INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
STEPHEN ADAMS
CONTENTS
Wednesday 4 December 1996
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Mr Stephen Adams
Ms Linda Frum
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
*Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
*Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Clerk /Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The first item of business is the report of the subcommittee from last Thursday, November 28, which involves two certificates: Mr Raymond Johnson, selected by the official opposition party be appointed to the Hamilton-Wentworth District Health Council; and recommended by the third party, Mr Dale Lapham to the council of the College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario, and to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, Christopher Hacio. All of those would appear before the committee a week from today. That's the subcommittee report in abbreviated form.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move its adoption.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any debate? All in favour? Carried.
Mr Bob Wood: Can I add one tiny thing to the order of business? Is Mr Silipo going to be joining us, do we know? Is not? Okay. I would've explained this to Mr Kormos had I realized Mr Silipo was not going to join us.
What we are going to request is that the deadline for submission of names designated by the crown foundations be Tuesday of next week rather than Thursday, for this coming week only. We anticipate there'll be maybe 50 names coming out of the cabinet today, and these names are recommended by the agencies themselves, though of course approved by the government. We would like to have the non-designated ones signed by the Lieutenant Governor on Wednesday, which is the reason for the request that the deadline be Tuesday for this batch only.
We'd like to get the people in place because there are a number of substantial donations that they think are available before the end of this tax year, and we'd like to get those folks on the foundations so the foundations can receive them prior to the end of the year. In the event the opposition parties should agree to this, the public appointments secretariat undertakes to have the names to the three party representatives by noon tomorrow.
I spoke to Mr Crozier. I didn't realize Mr Kormos was going to be the third party representative. I would have spoken to him, which I didn't, so he now is aware of the situation.
The Chair: It sounds like a reasonable request to me. Everybody okay on that?
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I think that was the wink and the nod, Mr Wood. I'm in full agreement with you.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Bob Wood: I guess it's not necessary to have a motion. But let me thank the representatives of the two opposition parties for their indulgence on that, and we hope substantial charitable contributions will flow from this indulgence.
The Chair: Good. We look forward to getting those names.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
STEPHEN ADAMS
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Stephen Adams, intended appointee as member, Ontario Securities Commission.
The Chair: Mr Adams, if you would have a seat at the end of the table, we appreciate your attendance here this morning. It's traditional that you be allowed to make any opening remarks you'd care to make, and then the members of the committee can ask you any questions.
Mr Stephen Adams: Thank you for your invitation to appear before you today. I'm a nominee for appointment to membership on the Ontario Securities Commission. I understand you've got my biographical information before you, so I won't repeat it. I can summarize it by saying that I've practised law in London, Ontario, for 28 years. I've carried on general corporate and commercial practice and have considerable experience with the Securities Act and the Business Corporations Act. Our firm is more than 40 lawyers and is one of the larger firms in the province outside downtown Toronto. For many years, our firm has actively encouraged each of its lawyers to participate in the community.
I've been fortunate to do a good deal of community service outside of my law practice, including membership on and the chairmanship of several boards of directors of various hospitals and other health care facilities, service on what is now called the London Police Services Board and various other items as set out in the résumé. My current activities include serving as president of the Children's Aid Society of London-Middlesex and holding the office of chancellor of the diocese of Huron of the Anglican Church of Canada.
In so far as my academic qualifications are concerned, I was a gold medalist in law. I was a part-time adjunct professor of law at the faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, where I taught corporate law for more than 12 years. I'm the author of a widely used textbook on corporate law in Ontario.
I look forward to the challenge of serving on the Ontario Securities Commission. It has several challenges before it, some which were detailed in articles that appeared in the Toronto Star two weeks ago. I'm sure you're familiar with them.
One of the major challenges to the OSC is the possible formation of a national securities commission which would replace the OSC and other provincial securities commissions. However, this is a political matter to be resolved by the politicians in Ottawa, Toronto and other provinces and not by the OSC itself.
Another of the major immediate challenges facing the OSC is its funding problems. These have been dealt with in the papers and are well known. I understand from the papers that one of the possible solutions, in the event that the OSC continues and is not replaced by a national securities commission, is the transformation of it into a crown corporation. Once again, this is a matter for the Legislature and the politicians, not for the OSC itself.
Other challenges facing the OSC include its ongoing policy reformulation, the rule-making project and the implementation of an electronic filing system for prospectuses.
1010
It's my personal belief that the emphasis in securities legislation has got to change. When the Securities Act was written in its present form in 1968, most of the money raised in Ontario for corporations and other issuers was by way of prospectus. Things have changed, and in the last 30 years the emphasis on the issuance of prospectuses has declined to the point where I'm told that in 1995, 94% of the money raised in Ontario was raised without a prospectus by legal means through the secondary market primarily.
