what you brought with you at the border, that in fact it's part of who you are. But it doesn't make them any less Canadian. In fact, most of us speak the language here -- that's inevitable -- and we internalize many of the cultural institutions, or at least the policies that come forth from these institutions. Do you have a view about the hyphenated Canadian?
Mr Curry: Yes. We're all immigrants. Canada is basically a nation of immigrants, except for the aboriginal people. I think the hyphenated Canadian may -- I have no trouble with it, but I think the second generation or the third generation from whatever country they're from will probably be dropping the hyphens and they'll be looking at themselves as Canadian first. That's what's happened with every wave of immigration that we've had so far. It's nothing new that recent immigrants are very interested in their homeland, their language and what's going on in politics; that's happened with every wave of immigrants that Canada has had. There's really nothing new there. But I think the second and third generations will probably tend, as history has shown, to drop the hyphen and think of themselves as Canadian first with Hungarian ancestry or whatever.
Mr Bradley: My questions deal with some fairly recent writings that touch on the issue of multiculturalism. I too viewed, as very likely you did, the CBC program the other night, an extended CBC program on the issue of multiculturalism. There seemed to be a pretty balanced presentation made on that occasion, which is unusual -- I'd better hold back on that, but it was balanced, I thought, and very instructive.
There have been a few writings recently that you may or may not be familiar with. I assume that you probably are, but if you aren't, you aren't, and there's no problem with that at all. The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr -- and Arthur Schlesinger Jr, as we would know, is an ultraliberal writing about the tugging at the centre, the tugging at what keeps America together, recognizing America is different from Canada, and an ultraliberal expressing concerns about multiculturalism in the US.
The second was by former Senator Eugene McCarthy, called A Colony of the World: The United States Today -- it's not as widely circulated in Canada -- where essentially he expresses some concerns, again, about whether the centre is strong enough to sustain the tugging at it. Both, particularly The Disuniting of America, also deal with resegregation. After all the fights we had to end segregation, there seems to be a thought out there that segregation is good again.
The third one is Selling Illusions. The author was on television; I don't have the book with me right now, but he was on the program. Do you have any thoughts -- it's a wide-open question, so you can answer any way you wish -- about those kinds of thoughts expressed in those books?
Mr Curry: I watched the CBC program that you referred to, and I think Haroon Siddiqui, the editorial page editor of the Toronto Star, put it well. He said that we've had all this before; it's nothing new. Canada's still judged by the United Nations as the best country in the world to live in. We can get over this, it will pass; it's just a matter of it's growing pains, it's accelerated change. We're changing fairly quickly.
You're referring to the American context. You know, in my view there's been this myth that the Americans have this melting pot. Well, nothing really melted in the United States. If you travel into any of the major cities, you'll see the segregation by neighbourhood and by language. The fact that it was a melting pot is really a myth, in my view. The way that Canada's going about multiculturalism is certainly the best alternative available: You can segregate, you can try the melting pot approach, which didn't work, or you can do what Canada's doing, which I think is the best course.
Mr Bradley: On campuses in the United States, again looking at the American example, because often we end up with it a number of years down the line even though we're different countries and have different history, we're seeing some people expressing the viewpoint now that we should segregate again. I was one who was a strong supporter of integration. I used to write letters to politicians in the southern United States who were courageous enough to be in favour of integration and fight the segregationist tide. We now see people advocating segregation again. For instance, there is an Afro-American house on the campus and there is a Jewish house on the campus and there's something else, perhaps an Asian house on the campus. So people seem to be going back to segregation as some kind of solution. Do you have any observations, comments about that? With your experience, I'd be really interested in what you think.
Mr Curry: To me, it's not a healthy trend. I can see the rationale for it -- people certainly are more comfortable with people who share the same culture and language -- but I think it is a step back. I think there are some moves afoot now for a native community college in Ontario. I'm mixed about that one. Coming from spending 14 years in the community college system, I know there are many, many problems with native education. Perhaps that is a solution, but I'm not convinced that it is the best solution. Hopefully that's just a phase we're going through and these sorts of things will lead to getting together in the long run. Hopefully it's just the people who are fairly new to a college or university who seem to need those sorts of things. To me it is a step back, and it's not something that I would like to see encouraged by government money, or government support even.
Mr Bradley: Looking at the issue of employment equity, you spoke in glowing terms of the employment equity legislation. That would not be the description that the majority of my constituents would give to me about employment equity legislation. I understand that it's detailed legislation and it's difficult for everyone to understand all of the details of such legislation. How do you believe employment equity legislation can be made acceptable to the vast majority of people in this province, many of whom feel that they will be threatened by employment equity legislation?
Mr Curry: I think there has to be a very strong education campaign, perhaps a social marketing campaign. I've done a number of trainings myself on employment equity where I've gone into workforces, not so much on the legislation itself but trying to swing people's attitudes over from being against it to supporting it. Once you lay the facts on the table and once you get discussion going in a room such as this with, say, a number of people such as we have here, it's amazing how many can swing over in the course of an afternoon.
What I've found, and my experience is probably based on maybe two dozen trainings over the last couple of years, is that those who have very strong feelings against it do not have all the facts at their disposal, and once they get those facts and once they feel the emotion from people who are affected by it -- if you have people from the four target groups present in the discussion and they present themselves with some degree of emotion and show why they're in favour of it -- very often you'll turn these people around. Certainly not everyone; there are lots of hard-core folks who are not going to agree with this legislation no matter what you do. But I find education and discussion has turned a fair number of people around, in my experience.
1420
Mr Bradley: How does multiculturalism and the encouragement of multiculturalism fit with trying to stop wars when people reach the Canadian border? The Irish Catholics and Protestants, for instance, the people from the former Yugoslavia, maybe people from Rwanda if they came from the two sides, many people come here and resume their war. Does multiculturalism encourage that, or should it be utilized to discourage that, or how can it be utilized to discourage those battles being brought over here? Is that possible?
Mr Curry: That's a tall order. I don't know that multiculturalism policy per se affects that one way or the other. If they were going to another country and they felt that strongly about their homeland, I think the same would be the case. I can't see anywhere in government policy that exists now how you're going to change that or eliminate that problem, or even what you could do. You got me there.
Mr Bradley: I know it's a difficult one. But there are some people who would contend, I think without justification, that if you didn't have multiculturalism, somehow all these people would get along well when they're over here because they would all just think they're Canadians and they wouldn't have to worry about it. I don't believe that for a moment, but I wondered if there was a role that the multiculturalism council could play in terms of that.
Mr Curry: I think maybe just educating everyone about what multiculturalism is all about and what is favourable behaviour and what is not favourable behaviour and the citizenship role. Somebody asked me earlier about the citizenship part -- Mrs Carter. I think that has to be taught more in the schools and more to immigrants. I think once they do become Canadian citizens they get a very firm grounding on what it means to be a Canadian citizen, but prior to that maybe they don't. Hopefully the school children are getting that information.
I know three years ago when we worked with the Ministry of Education and looked at what was being taught on citizenship in the schools, it was very, very little. There was a committee with the Ministry of Education looking at that whole issue. I'm not aware of how far along that's gone since my involvement in it, but that is certainly one area where you get at the younger kids anyway.
Mr Bradley: Will there be a --
The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry.
Mr Bradley: I was just going to ask --
The Chair: No.
Mr Bradley: I haven't had a chance --
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Mr Bradley: I would have asked if there was going to be any hockey played this season, because you're a sports fan, but I'll leave that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bradley. Mr McLean or Ms Witmer?
