Intended
appointments
Mr George Taylor
Mr Bruce Miller
Mr Bob Betts
Ms Melinda Rogers
Ms Jan Dymond
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair /
Président
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex PC)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr Larry Johnston, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1008 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr James J.
Bradley): I'll bring the meeting to order this morning
for the purposes of Hansard. Good morning to members of the
government agencies committee.
Our first item is to deal with
the reports of the subcommittee on committee business dated
Thursday, February 1, 2001; Thursday, February 8, 2001; and
Thursday, February 15, 2001.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): Chair, I move the adoption of all three.
The Chair:
The adoption of all three reports has been moved by Mr Wood. Any
discussion?
The Chair:
All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
GEORGE TAYLOR
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: George
Taylor, intended appointee as member, Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal.
The Chair:
Under the appointments review, we have four that are scheduled
for this morning and one for this afternoon. The first individual
is an intended appointee to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal,
George W. Taylor. Mr Taylor, you may come forward, if you will.
As you are likely aware, you have the opportunity to make an
initial statement. I say this only because you're the intended
appointee today. All the time that you use up today is subtracted
from the government members.
Mr Marchese:
You can use it up anyway because they have no questions.
The Chair:
Being a neutral Chair, I assure you that I can't come to that
conclusion until I look to Mr Wood for my instructions.
Welcome to the committee, Mr
Taylor.
Mr George
Taylor: Thank you, Mr Bradley, and members. I can be
very brief on the opening statement. I conclude from the material
sent out by the clerk, Ms Bryce, that you are familiar with my
background and have some of the material in my resumé.
Very briefly, I started my
career in the city of Hamilton, where I was born, and took my
education in Hamilton schools, both elementary and secondary, and
continued on to McMaster University and then on to Osgoode Hall,
where I obtained a degree in law. I practised law in Toronto for
three years and did my articling in Toronto-it was primarily
criminal law-with the late Joseph Sedgwick, where I did trial
work, appeal work and any number of areas which would primarily
be described as litigation.
I then moved to a firm called
Magwood, Frith and Casey, where I got a general learning. The
people in that firm were Senator Frith and John Magwood, who
started it. We put together the legal aid plan in the early
career of that firm, where Mr Magwood was the first area director
in the county of York.
I then moved to Barrie where
I joined the law firm of Boyes, Seagram, Rowe and eventually
become a partner there, with the name of Boyes, Seagram, Rowe and
Taylor. Subsequently, I was appointed Queen's Counsel. I got
elected to the Legislature in 1977 and re-elected in 1981, I was
appointed parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General then,
Roy McMurtry, and then subsequently the Solicitor General for the
province from 1983 to 1985.
I then returned to the city
of Barrie, having left the field of politics, and opened a law
practice. I've practised as a sole practitioner in the city of
Barrie since 1985, doing primarily duty counsel work, criminal
work, real estate, estates, wills and commercial work.
I'll move into some of the
other areas for my community work, if that's of interest. You'll
notice under my community service a great deal of material. I
have done both charitable and non-charitable work and material
that is beneficial to the community.
One of the greater endeavours
since I left politics was as chairman of the Ontario Winter Games
for Barrie and Collingwood in 1991. We had a sizable budget of
some $2 million, with 2,500 athletes returning to Barrie. It was
a hands-on operation, where I did the chairmanship for
approximately two years in a volunteer capacity.
I was on the advisory
committee to the Ontario Provincial Auditor for about three or
four years since I left politics, as well as being a director and
secretary of the Barrie Rotary Club, where I gained notoriety in
being the sponsor of the first female members in the Barrie
Rotary Club, which was
novel. As you can see, I've received community service
medals.
I was amused when I was
rereading some of my resumé to send in. I had been on a
committee which I had forgotten I'd served on, which was a
Canadian Bar Association committee. There was a brief to the
provincial government at the time. The only other government
member on that was Eric Cunningham, who was a Liberal member; the
rest of them were professors etc. That was to set up a committee
such as this to review appointments of all natures.
I was just going to read one
little note from it in our introduction. It was done in 1988 and
I was solicited to come on that committee, along with Professor
Barr, who I am sure is familiar to the Chair, coming from the
Niagara area. But the quote I'd like to make from that
introduction is, "Political partisanship should neither be
allowed to override the essential qualities, nor disqualify those
who possess these qualities," such as expertise, skill, knowledge
and integrity in an appointment. I leave that with you. We had
created this committee for you to review these things.
There's one other thing,
since I'm going for a landlord and tenant tribunal. You'll notice
that I did make numerous personal submissions to government
before I became a member. One was the landlord and tenant reform
which brought out the residential tenancies, the Landlord and
Tenant Act. Primarily it was a tenants' position paper to gain
benefits for tenants at that particular time, which was 1968. So
I have a background of making efforts and making changes well
before I got into the field of politics.
That's my opening statement.
If you have any questions on that, I feel I can bring something
to the tribunal. I have had many years-in excess of 20, I
suspect-as a Small Claims Court judge in and around the county of
Simcoe, and there, before the tribunal was created, many matters
were in the field of landlord and tenant, so I bring that
experience to this, which is an extension of that background.
The Chair: I
assume Hansard is picking up the microphone all right? Fine. So
we're OK there. I just wanted to make sure that you-
Mr Taylor:
My words were not lost, sir.
The Chair:
That's right, because they would be left only to the memories of
the members of the committee, and sometimes they are failing from
time to time.