There has been increasing emphasis on continuous disclosure by corporations in documents other than prospectuses, but the legislation, in my view, has not kept up with it because there are no civil penalties in Ontario right now for false statements in corporate documents such as information circulars or annual reports. In the US, there are penalties for continuous disclosure violations, but there are no civil penalties in Ontario at the present time. Someone can make a false and misleading statement in an annual report or in an information circular and not be subject to civil penalties. In an extreme case, of course, the OSC could step in and suspend trading, but that would punish a lot of shareholders unnecessarily.
On one hand, we've got very severe penalties for false and misleading statements in prospectuses, and nothing at all for a false and misleading statement in other corporate documents. This is probably a matter for the Legislature, but I think it's something that hopefully will be looked into.
The mission of the OSC is to protect investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices and to foster fair and efficient capital markets and public confidence in their integrity. There are approximately 2,300 active public corporations in Ontario, and these are the ones that deal most with the OSC.
I believe I can bring to the commission many years of broad experience as a corporate and securities lawyer, experience as an officer and director of several public and private corporations in Canada and the United States, a viewpoint that's somewhat different from that of a Bay Street lawyer, a record of community service, a high energy level and a willingness to serve the public in this way.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Adams. Any questions from the members on the government side?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Okay. Members of the official opposition, any questions?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning, sir. Your opening statement touched on a few of the areas that I'm sure all of us are interested in, in view of, as you said, the comments that have been made in the press and the suggestion of an apparent lack of ability of the commission to function in the way it really should.
Do you see a timetable on when this national issue should be solved, either that agreement should be reached or we should forget it and start to make improvements in our own way in Ontario?
Mr Adams: That's a tough question to answer, sir. I have no inside information. I only know what goes on in the newspapers, but it seems to me, as a lawyer practising in this area, that uncertainty is not good for anyone, not the employees nor the public, and I hope it will be dealt with in the next year. But I think it's a political matter, and getting politicians in 12 or 13 jurisdictions to agree is difficult.
Mr Crozier: So you may, once you're on the commission -- and I have no doubt that you will be, with the background you have. So you would have to wait until you're on there, see how things are going, before you'd have an opinion like that? Once you're on the commission, would that be the kind of advice you would give to the provincial government, that there is a time at which we should make a decision?
Mr Adams: Yes. I think the government realizes that. The newspaper articles have certainly made that point, and there are a lot of people commenting on that in the paper. Not only the articles in the Star; other papers have said that. I think it's like anything else, there is a time for something, and they've got to get on with it. But the OSC is somewhat of a bystander in this in the sense that it's not actively involved in negotiations. Only after the political will is expressed and decided upon can the technocrats and the bureaucrats get involved in the mechanics of it.
Mr Crozier: Another thing the previous head of the commission has commented on from time to time is the underfunding of the commission. We have had some figures given to us; for example, projected that in 1996-97 the commission will have revenues in excess of expenditures of about $25 million, yet the previous chairman has said the commission is underfunded and perhaps should simply be made a self-funded organization rather than a profit centre for government. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Adams: Yes, I do. I believe that would assist the public of Ontario in the sense that the commission -- this is no secret; it's in the newspapers -- has had problems with senior staff departing for much higher-paid jobs. They also have another problem right now in civil service terms because of the downsizing that's going on. It's quite apart from the money involved. It's a difficult thing to hire anybody, no matter what his or her skills and experience are, into the OSC right now because of the policies in downsizing and having bumping rights and all these things the civil service quite properly has. If it's made into a crown agency, it's hoped that it would not only be freed up on the financial side of it, but that it would be free of some of the necessary civil service restrictions.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): You made some reference in your opening statement to the fact that there are no civil penalties for false disclosures on, obviously, documents. How common is that? I'm a bit of a neophyte about this sort of stuff.
Mr Adams: I can't answer that, sir. I don't know how common it is. I was trying to contrast two extremes: Here we have a prospectus where the law comes down on both feet for anything that's misleading or incorrect, and there are very substantial civil penalties. That's one extreme. The other extreme: In the area that's used most often by corporations there are no penalties at all.
How often it happens I don't know, but I suspect there are some errors, some of them I'm sure inadvertent, but there are errors. For example, the legislation was amended a couple of years ago to require, in an annual information circular, a statement as to how much the public company pays the president. If they misstate that by $100,000, there's no civil penalty for that. That's just an example. I'm not suggesting it's being done, but it could be done, whereas if they make the same misstatement in a prospectus, which would be misleading, they could be subject to very severe penalties.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you, Mr Adams, for your appearance here this morning. Reading your CV, it is certainly complete. You've had long-standing service in the community, you're obviously very qualified professionally and you'll do an excellent job on the commission, I'm sure of that.
I'm a bit of a rookie around here, so maybe I'm still working through the process. How did you come to apply for this position?
Mr Adams: My practice has been to serve on various things with various organizations for a limited period of time, six or seven years, and go on to something else. Following the last election, I realized that my term as president of the Children's Aid Society was coming to an end this coming March and I was looking around for something to do in a community service to replace that. I contacted my MPP, Mr Wood, and his office directed me to the green government booklet on agencies, boards and commissions; the last issue was 1995. I read through it, wrote a letter listing two or three agencies that might possibly interest me and offered my services to them and enclosed my CV, which is attached.