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. Is there a president of the human rights and race relations programs in North Bay now? You're the vice-president; who is the president?
Mr Curry: Of the centre where I work?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Curry: The president is Gary Gould.
Mr McLean: Who funds that centre?
Mr Curry: It's funded, probably number one, by an anonymous individual donor; number two, charitable foundations; three, federal government; four would be the provincial government, the Anti-Racism Secretariat would have a couple of projects; and fund-raising that we do as well, bingos, Nevada tickets, that sort of thing.
Mr McLean: I see that you're going to hold some one-day seminars across Ontario and California and Florida. Who's going to pay for the costs of holding those seminars?
Mr Curry: In Ontario, hopefully we're getting a private charitable foundation. In fact, we're going to find out next week. It's gone to the board of the private charitable foundation. In California and Florida, it'll be the same thing; it'll be non-government money, foundations that are set up with that mission of promoting multiculturalism and race relations.
Mr McLean: I see you've done some work "Leading a project with the North Bay police force and the Ontario Provincial Police head office in Orillia to develop a race relations audit instrument for police services across Ontario." Where does that report stand now?
Mr Curry: It is almost completed. We are now pilot- testing it with the North Bay police service, and the provincial police are selecting five detachments where they're going to test-pilot. The test pilot is supposed to be back to us by the end of this month, and then we'll have the final audit document back to the province, the Solicitor General's department, by mid-November.
Mr McLean: That's your human rights and race relations programs centre that's doing this in North Bay?
Mr Curry: Yes, the Canadian Centre for Social Justice is the name of it.
Mr McLean: Do they pay for that audit? Who is paying for that audit that you're doing? Do the police forces pay for that?
Mr Curry: Yes, the race relations and policing unit of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Curry, you indicated that you were most supportive of the employment equity policy that had been introduced by the government. I'm not sure whether you're aware of the fact, but there is one portion of it that we do not support. That is the section that relates to numerical goals, which in essence really do give the minister the ability to establish quotas, because of course at all occupational levels in any sort of an endeavour, whether it's private or government, depending on the size of the organization, in the end you're going to have to come up with an organization that reflects the number of people in a community. We find it somewhat unrealistic to expect that everybody across this province would want to have equal representation in all occupations and all professions. So although we support equal opportunity for all individuals, we do not support the numerical goals. My question to you would be, how would you feel about that section of the legislation being removed?
Mr Curry: I would be against that. I think the numerical goals are the teeth of the legislation. I wouldn't equate them with quotas. I think quotas are a fixed number, whereas the goals can be changed if there are extenuating circumstances: the labour force changes, the economy changes, the company is downsizing etc. Those goals can move, whereas a quota can't move. The way it's set out now, I believe, was a compromise from the initial position of the government, and I would not want to see it weakened any further.
Mrs Witmer: That is the one part of the legislation that does trouble many people. I guess we need to ensure that in this province we do work harmoniously together. We believe in equal opportunity, but we feel what the government is attempting to do there is to prescribe the results, and that would certainly concern us, because eventually this can work to everybody's disadvantage. Once you get your numbers, it can work against women, it can work against the visible minorities, it can work against the disabled, it can work against everyone. Anyway, I just wanted to get your comment. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Witmer, and thank you very much, Mr Curry, for appearing before the committee this afternoon.
Mr Curry: You're welcome. Thank you.
ZOLTAN SIMO
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Zoltan Simo, intended appointee as member, Innovation Ontario Corp.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment for review this afternoon is Mr Zoltan Simo. Welcome to the committee. The appointment is as a member of Innovation Ontario Corp. Again this is a selection of the government party. We'll start with Ms Harrington.
Ms Harrington: Thank you for coming forward today. I think we should all try to figure out a little bit what the Innovation Ontario Corp is, because they don't have a lot of information actually before us. Maybe you could help us; I'm not sure, because you're not there yet. How long has this organization been functioning?
Mr Zoltan Simo: I think it's been active for about six years; I'm not sure. It's part of the Ontario Development Corp, so I think it's been on its own about six years.
Ms Harrington: How much money annually would it handle in investment?
Mr Simo: I looked through their annual report, and it appears that in the last two years they did about $19 million in investment in each of those years; prior to that it was under $10 million.
1430
Ms Harrington: It was $19 million in the last two years?
Mr Simo: Each of the last two years.
Ms Harrington: That's very helpful for us. When the corporation gets together, do you know what the mandate would be? Do you have guidelines as to what would be appropriate for investment?
Mr Simo: My understanding is that they'll invest up to a million dollars in equity, or pseudo-equity, in a corporation that brings some technology and innovation and job creation to the province of Ontario.
Ms Harrington: Are there guidelines or direction given from any of the ministries?
Mr Simo: I understand that it comes under Frances Lankin's department and that they do have guidelines for each of the corporations of Ontario, including Innovation Ontario. I haven't been briefed by Innovation Ontario as to what those guidelines are, but I have had some exposure to them in the past with a couple of companies I've worked with. It appears that they're looking at companies where their equity would help that particular company become successful by utilizing their technology and creating a business that may not otherwise be created.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to briefly let you know that in the Niagara area we've been very hard hit. Our traditional industries are very quickly disappearing. I'd like you to bring that to your job, that we do need more high-tech and niche marketing.
Mr Bradley: Like casinos.
Ms Harrington: Besides casinos. If you had a company come before you that did not have a track record, what would you use to judge that company?
Mr Simo: The first thing I would look at is what their business plan or their strategic plan was and what kind of technology they had, whether it was really innovative or whether it was just a "Me too." Assuming it was innovative, then you would spend some time trying to assess the technical expertise and the R&D expertise behind that particular innovation and put on it some sort of probability of success. If the probability of success was reasonable, then I think, as one of the board members, assuming it was recommended by the staff and their analysis, I'd vote in favour of it.
Ms Harrington: So obviously you look to staff for recommendations, but we would certainly be looking to your judgement as a member to assess the company in the future.
Mr Simo: Exactly.
Ms Harrington: I'm wondering if my colleagues have any questions.
Mr Curling: Thanks for coming before the committee, Mr Simo. This is quite a corporation, and I know it will also help stimulate, excite and encourage some of the people who are quite innovative in doing business. Do you know how they select these groups, which one would be the one that they target? How would this corporation select the corporations or businesses that are very innovative?
Mr Simo: I don't know. My experience in the venture capital industry is that you usually have a lot of proposals come forth. I think one of the functions of the analysts is to sort those out and bring them to the board. I'm not sure I can give you a direct answer to that question. My experience has been that there are usually more proposals than there is money in terms of this innovative area. So you have to sort out what would be useful and what would be truly innovative and truly advancement in technology or potential advancement in technology. Until I can get involved in that I'm really not sure what breadth of proposals they get.
Mr Curling: So you wouldn't know who does the seeking, then? You don't know if the companies seek out the Innovation Ontario Corp or Innovation Ontario Corp seeks the companies out.
Mr Simo: I think the Ontario Development Corp corporations are pretty well known by most businessmen, and the advisers who deal with the businessmen and the consultants and so on know the corporations. My suspicion is that if somebody's looking for capital, somewhere or another through the chain where they're looking for capital they would be recommended to Innovation Ontario or to the Ontario Development Corp. I don't know which one is proactive, but my guess would be that anybody looking for capital would know that ODC is around.