Mr Bartolucci: It's completely legitimate and very much in order. It's good that we find out the different ways people apply for these types of jobs or positions. Once you realized that you were going to be picked with an order in council, were you sent any advance material?
Mr Adams: Yes, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: What type of advanced material were you sent?
Mr Adams: They sent me a copy of Hansard from a committee hearing on July 17; they sent me a map, how to find the room here; they sent me a memorandum about procedure, how it's done; some press clippings; a copy of the standing committee on government agencies' rules. They invited me to a meeting and sent me a videotape of a previous hearing.
1020
Mr Bartolucci: What did the videotape consist of?
Mr Adams: It consisted of -- my recollection is May 1995 -- a two-hour videotape of a committee hearing where the committee interviewed four different applicants.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you know if that's standard procedure?
Mr Adams: I have no idea. I suspect it is, though, because they wanted the tape returned.
Mr Bartolucci: They wanted the tape returned? This is this government, eh?
Mr Adams: They didn't send any popcorn or anything like that. I had to supply my own.
Mr Bartolucci: I know somebody who was doing that. You referred to "they." Who is "they"?
Mr Adams: The public appointments secretariat. The lady, Mrs Judy Burns, is here in blue behind me.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think all that is necessary before your appearance?
Mr Adams: Yes, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: Why?
Mr Adams: I practised law for 28 years. I have testified precisely once previously to this on anything. I've conducted a lot of trials, tax work and that sort of thing, and I've always known it's a daunting experience to testify in anything, and this brought me out here. I have never done this sort of thing before and I think it is reassuring to people to know what goes on and that the lions aren't kept in the room; they're kept down in the basement, I'm told.
Mr Bartolucci: Being a lawyer, you'd probably consider this instructing the witness.
Mr Adams: No, sir, I wouldn't. I would call it educating the witness. I certainly do it for trials I participate in as a lawyer. I think any capable, competent lawyer would do that to reassure the witness about how the procedure works, where people sit. I think that showing a videotape of something that happened two years ago is not really instructing a witness.
Mr Bartolucci: Did your videotape have anything to do with the Ontario Securities Commission?
Mr Adams: Nothing at all; just four witnesses.
Mr Kormos: Gosh, Mr Adams, when I practised law we called it "woodshedding" the witness, with no shame whatsoever and no regrets. I take some joy in your mentioning that you're not a Bay Street lawyer, because I know a Bay Street lawyer who also prizes himself as something of an author. I didn't know him when he was a Bay Street lawyer; I knew him before he became a Bay Street lawyer. I attach some credit to the fact that you're not.
Mr Waitzer, who was the previous chair, in a newspaper article spoke about his disappointment at the lack of progress in developing a national securities commission, although he indicated in an interview that he'd become somewhat more optimistic recently. What would give you optimism in that regard, in view of his experience with the phenomenon?
Mr Adams: Let me begin by saying I've never met Mr Waitzer. I only know what's in the newspaper articles and I have no inside knowledge of what's going on, but the fact that they're still talking is hopeful, the fact that they're proceeding on it at all, because a month ago I thought it was dead entirely. I thought the people lost interest in it, but I'm told that their interest has revived and they're still going on. I don't think it's welcomed formally by the country. It's my understanding that some of the western provinces are not in favour of this matter, but it's only hearsay and what I read in the newspapers. I have no inside information.
Mr Kormos: Okay. I suppose that both the Alberta exchange and the Vancouver exchange have some, at least for somebody like myself -- the only stock I own is 50 shares of Sherritt mines, and I only bought those because of the Helms-Burton bill, and as it ends up I made some money as a result of it, so I'm more than pleased. Is it because the Vancouver exchange and the nature of its stock wouldn't want perhaps the more rigid controls that exist in other jurisdictions or that would be imposed nationally?
Mr Adams: I don't know. Maybe that would be the reason. But I understand that some of the brokers out there are not happy about it and some of the legal people are unhappy about it. No one who is designing a security system in Canada today would design the one we've got. We've got 12, 13 jurisdictions dealing with the matter.
Having said that, we've had 75 years of doing it this way, and it's difficult to get people to change. There is concern about having a national bureaucracy, where you're going to have it and how you go about handling regional matters. I don't know what the reason for it is, and we are being compared to the alleged efficiency of the national one in the United States. I think, as a practical matter, if we don't get a national securities commission -- I have no idea if we will or not. They're implementing a national electronic filing system on January 1 called SEDARS, an electronic document retrieval system, which will take out a lot of practical objections about having multiple commissions. It won't take them all out, but instead of sending stuff by courier to 11 places, you will be sending it by electronic means once, and it should do it automatically, instantaneously. I think that will remove some practical difficulties.
Why the ones in the west are opposed to it, I don't know. Quebec, I understand, is opposed to it as well. The Montreal stock exchange has announced its opposition, but that may be for reasons entirely beyond the securities industry.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, sir. Have you returned the videotape yet?
Mr Adams: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Any questions from the government side?
Mr Bob Wood: We will waive our time.
The Chair: Thank you for that. As someone who had a fair amount to do with the OSC when I used to have another job -- I used to be another person, actually -- I know you're in for some very interesting times. I want to tell the committee of the great discipline that has made me stay out of the debate this morning. Thank you, Mr Adams, for coming before the committee. We appreciate it.
LINDA FRUM
Review of intended appointment, selected by opposition party and third party: Linda Frum, intended appointee as member, Ontario Arts Council.
The Chair: Ms Frum, welcome to the committee this morning. I don't think you were here when Mr Adams began, but you have an opportunity to make any opening remarks you'd like to make, then we'll proceed with some questions from committee members.
Ms Linda Frum: I would like to address the question of what I see as my qualifications to serve on the Ontario Arts Council. Basically, I think there are two. The first is that as a writer I see myself as a member of the arts community. I am the author of two books and I have edited a third. I have contributed to many major periodicals and publications of this country. I see myself very much as belonging to the arts community in the capacity of a writer.
On a second front I see myself as someone who has been very active as a volunteer, participating in the philanthropic side of arts support. In the past I have organized fund-raisers for the Tarragon Theatre, over three or four years I've organized fairly major events for the Ryerson development trust and I am currently chair of a gala event that will take place this summer for an organization called Ashkenaz, which is going to be a celebration of new Yiddish culture. In this respect also I see myself as very involved in the arts. Those are my qualifications.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Any questions at the moment from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
The Chair: Okay, official opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: Welcome, Ms Frum. I think you're going on a very important council, one I certainly believe in. In my former role as critic for arts and culture I met with publishers and authors, and they weren't satisfied with the direction of this government. They also weren't satisfied with the lack of communication they received from this government. How do you propose to improve that? I won't ask whether or not you're satisfied with it, but how do you propose to improve that communication?
Ms Frum: I think there is certainly an awareness on the part of most people in the publishing community, for example, that there will be less government support in the future, as I think there is this awareness in all sectors of society, so I think it is a process of making people accept that and helping them see alternatives to those kinds of resources.
1030
Mr Bartolucci: Do you feel there are enough financial resources being placed in the arts by this government?
Ms Frum: I think it has to be seen in context, and at a time when there are cutbacks to every sector of society, including things like health and education, the arts have to take their share of cuts as well.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think there is a balance, though, in their share? The communities and the groups I met with suggested there was a disproportionate amount being taken away from the arts. You're going to be obviously an advocate for the arts; that's your interest obviously.
Mr Frum: Right.
Mr Bartolucci: That's why you want to sit on this, I'm sure. Do you see that there's been a disproportionate amount of money taken from the arts?
Ms Frum: I really can't comment on that. You'd have to look at the entire picture and assess it. But as I say, I think it's important for people in the arts community to remember that there are many important spheres in our society. Health is one of them; education is one of them; police services is another. I think those are areas where the government has made a commitment, but I think it is actually quite pleasing to know that this government has continued to make a commitment to the arts. They have, for example, maintained the Ontario Arts Council, to begin with. I think that is a very positive signal from this government that they are concerned about the arts and that they will continue to support them.
Mr Bartolucci: And you as the advocate will ensure that it always remains high in their priorities, I'm sure.
Ms Frum: Right.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, great. I just want to leave the arts council for a moment. Did you watch the whole two hours of the video?
Ms Frum: Apparently I got the cut version. I had a half-hour.
Mr Bartolucci: I guess the first guy got the uncut version. How long was yours?
Ms Frum: Half an hour.
Mr Bartolucci: What meeting did it highlight?
Ms Frum: It was with a fellow being appointed to an educational body. I'm not exactly sure which one.
Mr Bartolucci: I see. Who was highlighted on the video, if you don't mind my asking?
Ms Frum: I believe you were there.
Mr Bartolucci: Yes? Was Bruce Crozier there?
Ms Frum: Yes, indeed.
Mr Bartolucci: Was this gentleman there?
Ms Frum: No, you weren't there that day, for some reason.
Mr Bartolucci: That's amazing. Did you have to return the video as well?
Ms Frum: I'm embarrassed to say that not only do I have to, but I have failed to do so, so a classic artist's manoeuvre.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): They had Mel Gibson play your part, Rick.
Mr Bartolucci: That's it. How many members of the government side were highlighted in the video?
Ms Frum: It was simply a session like this, so everybody who spoke was on there.
Mr Bartolucci: You see, we haven't been privy to this video and we didn't know about this video until today. Now we're finding out there may be more than one video out there.
Ms Frum: I think it's just a version of home movies.
Mr Bartolucci: Yes, that's right. One would suggest comedy, others would suggest horror, depending on what side of the spectrum you're on. Probably very few would consider it to be historical documentation.