Mr Curling: I presume they have to be quite careful of those they select, the success rate, who survived or would be a good company. What is the success rate? Do you know? Maybe you are not privy to that kind of knowledge, but do you know the success rate at all?
Mr Simo: No, I don't.
Mr Curling: My colleague is itching here.
Mr Cleary: No. Welcome to the committee. When the capital is being raised, is that only in Ontario here or do they go beyond?
Mr Simo: My understanding is that it's just Ontario.
Mr Cleary: Just Ontario. So if a company or an individual patents something, you would go to Ontario companies to try to market it?
Mr Simo: Depending on the patented product they had, assuming it's a product; it could be software. Ontario is a major market in Canada. Most small companies that are looking to get started try to get established in a major market. Patents are usually granted by country. So, assuming it was just a Canadian patent -- many times they'll go after a North American patent, or US and Canadian -- the patentor would either have a business plan or a partner or some little firm that he'd work with, or in many cases the people who put together the development and have it patented may want to do it on their own and they're an entrepreneur on their own, and would come to Innovation Ontario I would think to get some equity funding to get them off the ground.
Mr Cleary: One thing that we've run into in the last number of years was a product that was patented and they couldn't raise the capital to market it and then someone else patented something similar and they lost all their work. I know we had an incident like that about three or four years ago, and they were trying to market it in other countries. I think this was the committee they came before.
Mr Simo: I don't know the particular incident you're talking about, but in terms of patents, of course, there are only a limited number of them that are really successful. There are many more patents on products and services that are not successful, and in those areas, assuming the product was useful, it was probably a lack of marketing if they had the equity.
Mr Cleary: I see by what we have in front of us that you've really been around. I'm just wondering, with all the things you've done in your life, why you would spend your time on a board like this.
Mr Simo: I think everybody should spend some time through their life in different areas that might help society, and I think Innovation Ontario and the ODC do help society in terms of providing the free enterprise system with an additional boost. So that's where I come from.
The other reason is that I've always been interested in entrepreneurial and technology-type businesses, so this should be fun. It'll give me a little broader look at some of the smaller companies coming along, and hopefully I can contribute something based on my experience.
Mr Cleary: Well, I just wish you well.
The Chair: Mr Curling, we have three and a half minutes.
Mr Curling: In Ontario businesses fold a lot. There's a lot of bankruptcy that happens here. Do you think there's enough encouragement to induce the spirit of entrepreneurship for entrepreneurs to exist? One has to address those things, because if you are giving support to these groups or are encouraging the private sector to invest, I think that infrastructure should be such that one would see that encouragement and support are given. Do you think there is enough support here -- and there's a lot to be done -- or the environment is such that it encourages more entrepreneurs?
1440
Mr Simo: That's a tough question. My philosophical answer to that is that any time you're on 10% unemployment in a free enterprise economy, there isn't enough support. So something has to improve, and this is just one vehicle to improve it. Philosophically, I don't think there is enough support for business in the Canadian society.
Mr Curling: There is a concern out there, you see, feeling even in Ontario or in Canada that the emphasis really is to look at China, because there seems to be a large critical mass there and money is there, and other areas of the world. We would hope that with some of the multicultural community that we have, we look at other areas of the world -- I'm talking like Africa and South America: that the government of both regions, of the federal and provincial, does not encourage much of that. What is your feeling about that? Are you feeling there is enough encouragement or the emphasis has been swayed in another way that doesn't encourage those people who can invest in those areas?
Mr Simo: I think most investment by the private sector is done based on a potential return and a return on the investment. I think both the federal and provincial governments and North American governments have been pretty proactive in trying to get joint ventures and export marketing and moving technology abroad to the extent that it would benefit Canadian firms.
One of the problems you have in a smaller firm is that they are so focused on getting the business going that they can't look out, sometimes not even outside the Ontario borders, let alone outside the Canadian borders. So this is kind of an evolving process. I don't know. We have a trade surplus in Canada which as a Canadian I'm quite proud of. Some people say we're hewers of wood and drawers of water, but I think that we have a well-educated workforce and we have lots of examples of good high technology in this country that can be exploited further. I think we just have to continue to encourage it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome to the committee. What would the criteria be for the body that you're going to be sitting on, the Innovation Ontario Corp, as far as I guess the designation of a company that you would be prepared to work with? Do you know what the criteria would be?
Mr Simo: I'm not totally clear, but from the brochures and my exposure to it, in the Innovation Ontario part they have to be innovative, they have to bring some new technology, they have to have some business plan that makes sense, and the people have to have some credibility. So those are the kinds of criteria that I understand they would look at.
Mrs Witmer: Is there a minimum size or anything at all?
Mr Simo: I don't know whether there's a minimum size. I know that they invest, as I understand, somewhere between $200,000 to $1 million, and I think there is a size that they're going to develop into a reasonable business. So it's not a mom-and-pop shop type of operation, I don't think.
Mrs Witmer: And then you would support them until such time that the private sector would invest in that company? Is that the idea?
Mr Simo: That's what my understanding is, and that the equity would then be taken up by the private sector.
Mrs Witmer: Yes. We're at a bit of a disadvantage, you should know. We don't have all the information in front of us that we would normally have. It's unfortunate, but we don't have the background either on the corporation.
So you feel the experience you've had obviously would put you in a position where you could give the support necessary to the companies which would be asking you for assistance?
Mr Simo: I think, based on my experience, I'd be able to make some fairly good quantitative and qualitative judgements.
Mrs Witmer: Is there any area in particular that you think we should be pursuing in this province?
Mr Simo: Actually, there's such a wide variety of businesses in the free enterprise system that it's hard to say at the moment. Of course, everybody is looking at the information highway and high technology and what can go on an information highway. To the extent that there are some unique products or processes or software that can participate in that, I would think we should encourage that, because we do have a highly educated society in the province and we should try and use that to the extent we can.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, and actually, in meeting with people in my own community, which is Kitchener-Waterloo, there is an abundance, as you probably know, of firms that are certainly very interested in this particular area, but they all mention the lack of funding available to them to do any sort of expansion whatsoever. So obviously whatever we can do to help, we need to do that.
Mr Simo: Right.
Mrs Witmer: The banks are one area, but the government hasn't always been there with the assistance either.
I wish you well in the endeavour, and may the industry grow.
Mr Simo: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Again, thank you, Mr Simo, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
Mr Simo: My pleasure.
The Chair: Our next appointment is Mr Baljinder Singh Sidhu. We are running a little early. I don't know whether this appointment is here at the moment.
Mr Curling: They're quiet today. They didn't ask many questions. Is there a reason for that, Madam Chair?
The Chair: For who being quiet?
Mr Curling: The government side: Are they not? They requested quite a few folks here but they have not asked many questions.
Mrs Witmer: Is Mr Singh here? He's here. Good.
Mr Bradley: They have Rosario cracking the whip over there today.
BALJINDER SINGH SIDHU
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Baljinder Singh Sidhu, intended appointee as member, Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Chair: This is an appointment as an intended member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I would like to welcome you, Mr Baljinder Singh Sidhu. If I'm not pronouncing your name correctly, please tell me how it is pronounced.
Mr Baljinder Singh Sidhu: You're pretty close.
The Chair: I'm pretty close. I'm improving then. That's good. This appointment was selected by the Progressive Conservative Party, and we'll start with Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome to our committee. I guess the first question I would ask you is, how did you become aware that there was a possibility to become a commissioner?
Mr Sidhu: I've been involved in the South Asian Action Coalition for the last one year. We've been pressing for equity in all areas, so we were looking at one of the areas, the Human Rights Commission, and we found that there are positions available. So I sent my form in with my résumé, and there you go.
Mrs Witmer: Following up on that, what do you feel qualifies you in particular to sit as a member of the commission? What experience have you had and what skills do you bring to the table?
Mr Sidhu: I did not see any qualifications for the commission members stipulated anywhere, but I feel strongly that I've been -- I come from the private sector, where effectiveness and efficiency are the key factors. I also am greatly involved in my community, where I can bring my community feelings and cross-community understanding to the commission. Therefore, I can contribute towards building a better society.
Mrs Witmer: Did you say your group was very interested in becoming more involved, in my first question to you?
Mr Sidhu: No, in general. There are a number of organizations in the south Asian group and we were just looking at various areas in the government services, in the commissions, agencies, boards, women's views, all of the issues. So this was one of the issues we were addressing.
Mrs Witmer: Obviously, you're going to bring the perspective of your community. Are there specific issues that the commission needs to be aware of and take into consideration that we need to be aware of, from your own experience?
1450
Mr Sidhu: There are no specific issues which really I'd like to discuss in here, but there are of course the perceptions of the people out there saying that the commission may not be doing what it could do, you may not get justice when it's delayed, and there are issues around, is the commission itself following those guidelines that they're supposed to be following?
Mrs Witmer: We've had an opportunity as a committee, actually, to study the commission earlier this year, so I think we've heard most of the concerns that you've expressed and probably some more, and it seems to be working a little more effectively now in dealing with the issues.
What do you hope to achieve, then, in the future as far as your role? What would you like to see happen to make the commission function more effectively and be more responsive to the needs of all the people in this province?
Mr Sidhu: I'll answer that question, but let me make a comment that since I came in, I didn't even wish everybody -- we were just rushed into these questions, so maybe it's not too late to say good afternoon, everybody, and I will be willing to answer as many questions as you like.
As far as you are concerned about how I can work in the commission to make it better, I think there are two things: One, there is a backlog everybody is talking about.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Sidhu: That is a problem, a perceived problem at least, with the public in general. So there are two ends you have to work. One is how you reduce that existing backlog, and the other issue is how you stop from building it up any further. It's like a deficit. So I think in two sections. One, you have a public education out there. All the employers need to understand what it means when they have infringements of the Human Rights Commission guidelines. On the other hand, you need to bring in accountability. I think we need to get some cost efficiencies and cost benefits out of the operation of the commission itself. I work in the private sector, I work daily, I'm in the meetings, and there's no meeting without a turnaround time.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Sidhu: And everybody is asking for improvement in that time further for the next month. So I think there has to be accountability and there has to be upfront work through education and maybe initial stages to reduce that workload.
Mr McLean: I have a question or two. Welcome to the committee, Mr Sidhu. The question I have is, you're working for Xerox of Canada now?
Mr Sidhu: Yes.
Mr McLean: I see that you meet three days every six weeks, 27 days, to consider complaints; panels of three. There's an additional four to 10 days a year. Have you asked the management -- or are you management? Is there any problem in getting time off to have these hearings, or what's the background there?
Mr Sidhu: I wrote a letter to my human resources department and originally they were not sure, because in the private sector very few employees go on commissions like that. They came back to me and they said they will gladly support that, the days, if I need to have those days off.
Mr McLean: You'd have those days off?
Mr Sidhu: Yes.
Mr McLean: What is the per diem for having hearings? Do you know? How much does a commissioner get per day?
Mr Sidhu: I'm not sure.
Mr McLean: They do get paid, don't they?
Mr Sidhu: That's what I understand.
Mr McLean: I don't know what they get either, but I know that they will be paid.
The other question I have is with regard to the other qualifications you have for this. I see you've been involved in many organizations as president and chairperson. There's no doubt that qualifies you to be part of the organization that you're being appointed to, but the "coordinator of activities for a joint committee of four major gurdwaras in the greater Toronto area": Are you over all the Toronto area?
Mr Sidhu: No. It means that from time to time the issue comes up. Let's say the Sikh community have an issue which they want to do something about. What I try to do is act as a facilitator, you know, sometimes get them together and say, "This is the proper course of action," rather than just demonstrating or taking some action in an individual temple. So these are where the ad hoc committees come up, and that one, particularly, came a year back. There was a member of the York University association, a member of the Toronto university students' association and Malton temple and Scarborough temple, and they actually asked me to become the coordinator in that process.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing, and I wish you well.
Mr Sidhu: Thank you.
Mr Marchese: I was looking at the table as it relates to complaints and by whom these complaints are made, and I have --
Mr Sidhu: I missed the first part of the question.
Mr Marchese: Sorry. I was looking at a table of who has made complaints to the Human Rights Commission, and I have noticed that the larger numbers, of course, relate to -- well, not of course, but they relate to race and colour: 421,000 cases. The other big category of people who take complaints to human rights are people who have disabilities, handicaps: that's 422,000 cases. The other two categories that are very large are sexual harassment, which is 373,000 cases, and the other one is sex and pregnancy, which is 268,000, and then different ones based on age, creed, family status, marital status and so on.
I raise that because the perception out there in the community is that most human rights cases have to do with people of colour, racial communities, and I say it because it's not true that that's all we're dealing with when people take issues to the Human Rights Commission. Do you have an opinion about the perceptions of this? Do these statistics surprise you? Do you have a comment at all about the figures I've given?
Mr Sidhu: Figures are figures and perceptions are reality. You have to deal with them. But when you're working in the commission, you go with the guidelines. You don't go with the hearsay or what somebody says. You go with what you find after investigations, what is the fact.
Mr Marchese: Sure. Perceptions are often reality; it's true. When I looked at these statistics, though, it was startling, because one realizes that it only represents, out of the 1,745,000, about -- what is it? -- a tenth or so or an eighth of these figures relate to colour. So I thought it was an important statistic to share with you.
What specific skills of mediation do you bring to this particular job: settlement mediation, conflict resolution? It's one of the things that I think is an important thing to bring to the job. Do you bring any of that?
Mr Sidhu: Yes, I do.
Mr Marchese: Could you describe some of those experiences?
Mr Sidhu: Okay. Part of my job, first of all, I started my life in Canada in the union and I was on a union negotiating committee and we had a very tough time. The company almost went on strike, and myself and another person were key negotiators in there, and that was one part of negotiations.
What I do on a regular basis is that I go to different business meetings. We sit in the meetings and we review with our supplier base in the company. We give and take. At the end of the thing, we try to have a balanced approach where we have win-win situation. There's no right or wrong. At the end of the day, if you can come up with win-win situation, that's the best solution. That's all I would say I have. Any other questions?
1500
Mr Marchese: That's okay for my part. I'm not sure whether other colleagues have questions.
Ms Carter: Why do you want to be a human rights commissioner?
Mr Sidhu: First of all, I'd like to be. Second, I have a personal strength. I believe in human freedom, justice and equality, and I think I have strength which I have experienced from my professional life and from my community life. I think myself being there, the perception will be out there across the community that this is open for everybody, plus I can communicate back to the communities as a facilitator between the community at large and the commission.