Good luck in your appointment.
Ms Frum: Thank you.
Mr Crozier: Ms Frum, good morning. I have to say at the outset that I was a great admirer of your mother --
Ms Frum: Thank you.
Mr Crozier: -- and her public life. As a matter of fact, a little anecdote: I was mayor at the time of your mother's death and I had a radio show every Saturday morning. I felt compelled that week to pay tribute to your mother because I think she had a great influence on a number of Canadians. It's a privilege to meet a member of her family.
Ms Frum: That's very nice. Thank you.
Mr Crozier: Now, like we do in question period, comes the tough part.
Ms Frum: Okay.
Mr Crozier: But it won't be very tough. The arts council is to work at arm's length from the government. As a matter of fact, in some of the material you were given it may have even outlined the role of the council where it is an arm's-length agency, independent of government. But another term of reference is that the council is run by a government-appointed board. Do you feel, joining this council, that you can on one hand be independent of government, but on the other hand, you've been appointed by government?
Ms Frum: That's of course an enormous philosophical question that wouldn't only apply to this appointment but to the entire process of how --
Mr Crozier: How do you feel?
Ms Frum: Yes, I do feel that way. You mentioned my mother a moment ago. One could argue that everybody at the CBC works for the government, but they manage, I think very adequately, to maintain a sense of separation from the government. I think that of course it is totally possible to have an arm's-length relationship. That is not an unreasonable notion.
Mr Crozier: Okay. When you were answering Mr Bartolucci's questions, you commented on the council having to take its reduction along with everyone else, and yet unlike some of the areas of government where reductions are being made, ie hospitals or education, where there's a payout, the arts community has suggested that there are great economic values to the arts. Could you comment on that vis-à-vis another part of government where there may not be a big economic value?
Ms Frum: Yes. I think that is a very real distinction and in that respect the arts have an advantage over those other sectors, and that's actually a very hopeful thing for the arts. It's also, I think, much easier for the arts to raise money privately than it is, certainly for hospitals although they do it, and for education. I think one of the things that has been happening in the arts community and will have to continue is perhaps a greater reliance on the private sector. But I think that perhaps of these areas that we're discussing, it will be the easiest for the arts community to do that.
Mr Crozier: I don't know whether you were in the room earlier, but there will be some appointments coming up in the next week and we were accommodating these appointments because of the foundations that are going to be established for that very reason, that you spoke of. I assume, but I'd like to hear you confirm it, that you will be a spokesperson for raising funds, not just sitting on the council and disbursing them.
Ms Frum: Oh, of course. As I said at the outset, that's something I already do. I think one of the things I can contribute to this organization is my experience in raising money privately for arts organizations.
Mr Crozier: I wish you well, and it's been a pleasure to speak to you this morning.
Mr Kormos: Both Mr Bartolucci and Mr Crozier wanted you to indicate that you saw yourself as, among other things, an advocate for the arts and culture community, and you've agreed with that. I hear what you've said, that clearly this government's direction is in terms of reducing its support for arts and culture. I understand that. We know that's happening. At the same time, though, you're entitled to a personal view, and what I very specifically want to ask you is, do you think that government has any business investing taxpayer money in arts and culture?
Ms Frum: Yes, I do.
Mr Kormos: How do you respond, because you talk about referring or utilizing more and more corporate sources or private sector -- which I'm just assuming means corporate. Most of us as consumers of arts and culture can't afford to contribute the full cost of full funding. Now we've got serious restrictions on, let's say, the tobacco industry with the arts, and you've heard the arguments in response to that. Would you advocate for the government to increase its contribution to funding of arts and culture?
Ms Frum: It would entirely depend on the circumstances. If they find themselves with an overwhelming surplus of funds, then sure, it would certainly be a worthy area to invest in, but I don't see that situation happening in the near future.
1040
Mr Kormos: I don't know a whole lot about film in Ontario, but I know John Greyson got busted at the opening of his movie Lilies because he dared to encourage people to participate in the Days of Action.
Ms Frum: I think it's because he was trespassing. I think that was the reason.
Mr Kormos: Well, they busted him, yes.
Ms Frum: Not because of what he was saying but because of what he was doing.
Mr Kormos: Yes. Handing out leaflets encouraging people --
Ms Frum: On private property, yes.
Mr Kormos: At his own film. I don't know; it's weird. They apologized to him, in any event, because it wasn't a good bust anyway. He would have walked on it. But he indicated that his motive for doing that was because Lilies was the film nominated for several Geminis and receiving -- I don't know how many, but several, as did you -- and his was one of the last films that enjoyed funding under the Ontario Film Development Corp. My understanding is that from purely an economic point of view, the film industry has been very significant to the Ontario economy, and especially Toronto's economy, yet there's a defunding of support for that. From an economic point of view, does that make common sense?