Ms Carter: We had hearings into the Human Rights Commission itself earlier on in front of this committee, and we found that the commission was quite troubled, being in all these backlogs, people who haven't been satisfied and so on. Of course, the Cornish report was an investigation into what should be done about this. Finally, the commissioner, Rosemary Brown, brought in various changes. I think one of the main ones was appropriate training of staff to make sure that they did the right things.
I just wondered if you know anything about this and if you feel that the commission is on track now and what sort of vision you have of where it should be going.
Mr Sidhu: I do not know about the Cornish report and I'm not in a position to comment on that, but as far as where it should be going, I have a lot of ideas. I look at it as a business. There should be accountability and there should be goals and targets. I think there has to be people's performance measured, and we have to have a turnaround time on issues.
I consult with some of the companies where I teach them about total quality management and that type of information and service. So there are a lot of issues we can work at that have to be dealt with when first I learn to be good and then fast. So I need to understand the working and how it operates. From that team when we work together, I will have lots of things, I believe, to input.
Ms Carter: One point that was raised previously was that these are individual complaints but maybe more could be done at a systemic level to reduce the number of people who are going to have complaints and need to appear before the commission. I think some changes have been made fairly recently. I think the Employment Equity Act is possibly one that might serve to reduce some of the complaints and hopefully, as we progress, more accommodation is made; for example, for people with disabilities so that hopefully there will be fewer complaints that need to come before the commission. Do you have any feelings about how best to tackle these problems?
Mr Sidhu: I think it's essential in fact to tackle the problem as early as possible because that's the key, and plus, the employers have to be educated so that we don't end up in that situation.
In addition, I think not only employers but employees should be made aware of that you have -- as they say, if the employee's informed and more knowledgeable, he is not a soft target. So education works on both sides, plus the resolution right at the beginning, as early as possible. I think that's the key to the success of this commission.
Ms Carter: What do you think the greatest challenge is to the Human Rights Commission in the near future that you can see?
Mr Sidhu: There are many challenges. There are 100,000 jobs for people out there for which they should be educated, and also all those people who are in the backlog, they need to have a just cause, that they were dealt with properly and they were given their remedial results. So it is a challenge itself to balance between trying to reduce the cases and trying to be fair with those people who are in the system. It's just a mammoth task but it has to be done. Someone's got to do it.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Sidhu, for coming before the committee. You do have quite a challenging role here and it doesn't pay very much. I don't know, it says it pays $180 per day. Once you do the work of the commission --
Mr Cleary: It's more than we get.
Mr Curling: It's more than what we get, you say?
I want to ask you, are you familiar with the Cornish report? I couldn't hear you very well when it was asked, but are you familiar with the Cornish report?
Mr Sidhu: I heard the name of the report; that's all I know.
Mr Curling: I would say to you then, coming on the commission, one of the first things you should read is the Cornish report. The government spent thousands of dollars getting that commission going, and what they've done, they've hurried Ms Cornish, who was the major person that did that report, and they wanted some implementation of it and they put it on the shelf. While we were doing a review of the Human Rights Commission, because the report was all about the reform of the commission, the minister herself has just made this comment that it's rather interesting and it has set the framework, but no official comments are being made.
You said you've heard about it. Do you feel if a government has spent so much money on a report like that, that there should be a formal report by the ministry and the minister herself acting responsible in one of the most important issues in this country, human rights? Do you feel that the minister should have a formal response to that?
Mr Sidhu: I don't know about the report, so I can't say what the minister should do.
Mr Curling: Regardless of the content, thousands of taxpayers' money was spent on this. It was done and asked for by the minister herself. Do you feel that governments should be responsible when they have reports out and ask for reports like that, that they should respond formally to this?
Mr Sidhu: I think in general when the government spends money on written reports, they should be followed and they should be looked at. In general that should be the --
Mr Curling: I just wanted to point out some of the inadequacies of the minister, who doesn't, I feel, take this work very seriously. This is a very serious aspect of government, people's human rights.
The budget itself, and you've heard about the backlog, and I would take it from this point of view, the budget over the years has been increased from $12 million to $14 million to a little bit over $14 million, fourteen and a half million, and the backlog continues. In other words, issues and human rights cases are still being dragged on for two, three years -- justice delayed, justice denied -- and yet in 1993-94 the budget had reduced. Are you familiar with the kind of a budget that should be with this commission, and do you see as an indication of the priorities of the government that as the backlog increased, the budget decreased? What would be your comment to that?
Mr Sidhu: My comments about budget are, I don't know at the moment how that budget is allocated. You can allocate the budget in an efficient manner, probably in a way that is long-term beneficial, or you can have a balanced approach that allocates some to the long-term strategy and some to the immediate needs, so without having that knowledge, I would not be able to make any comments on this.
1510
Mr Curling: I know you have expressed your commitment to equity and fairness in regard to humanity.
Mr Sidhu: Yes.
Mr Curling: It seems, somehow, the way that governments address these issues is by creating bureaucracies. They have now created a number of equity bureaucracies, running from -- well, we have the old one called the courts, we have another one called the Human Rights Commission, we've got another one called the Ombudsman, another one called pay equity, another one called employment equity, and it goes on and on, creating great bureaucracy, yet we have, in all of those that I've mentioned, a tremendous amount of backlog.
As some of the thinking you've done all your time about equity issues and dealing with human rights issues, do you feel a coming together of all these equity bureaucracies, paying a lot of bureaucrats a lot of nice, top money, appointing a whole bunch of people to boards with lots of money too, moving around like we're really doing something towards human rights, yet the backlogs continue?
I was just wanting your comment on that in two ways. One, do you feel that the enforcement of human rights violations would eliminate all this growing bureaucracy and eliminate the backlog?
Mr Sidhu: Okay. You first asked me whether all the bureaucracies are coming together. Should I answer that first?
Mr Curling: Whatever.
Mr Sidhu: In general, I believe that one should look at cost saving, anyway. If duplication can be reduced, we can save the money, and anyway, we should do that in principle. So whether that can be done by putting them together or separate, it will depend on how the situation evolves.
The other question you asked me is about -- can you ask me again, the second one?
Mr Curling: Enforcement. The lack of enforcement is causing all this backlog.
Mr Sidhu: I don't know. I don't know what causes the backlog. But I believe I would say generally that inefficiency in the system must be causing that. That's all I would say.
The Chair: Mr Bradley, you have three and a half minutes.
Mr Bradley: Do you see a danger out there that employers, because a lot of the complaints relate to employee-employer relationships, will not hire people who they think will go to the Ontario Human Rights Commission if they get fired? In other words, most employers want to hire somebody whom they can fire, and so if you are hiring somebody and you know that if you fire them they might well go to the Ontario Human Rights Commission because they may have a legitimate complaint as to race, as to religion, as to disability or something of that nature, do you think that is a danger that the Ontario Human Rights Commission automatically takes the side of somebody who is fired on all these occasions, that it's going to discourage employers in fact from hiring people from those categories?
Mr Sidhu: I don't know if the commission automatically takes the side, but I'll make some mention about the scenario you have painted here. Today, everything is going globalization. If you read Time magazine, Fortune magazine, they will tell you that diversity pays, that good employers are training people, they're bringing in policies. For example, Xerox has a policy called "a matter of respect," where no jokes, no slurs, no sexual comments, no pictures, no pin-ups, all this. It's a matter of respect.
So I think, in the longer term, the good supplier, I think the worldwide supplier, will not do that. They will look at the people's strengths and draw from there. There may be some suppliers who may fall into the trap of thinking that way, but I think we need to follow the right things. Sometimes you need to take a stand on the right side. So I don't see a danger or such a concern out of this one, in my own understanding.
Mr Bradley: Okay. The second question is this: There is an allegation -- and maybe even someone from the commission, the chair or somebody, might have said this -- that a person who has a complaint registered against her or him is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent under the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In other words, you're investigated and you have to prove that you didn't commit this sin that your accuser says you committed. Yet, if you go into a court of law, there's an automatic assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Do you believe that a person who has a complaint registered against him or her that's going before the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that the onus should be on the person registering the complaint and the commission to in fact prove that that person is guilty?
Mr Sidhu: As I said, I'm not an expert on this issue. I don't know, but from a general sense, the person against whom the complaint is registered is usually a person in a power position who has ability to influence the other person or damage the other person one way or the other. So the party which is in power has to have this responsibility of making sure that it does not happen. Those are my general comments.
Mr Bradley: They may have that --
The Chair: I'm sorry, we're out of time.
Mr Bradley: Just when I was getting good.
The Chair: Well, I think you're always good, Mr Bradley.
I would like to thank you very much for appearing before the committee this afternoon, Mr Singh Sidhu.
Mr Sidhu: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment this afternoon is Ms Janet Richardson. Ms Richardson is being appointed as a member to the Board of Parole for the western region. She's not here yet. All right. We are running a little early, as the committee observed. We will recess for 10 minutes.
Mr McLean: Five minutes.
The Chair: I'm not going to be in charge --
Mr Marchese: What if she's here earlier?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): She's not due to be here until 3:30.
Mr Marchese: If she's here before 3:30 we can begin before 3:30.
The Chair: So it's probably wise not to disappear. Mr Marchese is going to assume the chair for the last appointment anyway, so he's now in charge.
Mr Bradley: We will miss you, Margaret.
The Acting Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): This committee stands recessed.
The committee recessed from 1517 to 1526.
JANET RICHARDSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Janet Richardson, intended appointee as member, Board of Parole, western region.
The Acting Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We invite Ms Janet Richardson to come forward. Before we begin with questions from the committee members, Ms Richardson, is there something you might want to tell us?
Ms Janet Richardson: Sure. I have a brief statement.
The Acting Chair: Great. Please, go ahead.
Ms Richardson: First of all, thank you. I'm pleased to be here this afternoon. To serve as a public appointee to the Board of Parole is an interesting and challenging opportunity and one which I would be proud to accept.
I have spent much of my adult life advocating for and against issues that fall within the very broad categories of equality and justice. My work and volunteer commitments have provided me with an opportunity to observe and interact with a number of systems including health, education, legal, justice and social services.
Today we, or our global society, are moving through turbulent times. The public demands accountability of our structures and systems, which must be balanced with effectiveness and efficiency. The key is to find the balance.
Our criminal justice system is facing its own challenges as community interest groups and the public purse compete to create a system that preserves the integrity of our society. Our justice system and the solutions to today's pressures require innovative approaches and commitment from a wide range of participants. I believe my experience with the community, experience as an administrator and my recent completion of my MBA program provide me with the range of skills required to successfully serve as a part-time community member for the Board of Parole.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin questions with Mr Bradley, 10 minutes.
Mr Bradley: The first question I have is, are you a friend or acquaintance of the Attorney General?
Ms Richardson: The Honourable Marion Boyd and I worked together in London. She served as the executive director of the Battered Women's Advocacy Centre and I served as the executive director of the women's shelter in London, so, as a result, we have worked closely over the years and I certainly think that she is a good woman.
Mr Bradley: Did Ms Boyd suggest that you apply for this position?
Ms Richardson: No, she did not. The advertisement was circulated through our London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse and I applied for the position. It was not until after I had been interviewed by the office that I contacted Marion Boyd to advise her of my interest in the position.
Mr Bradley: Do your interests in the judicial system, and the penal system, I suppose we have to say in this case, and the parole system extend beyond the defence of women who have been abused?
Ms Richardson: Fair question. I believe that's one of the primary reasons why I'm interested in this particular position. While I serve in the capacity of working in an area of women's issues, I also understand there's a niche to that and the world is bigger than that part. I think I'm interested right now in expanding my personal horizons a little bit in terms of how I view the world.
I'm also very aware of the pressure and the changes that are taking place in particular in our justice systems and I'm interested in exploring those options or solutions a little differently. So I understand your question and I think I'm broad-minded enough to look beyond the one niche of looking at the issue of woman abuse to the wide range of crimes that would take place and fall within provincial jurisdiction.
Mr Bradley: You would be aware, with your interest in justice in general, of the concern that a significant portion of the public has about those who are out on parole who then commit crimes. If I were to attempt to assess, without a scientific poll, the viewpoints of my own constituents and probably the majority of people in Ontario, I would say that most consider the parole system to be somehow out of control and that a large number of people are committing crimes, even though they are not.
How do you believe we can improve the parole system to ensure that people are not released who are then going to commit crimes, recognizing that there can be no perfection in that field? I understand that.
Ms Richardson: My understanding is that of the individuals who go out on parole, over 85% of them successfully complete their parole requirements. That tells me that maybe our parole system is not that much out of control, that it needs to be tweaked or moved a little differently in order to be as effective and efficient as it is.
I think it is absolutely essential that we balance the safe reintegration of offenders into society with the safety of the community, and I think the pre-sentencing reports that take place by parole and probation officers at the time of sentencing are key to looking at behaviours. I think there could be different kinds of links established with Community and Social Services or other ministries, for instance the crown attorney's office, to look at how we can coordinate individuals more effectively. The truth is, I don't have a lot of detail in that answer because I don't know enough about it.
Mr Bradley: Do you think we should build more jails so that we can house more people in jails?
Ms Richardson: I think we need to pay attention to the changes that are taking place in our society. There's no question that there is an increase in violence taking place; I don't think we can hide from that any more. It's very important to pay attention to why that's taking place, and that may mean, volume-wise, the need for more institutions.
I also need to explore much more fully how institutions serve the offender. I think there are a variety of crimes and a variety of methods that may be used to punish the offence, punish for the crime, without diminishing and taking away the integrity and self-respect of an individual, which I think sometimes happens.
Mr Bradley: There is a considerable amount of sympathy for the victims and the victims' families and so on in many cases these days, and that's certainly justified. We're also living in a world where there isn't much money out there. The deficit is high, the debt accumulation is somewhat alarming to many, and it would take the reallocation of funds from other areas.
How can we serve the needs of victims and their families and not simply the needs -- and I'm not trying to be engaged in right-wing rhetoric; it's a genuine problem that victims have a lot of costs they incur. For instance, when a trial is transferred from one city to another, the cost is rather significant, and yet legal aid may well be paying the cost of the defence of the person who has allegedly committed the crime. Do you have any ideas in that field, how we might be able to improve?
Ms Richardson: As I indicated in my opening remarks, I think the key is to find the balance between effectiveness, efficiency and the needs of the public. I'll state quite openly that I am not a supporter of the victims' bill of rights, not because I don't believe that victims have rights -- I think victims and their families absolutely do -- but I think it is ineffective. It's not an efficient way to tackle the problem. We have a Constitution, we have a Human Rights Code, we have the Criminal Code of Canada, all of which protect each of us as individuals.