Ms Frum: But there also has been an explosion of production in this province and across Canada, and I think an argument can be made that these funding bodies that were set up in the last decade or so have served a viable purpose but that with the development of very large production companies as we've seen happen in Canada, which is a very exciting development, perhaps the private sector can now take over that role of funding production or funding development in that the industry has really gone from its infancy to a kind of adolescence. That is something the government helped with, but maybe it isn't required in that role any more.
Mr Kormos: But then I read on December 2 in the Star about two publishing companies, NC and Pierre Renyi, going into receivership when the ODC terminates its guarantee of the debts. I suppose these people haven't survived their adolescence, because here's two publishing companies that are out of the picture now as a result of the ODC terminating its guarantees. How do they fit into this sort of perspective? I appreciate you were referring to film, not to publishing. Has publishing not survived the gestation period?
Ms Frum: I'm glad you made the distinction because I think they are quite different industries. As you said, everyone accepts the fact of life that there will be these cutbacks, that there has to be. That is not to say that no one will suffer as a result, because clearly many individuals and some enterprises like the ones you mentioned will be affected. No question.
Mr Kormos: Not everybody accepts them. I have a hard time accepting the cutbacks in the context of multibillion-dollar bank profits, for instance.
Ms Frum: But for those of us who see them as inevitable, one has to acknowledge that that will be part of the fallout.
Mr Kormos: If, in your view, the government were to defund OAC to a point where it put the role of OAC at risk, would you feel comfortable speaking out as a member of the OAC?
Ms Frum: That question you would have to be asked in a larger context. For example, I think it's a very positive step with the establishment of sort of crown foundations where you can get a 100% tax credit for contributions. I'd be interested to know, if they defunded the OAC, what measures they would put in place to allow the private sector to meet or even surpass the levels of support that the government had previously supplied.
Mr Kormos: Okay. Thank you kindly.
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Ms Frum, that's it. Thank you very much for coming before the committee. We appreciate it.
We've come to the part of the agenda where we deal with concurrence in the appointments.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Adams.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Is there any debate on it? No. Ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Adams's appointment? It's carried.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Frum.
The Chair: Any debate?
Mr Kormos: I have every intention of supporting the motion, and I appreciate Ms Frum's candour in responding to questions put to her today.
I say but this: I suppose I was hoping, and it's just my anticipation or hope, that Ms Frum as an appointee would come in here, however feckless this hope is, waving the banner for the arts and culture community, perhaps radically. I appreciate that she is in a position where it's this government that's appointing her; it's this government that sets the rules of the game for the moment. When she said, and I responded to this very briefly to her, that everyone accepts the reality of the cuts, and again I'm not suggesting she was being dishonest, I think she was speaking in a very general way, almost a colloquial way. Not everybody does accept the reality of these cuts. I think a whole lot of people understand that these cuts are foolhardy and dangerous from a mercenary or an economic point of view and also from a cultural and societal point of view.
So I'm supporting Ms Frum but I'm just hoping that she, along with other members of this council, is aggressive and indeed radical when the time comes, when need be, to speak out against a government that I am convinced has every intention of defunding arts and culture here in the province. I agree with Ms Frum, as I think most people do, that taxpayers have a role in funding arts and culture. This government doesn't agree. I would just encourage Ms Frum to be outspoken and radical and bold in her position even if it means criticizing this government. I've done it from time to time myself. I have criticized this government, I confess, with, mind you, little repercussion and some great support from the folks down in Welland-Thorold.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kormos. Are you ready for the question? All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chair, I'd like to follow up on the topic of videos and discuss that for a second. I guess, through you, I'd like to ask Mr Wood, is he familiar with the videos and, if so, has he seen them? If so, how many has he seen?
Mr Bob Wood: They're training videos for the members of the committee. We're going to try them out on the government members, and if they work we're going to try them out on the opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: Maybe he might want to answer the question.
The Chair: Does the committee want to view the video at some point? I haven't seen it myself.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to follow up with some more questions about this.
The Chair: Go ahead. Sorry.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to go back to Mr Wood and ask him, has he seen the videos? Was he aware of the videos? I think that's a legitimate question.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't know a lot about the briefings that are done of witnesses. I do know the principle is that they should understand how the committee works, the sorts of issues that may be raised. Basically, as Mr Adams said, they're educational, so they come in here and understand what the process is.
Mr Bartolucci: How many videos are there?
Mr Bob Wood: I didn't actually know they sent out videos.
Mr Bartolucci: Could we have somebody from --
The Chair: We could call the public appointments secretariat.
Mr Bartolucci: I think there are people over there right now who could probably answer the questions if we brought them up. Would that be in order?
The Chair: Do you want to come to the --
Mr Bob Wood: Excuse me, no.
The Chair: You have to come to the mike.
Mr Crozier: Mr Wood is concerned that some truth might come out.
Mr Bartolucci: You're not going to allow them to speak?
Mr Bob Wood: They're not going to speak, no. Correct.
Mr Bartolucci: You must really be impressed with the freedom.
I would recommend, Mr Chair, that we get a copy of each of the videos. I would like to see each of those videos.
The Chair: I personally don't think that's an unreasonable request. This committee deals with the people who have seen the video and I think that's most reasonable. We could take the time some day to see one of the videos. I hope it's not a two-hour video, though. It is two hours?
Interjections.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, if anybody could -- excuse me, Mr Chair, because I take this very seriously. I'm really upset that the whip of the government side would know that these videos exist and we wouldn't, nor would the third party. I think it speaks volumes for what this government is all about, and I'm suggesting that I'm not satisfied to sit here any longer until I have seen every copy -- every copy -- of every video that is sent out.
1050
The Chair: I don't think that's an unusual request, that the committee get a copy of that video. I don't think we have to view it together as a committee but I think we could have that and members should be able to view it at their leisure.
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Mr Chairman, when I arrived on this particular committee of ABCs, I took it upon myself to contact the support staff and asked them if there were taped videos of actual hearings and I was given a couple of videos. I can't recall which member was on there or which witness was being interviewed but I did it primarily from an information point of view and I'm sure that's what's occurring here.
I wanted to see what type of question -- not necessarily who was asking or who was grandstanding or who was being very dramatic, but from an information point of view, how did this committee function? What types of questions were asked? What types of witnesses were interviewed? They're available at any time to any member. I don't see that there's any black curtain here to hide behind. It's just a communications --
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please. Can we have one person at a time?
Mr Leadston: In my mind, it's a communications tool. I'm sure if the honourable member was going on a committee and asked, "What do they do there and what kind of questions am I apt to be asked?" today a video is a very normal communications tool.
Mr Kormos: I don't think there's anything wrong with potential appointees receiving as much information as possible about the committee and how it works, including videos. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all and I think it's a smart thing to do for people who haven't been to a committee before. Quite frankly, the idea could be extended, for instance, to people who appear in front of any number of committees to make presentations. It might well be useful to have a stock video to give to people who are potentially appearing so they get a sense or an understanding, because people come here and they're nervous, they're apprehensive -- quite frankly, not so much here but when you're appearing in front of the justice committee or what have you.
But having said that all is fair and good, mind you, when I produce a video, the Attorney General wants to send me to jail. Here the government has a video -- and I showed the whole world. I didn't hide my light under a bushel. Ms Martel and I showed the whole world. I don't think there's anything inappropriate in the committee knowing what the video is, and if there are comments to be made, if the video, for instance, unfairly presents a certain aspect, it should be subject to constructive criticism.
I think the idea of a generic video to familiarize people with committees is an excellent idea and I give the government credit for initiating it. As I say, I didn't get the same credit when Shelley Martel and I produced a video, but I think it's useful for the committee to see it, and if we can help prepare a more generic video that doesn't have any spin or slant to it, God bless.
Mr Bob Wood: I think the answer to this question for any member of the committee who wants to see anything that the public appointments secretariat uses is to ask them. If you're not satisfied with the answer, come back to this committee.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd ask that every video that's been sent out be forwarded to my office, every video, so that I can view each and every one of them. I don't think that's an unreasonable request since Mr Leadston has been privy to it. You obviously have been receiving notes and have been finding out information about it. I would like every video that was sent out to every appointee to be delivered to my office or, if they don't want to deliver them, I will go and pick them up.
Mr Bob Wood: Just to clarify: My friend misunderstands a point here. I actually wasn't aware the videos existed. I have not seen them. I didn't even know until today they had them. I think they're a good idea, but I didn't know about them.
Mr Bartolucci: I want to talk to Mr Leadston. He seems to be very much aware of it. Mr Chair, is that an unreasonable request?
The Chair: No, I don't think so. So you're proposing that you would make the request directly to the appointments secretariat, and if you have trouble in that process, come back to the committee.
Mr Leadston: I would suggest to the honourable member that he just take the initiative and contact the video library on the fourth floor, as I did and my staff did. How long have they been videotaping the various hearings? There might be a few thousand videos, and obviously you'll have time to watch them. We may not have you on the committee, and that's most unfortunate, but go to the fourth floor and request videos on any of the hearings, as I did. It's just a communications tool and it's public information.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Chairman, I suggest it is very much in order that I request every video that every appointee has received for viewing.
The Chair: I don't see anything wrong with that. You deal directly with the appointments secretariat, and if you have difficulty, come back to the committee.
Mr Bartolucci: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Crozier: Mr Chair, when Mr Leadston is saying you go to the fourth floor library, I would be most interested in only those that are sent out to potential witnesses or those witnesses who are going to appear, because when this was first raised, it seemed to me rather odd. For example, I don't think we're videotaped at this session in this room, so suddenly I thought, when was it we appeared in the Amethyst Room that we could be videotaped, or how did they videotape us? I'm kind of curious, among other reasons, to see the quality of it and where it was videotaped.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): We have had cameras in this room.
Mr Crozier: We have cameras in this room?
Mr Doyle: We have had.