I think if there are problems within each of the systems that don't provide protection for victims, then that can be paid attention to, and I think that can be done very effectively and quite efficiently. The links between the crown attorney's office, for instance, and probation and parole could be tightened up to ensure that there is some contact being made at the time with the court, asking questions about, "Do you wish to be contacted at the time of parole?" for instance, so that there isn't that difficulty in the tracking.
Again, I don't know a lot about the systems. I do support what you're saying, though, in that I do believe there is a very effective and efficient way to look at using what we already have in this country. I think our Criminal Code and our Human Rights Code are very effective. We just need to believe in them and make them work all the way down throughout our systems.
Mr Bradley: How can we deal even more effectively -- I'm drawing on your past experience now -- with the problem of stalking? I know there's new legislation on the books which looks quite good and may be an improvement, yet the problem of stalking is still out there and we've seen some horrendous cases where the stalker seems to get away with it. How would you deal with the problem of stalking? How can we deal with that problem as a society?
Ms Richardson: I'll try to keep my remarks limited to the issue of parole.
Mr Bradley: I know it's difficult --
Ms Richardson: I could go on on that. However, I think when you look at stalkers and crimes against women --
Mr Bradley: -- because some of them are on parole.
Ms Richardson: If we look at what we could do with those who are charged and convicted of stalking, they are stalking someone. I think there is a very clear indication of contacting the victim and ensuring that during the time of being in the institution, they are observing no contact, and I think they need to be very closely monitored upon release.
Again, I recognize the limitations in the public purse right now and in our ability to provide the kind of counselling and support and changes that we have to fundamentally drive down through our society to make the changes. I do think we need to have some tight monitoring about the stalking. I guess I seek a balance.
I guess I fundamentally believe in our correctional system. I believe in our Criminal Code. I believe that where somebody is charged and convicted and punished, they will have, hopefully, some chance of saying, "I've failed and I want to come back to society." I really fundamentally believe in that. I think that people fail, I think sometimes the system fails those people and I think there's opportunity to improve all the way along the line.
Mr McLean: I have three or four questions. The first one, I want to just clear up, you're the executive director now of a social agency in London?
Ms Richardson: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Are you the head of it?
Ms Richardson: The executive director, that's correct.
Mr McLean: What is that agency about?
Ms Richardson: It's called Women's Community House. It's the transition house for abused women and their children.
Mr McLean: You've gone from 10 employees to over 55?
Ms Richardson: That's correct.
Mr McLean: Is that the amount of employees who are working in that facility?
Ms Richardson: That's correct. I began my term as executive director in 1985. At that time there were 10 employees. We've expanded considerably over the past decade to a medium-sized social service agency. I think that speaks about certainly not only the current government but the past government's commitment to the issue of woman abuse and public education and awareness, the support of it with dollars. That's all led to the growth of this particular agency.
Mr McLean: Is it like a women's shelter?
Ms Richardson: Yes.
Mr McLean: How many residents would you have in there?
Ms Richardson: Fifty-five at any one time. There are two facilities.
Mr McLean: So this is residents, not employees?
Ms Richardson: It's both.
Mr McLean: It's gone from 10 staff to over 55?
Ms Richardson: That's right. There are 55 residents. The shelter runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week in two facilities, and we currently have about 55 employees. The high volume of staff is related specifically to the cost of running a facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
1540
Mr McLean: Great. So it's working great. They're badly needed.
Do you think there's a need for more institutions in the province to house some of the criminals?
Ms Richardson: I'll repeat that I think we're really looking at an issue of seeing an increase in crime in our society, an increase in violent crimes and an increase in crime in general, and an increase in the basic population demographics. To me, that says there may very well be a need for more correctional facilities. I'd like to believe we can be innovative and creative about how we can improve on our institutions. I think the medium, low and high-security facilities are certainly a really innovative way to look at different ways of providing institutions for offenders.
Mr McLean: Most of the institutions in Ontario run about $130, $140 a day per resident. They had one in my riding, Hillsdale camp, which ran $80 per resident and held 70 residents. They closed it down because they wanted to save $1 million. They grew their own food, and it was recommended three months before that as a model site. What would you say to a situation like that? I mean, it's just difficult --
Ms Richardson: It is.
Mr McLean: -- but I really feel bad because I think that's the way we should be going, promoting that type of thing.
Ms Richardson: It sounds like for some individuals that kind of facility is appropriate. Again, I think we're at a very difficult time in our global world and we have to look at how we can use the resources as wisely and as effectively as possible. I guess one of the reasons why I'm sitting here looking forward to this kind of public appointment is that this is a big issue and we have to have a broad range of participants working on the solutions in order to get them. I think the one you've suggested is clearly one of them.
Mr McLean: I guess what bothers me so much is the fact that I think rehabilitation doesn't happen behind bars. It happens out in the field, learning by doing, making people do something. I think those types of farms that we have are the way we should be going, and to see it closed down really bothered me.
The other question I have has to do with the low participation rate of victims in the parole process. There was a study done. I remember back where Sheila Henriksen, who was a board member -- they didn't want it -- said the victim being consulted would result in a drastic increase in the board's workload. However, they went ahead and they've done that. The low participation with regard to people asking to be on parole is somewhat -- I would have thought there'd be a lot more. What's your observation on that? Why would there not be more parolees wanting to be heard?
Ms Richardson: I think it's a system issue. If we haven't created the loop in the system to include victims very early in the court process, it's hard to hook up with them near the end of someone's stay in an institution or a rehabilitation environment. I spoke earlier about creating the links at the very beginning with the crown attorneys and the victim/witness assistance program as a way to track.
I don't believe we should rule out that victims don't want to be contacted. I think it's an issue of choice, and there needs to be ways created, I think probably at the time of trial, to engage with the victim when they're there in the process to allow for some follow-up. I think if we try harder and we see it as important and we create the loop, it can happen. I think that's certainly one of the reasons why the victims' bill of rights is given such a priority right now, because it's a way to ensure that.
Mr McLean: When a parolee is being evaluated to be released, what type of parolee would you think the community should know is being released? I think this is a tough one, but they talk about sex offenders and people who are in for sex assault. Some police are notifying the community and some are not. There should be, I guess, criteria laid down whereby they would know. What's your observation on that?
Ms Richardson: Yes, I would agree that the safety and wellbeing of the community is really important. I also see that having the community appointees is one way to develop criteria to test that community safety: Is somebody really going to be safely released?
The other part about the provincial system is that it's two years less a day, which means that in this particular environment we aren't seeing as many of the serious reoffences as we would in the federal system, and I think that's part of why I sit here looking at a provincial appointment.
I don't really have an honest answer for you about that, because I think it's important that the community is aware when there's a serious offender being released into the community and I think the public has the right to know how that happens to preserve the integrity of the individuals and the victims involved. I don't have a good solution to --
Mr McLean: Do you think you'll have a chance to chat with the minister in the next month after you get your appointment, or will that be something that will come later on?
Ms Richardson: I'll put that on the list.
Mr McLean: Anyhow, if you do, I just want you to talk about Camp Hillsdale. Reopen it.
Ms Richardson: It's interesting, I probably saw Marion Boyd a lot more during her time when she was working in London than I do now.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Ms Richardson: Thank you very much, sir.
Ms Harrington: Nice to meet you. It says in our material here that the board "provides in-person hearings for offenders who are serving sentences in excess of six months." Is it one person, a one-on-one interview, or how is that conducted? Do you know?
Ms Richardson: My understanding is that it's a panel made up of a full-time member of the board and two community part-times, so that each parolee comes forward to a panel of three. Also, I believe that there are reports made available from the probation and parole officers who do assessments.
Ms Harrington: Which would be the pre-sentence report?
Ms Richardson: I think there's a pre-sentence report and a pre-parole report. The officers are involved in those two capacities that I know of.
Ms Harrington: Those two reports would be available to those three members of the panel.
Ms Richardson: Yes. My understanding is that there's a formal file of information available relating to the offence, the court proceedings, these two reports and any other relevant information that becomes available, and I'm afraid that's all I know, and that it's a three-panel hearing that takes place for individuals who are serving sentences longer than six months but less than two years.
Ms Harrington: So you would have access to reading this material before you actually interviewed the person one on one.
Ms Richardson: I understand that that's the way it is, that you go in for an eight- to 10-hour period in an institution and review the files prior to each respective parolee coming forward for review. They have an opportunity to speak, and I believe there's an opportunity for the members of the board to also question the parolee.
Ms Harrington: And you'd be one of the part-time community people.
Ms Richardson: Yes, that's correct.
Ms Harrington: I think we've already asked this, but all of us I guess as citizens want to know, how do we assess the danger to a victim of a parolee being on the streets? You've answered certainly that there has to be a balance in the system, and you've mentioned about pre-sentence reports. I'm just wondering if you have anything else to add, because I'm sure you come from a background where that would be something primary in your mind.
Ms Richardson: Yes, and that's true. I think when you look at the crimes committed against a person in particular, whether it be a wife assault case, a sexual assault, where there's injury etc, I think it's very important to ensure that the victims are contacted in fair and safe ways. Certainly in the particular area I work in that's been an area that I've advocated for, that if there is going to be victim contact made, it needs to be done in a way where the victims feel safe to disclose information that they may otherwise not do out of fear, out of trepidation of what will come next. I think it's an area that there has been considerable work done within the institutions, within probation and parole itself about looking at how we can better serve victims, and I think it requires a deeper response to ensure that we aren't missing people.
1550
Ms Harrington: I certainly wish you well. It's a daunting task, it seems to me, to be able to do that kind of judgement.
Ms Richardson: I understand there's good training involved about helping with those assessments also, so that will help.
Ms Carter: I guess we've already gone into the question of how you decide whether somebody should be paroled or not, and I guess that's the core of the problem that you'll be facing. It has been suggested that this could be done on a basis of statistics, just by looking at the number and types of offences that a person's committed and so on. Do you think that would be a good way to go, or do you think it's better to keep it as a sort of personal thing where each person is assessed separately?
Ms Richardson: I'm fearful of judging anybody by a statistic, because I think it has some limitations attached to it. I understand the cost-effectiveness that would be related to it. I believe that individuals who are incarcerated have the right to be heard and the right to be judged fairly. If we strip them of that right by saying, "You fit within this package," my sense of that would be that it would deter somebody reintegrating into society proudly, and I'd hate to take that away from an individual.
I also think we can separate out statistics and look differently from provincial to federal crimes. We certainly know that a repeat sex offender, for instance, who's offended over and over and over again may fit within a statistic, but we wouldn't see that in our provincial institutions, and I guess I'm saved from that thought as a result. But I hope we would always allow the right to be heard.
Ms Carter: If the statistics were against a person, they might say to themselves, "Well, why should I bother? Nobody's going to parole me anyway."
Ms Richardson: I also think there's value in having research at our disposal to make effective decisions about crimes and criminal behaviour. I think it is very important information to have.
Ms Carter: Of course, there is quite a strong wave of public opinion that victims are forgotten and criminals are somehow indulged. But I guess we have to keep a balance there that criminals have some human rights too and that you can't incarcerate somebody for their whole life just on the off chance that they might reoffend. What do you feel about that?
Ms Richardson: In our provincial institutions, if we know that the maximum sentence is two years, then it's not a very long time. We know that person will be going back out into society and into community. They have to have a sense that they can successfully make it and not reoffend, and I don't take away at all the need to include victims in that balance.
Ms Carter: We did have a case fairly recently in my own town of Peterborough where somebody whose home was Peterborough was being released. His picture was published in the local newspaper, I guess by the police, so that people would see this guy and know who he was and not employ him or not have anything to do with him, so that in effect he had to go and live somewhere else. But then it seems to me he'd be just as dangerous in the other place, and I wonder how much of that we can justify.
Ms Richardson: That is similar to a prior question, and I think we have to test a little bit what's the right thing to do. Publicly naming an offender may not be a bad solution if the offender has the kind of support he needs to survive, has a job to go to, has a home or an apartment or a place to live, has some kind of support involved through whatever system is available. To be left alone and removed from family, friends, work may cause more problems. Again, there is the balance of the public needing to know and the support needed for the individual who has been incarcerated. I think we can find the balance. Right now we're just learning how to test a bit.
The Acting Chair: One last question, Ms Carter.
Ms Carter: Certainly in my own community we now have a group of volunteers getting together to support victims of crimes. Actually, when something happens, they can stay with the person where the police can come and ask questions and do their thing and then go away again. Do you think that's a good way to go?
Ms Richardson: Oh, absolutely. I think victims need support. We're learning so much more about victims and victims' behaviour as they move through a continuum of processes of rage and denial and fear and terror to a point where they've survived it. Each step along the way does take a different kind of support, and I think it's helpful. The police know they get a better response if there's support available. The victim-witness program knows it gets better victims, on trial, if it's got support available, and perhaps along the way we could get better victims' statements if we had support during a parole period.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Richardson, for coming before this committee.
Ms Richardson: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure. We had fun.
The Acting Chair: I'd like to ask the members, do they want to vote on these appointments ad seriatim or do you want a motion to concur on all?
Mr Malkowski: I'd like to make a motion to defer the vote on the appointments till the end of tomorrow's hearings.
The Acting Chair: All the appointments?
Mr Malkowski: Yes.
The Acting Chair: All right. Do members want to discuss that, or do you just want to vote on that?
Mr McLean: I don't know why we want to vote on them today. We've got a bunch of them to vote on tomorrow. We have a subcommittee at noon tomorrow. It's up to you if you want to vote for them all tomorrow or not.
The Acting Chair: Discussion?
Ms Harrington: I would make a motion -- I know you have one already on the floor -- that we do approve the ones who came before us today.
The Acting Chair: I see. Well, then, let's just vote on that motion, and then we can move on to different kinds of motions.
All in favour of deferral of the vote on these members until tomorrow? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Do you have another motion, then, Ms Harrington?
Ms Harrington: I put forward a motion that we approve the intended appointments that came before us today.
The Acting Chair: All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Before everyone leaves, Mr McLean, can I just ask you, we had briefly chatted, you and I, about a person who was coming tomorrow. Shannon Gothard was expressing a problem with tomorrow; she was writing an exam. I discussed this with Mr McLean, and Mr McLean, for the record, do you --
Mr McLean: I will concur that she should write her exam, because she will be getting the appointment and it's not necessary to review her. Her priority should be to write the exam and not bother coming.
The Acting Chair: That's fine. Any objections with that, or discussion? Very well.
Ms Harrington: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
The Acting Chair: There is a woman who was coming tomorrow, Shannon Gothard, who is unable to come because she's writing an exam. Since it was the third party that made that request, we thought Mr McLean should be the person to make a comment on that, and he's saying that she's going to write her exam.
Ms Harrington: Okay. Good idea, Mr McLean.
The Acting Chair: All right, this committee is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1559.