The Chair: But I gather that's not where it took place.
Mr Crozier: Where they were put in to videotape us and then taken out?
Mr Bartolucci: If these people talk -- you're going like this, they're going like this, but they've been muzzled by Mr Wood so we'll never, ever find out what the real answer is.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Mr Crozier has the floor.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): A point of order.
The Chair: No. Order, please.
Mr Bert Johnson: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Mr Johnson, can you let Mr Crozier finish his sentence, please? Go ahead, Mr Crozier.
Mr Crozier: It then prompts me to say that I'm not surprised they're sending videotapes and material out to witnesses, considering how poorly some of their first witnesses did.
Mr Bert Johnson: I have a point of order, Mr Chair. I would like to know what we are discussing. I thought there was supposed to be a motion on the floor if we were discussing things in committee.
Interjection: We're discussing democracy.
The Chair: Has this discussion concluded? I think we all understand what's about to happen.
Mr Gravelle: May I make one more point?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: As I think every member of the committee knows, Mr Wood is I guess chairing a committee that is reviewing the agencies, boards and commissions, and obviously there will be some decisions made as a result of that. I think several months ago we discussed the possibility of having Mr Wood inform us as a committee as to what the progress was or what some of the movement was in that direction, and if I recall, Mr Wood agreed he would be willing to do that.
I understand you've made a presentation to your caucus as to progress, and I'm wondering whether it would be fair to ask you if you could inform our committee, hopefully perhaps next week if we're meeting next week, as to what the situation is. You did, I guess, commit to doing some kind of update and informing us. Obviously some of the decisions might be very major, so I know we'd all be curious about that, and in that you have presented it to the government members, I'm sure that all members on this side would be very interested as well.
Mr Bob Wood: I would anticipate an announcement being made in the near future, and if the committee wants a briefing on that once the announcement is made, I would be glad to give as much briefing as desired.
Mr Gravelle: It seems to me that when we discussed this previously, you indicated that you would be willing to give us a progress report, and it wasn't a question of being able to do it after the announcement was made. I think you did indicate, and I'm sure we could find it in the records, that you would be willing to give us some kind of progress report, and it would be obviously useful for us to have that. I recognize you want to perhaps wait until the announcement is made, but I think that was what you had agreed to do previously, and obviously as we're getting close to Christmas and presumably next week is our last meeting, it would be helpful for us to have it, in that this is the committee that obviously is the most involved in this particular area.
Mr Bob Wood: In the case of the operational, it seems most useful to wait until the announcement is made, and then you can get a complete briefing. In the case of the regulatory adjudicative, I'd be happy to give you some idea of some of the thoughts we have.
Mr Gravelle: I'm simply following up on the discussion we had several months ago when you agreed to give us a briefing of some sort in advance of any announcement, a progress report, in essence.
Mr Bob Wood: I would be pleased to do that. The committee can designate whatever time it wants and I'll do it.
Mr Gravelle: Will we have time at next Wednesday's meeting?
The Chair: Next week we do have three intended appointments, just so you know that it's a full morning next week.
Mr Gravelle: We have had four appointments, certainly, so if there is time and if Mr Wood was able to give us some kind of briefing, I think presumably all members agree it would be interesting to have that.
Mr Bob Wood: I don't know what the timing of the announcement is going to be with respect to the operational ones. Once that is announced, I'd be happy to give you a briefing. Prior to that, I think there's no purpose in a briefing on the operational, for reasons I can't fully share.
Mr Gravelle: So you're not willing to give us any information in advance of the announcement.
Mr Bob Wood: I'm not authorized; I can't. I can, however, on the regulatory adjudicative, give you some general idea of some of the problems found and some of the possible solutions, so I can give you a briefing that would be helpful on the one. Given the stage this other is at, I think it's best to let it actually be announced, and then I'd be happy to spend whatever time is desired going through what's been done.
Mr Gravelle: That would be useful and interesting as well.
Mr Bob Wood: If that can be scheduled, let me know that it's scheduled and I'll certainly be prepared to do that.
The Chair: We'll have to wait until after the announcement, then. If the announcement is made before next week --
Mr Gravelle: This is a little different.
Mr Bob Wood: Yes. I can do the regulatory adjudicative --
The Chair: Oh, I see. How about next week?
Mr Bob Wood: I think some of our members are about to depart. If you want to stay right now, after we've finished the subcommittee, I'll tell you right now if you want.
Mr Gravelle: I'm willing to do that.
Mr Bob Wood: If we have any interest in doing this now, I will take whatever time you want after this meeting. Bearing in mind I have a thing I have to go to at noon, I will brief you right now.
Mr Gravelle: I would be willing to stay.
Mr Bob Wood: Okay, I have at least one taker on that. If anyone else wants to join that, please do.
Mr Gravelle: I'll take good notes.
The Chair: This will be when the subcommittee meets? All right. Any other business? The subcommittee will meet immediately upon adjournment. The committee's adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1103.