I will begin with the
government members in this particular case.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
The government members have waived their time, so I will go to
the official opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): I appreciate the words you gave us when it
comes to non-partisanship and appointments and qualifications. I
agree with that entirely. For some reason or other, some
individuals who are called before this committee think they're
being called on the carpet or some such thing, whereas in many
instances what I want to know is just how that individual will
approach their committee work, if they have some new and
innovative ideas with which to approach that particular agency,
board or commission. I don't see in most of these that we call
before the committee that it's really a question of
partisanship.
In any event, I'd like to
ask, during your adult life, have you ever been a tenant?
Mr Taylor:
Yes, I have. When I was in the city of Toronto, as well as in
Hamilton, I was a tenant in what I would call large complexes, as
well as townhouse complexes.
Mr Crozier:
Residential?
Mr Taylor:
Residential, yes.
Mr Crozier:
How was that experience?
Mr Taylor:
It was satisfactory. I think the major thing that happened in the
earlier part of my life, which would have been up until the late
1960s and the early part of the 1970s, was primarily that being a
tenant then, the landlords were doing what were called security
deposits and you weren't always sure you would get back your
security deposit, to give an example, because there always seemed
to be something wrong with the apartment. We now have legislation
that you're not allowed that security deposit as such for
damages.
Mr Crozier:
I'm not sure you would have this information prior to the
committee meeting, but we've been given some research where the
Parkdale Community Legal Services did a study and as part of that
study it was found that between September 30, 1998, and December
31, 1999, the backlog at the tribunal for tenant applications
alleging illegal charges by landlords increased by 140%. The
lockout and harassment applications, for example, increased by
101% and repair applications increased by 105%. In contrast,
according to this study, over the same time period, the backlog
at the tribunal for arrears eviction applications by landlords
decreased by 4%, even though the number of eviction applications
had increased. That would lead someone perhaps to conclude that
landlords receive preferential and more expeditious treatment
than do tenants. If you found that to be the case, what would you
do under those circumstances?
1020
Mr Taylor:
The first feature is that as an adjudicator, I'm not making
policy; I'm making decisions on the material that is brought
before me, which is applying the facts and the law together to
make a decision. I don't think, as a part-time member, I would be
into decision-making or policy-making on this.
I did receive the material
from David Pond, I believe his name is, which was sent by the
clerk. I was trying to take from the Parkdale Community Legal
Services material how I could measure it or comment on it. For
some of them I would have to see the numbers, having looked at
the backlog and using the percentages. That was one comment that
came to my mind, how I would test this study to apply it to what
I might be doing.
Some of the material on the
earlier part, called lockout and harassment applications, the
backlog would increase because they would undoubtedly be far more
difficult matters, and both sides and all parties would need
preparation time, whereas one explanation for the backlog for
eviction being decreased might be that the features of a straight
eviction singularly in regard to rent would be much quicker and
would not require the preparation that the others would.
Therefore that backlog could increase whereas the eviction one
wouldn't. If you owe the rent, that's more matter of fact.
In reviewing the material
that was sent to me, after I had taken the material from the
tribunal, which is about five inches of paper, and a one-hour
interview and an hour test with them, the material that I
received would indicate that it's quite matter of fact and
precise on an eviction which is just for rent. Either the rent is
owed or it isn't owed. So that may be the reason for that backlog
showing differently. But as a board member, I'm not into the
policy-making; I'm just hearing the matters that are brought
before the tribunal.
Mr Crozier:
I appreciate that you wouldn't be into the policy-making, but
this isn't policy-making. It would appear to be the process of
applications. It's simply numbers.
Let's move to another part of
that research, where the tenant application for repair and
maintenance takes 45% longer to be processed and reach a hearing
than an eviction application. After the hearing, tenants wait 84%
longer than landlords for the tribunal to issue its order. Again
I would ask, if you found that to be the case, what would you try
and do as a member of the tribunal to address that?
Mr Taylor:
Again, without being defensive on that, it would not be part of
the territory I would be involved in. Somebody else brings the
matters to you. You are an adjudicator. Using the two
differences, it would be quite understandable, or I could
speculate, that in the one for repair and maintenance etc, there
is going to be a dispute, so a dispute is going to require
preparation, witnesses and background on both sides and then a
decision made on that material. Using it and comparing it to
evictions, to say that evictions are always happening and much
faster, that would be quite so because where you get just a
straight eviction, that is just that you have or have not paid
the rent. So all those, by themselves, would be faster in
arriving at a decision.
Mr Crozier:
Let me use some words, and if I'm putting words in your mouth,
please correct me. I get the impression that rather than being
proactive on this tribunal in the case of backups, backlogs and
particularly backlogs in one area as opposed to another, you
would say, "Somebody else does that work. I just do the work
that's brought before me, so the backlog is not my
responsibility." Is that what you're saying?
Mr Taylor:
The backlog would not be a responsibility of my task as an
adjudicator, because that's all that I foresee in my
responsibilities. If we were to have a session where all
adjudicators got together with the chairman or the director of
the board, that may be a time to raise it, that these are taking
longer, but as to the matters that come before us, that is
determined by the administration of the tribunal. The matters
come before you as an adjudicator and you decide on them. Prior
to that time there is mediation, so the mediation may take some
time up as well from the time the application is in there. But
again, I foresee my job as being an adjudicator and not an
administrator of the process. I can make a comment on it, if I
just say, "By the way, this seems to take a length of time," as
they have done in the Parkdale legal study. But I would be
challenging the study with numbers and reasons, as compared to
just throwing them out as percentages.
Mr Marchese:
Mr Taylor, I agree as well with that quote that you read out
initially about party affiliation not excluding anybody from
participating or from being a good member, whatever. I have no
problem with that. The only problem I have is that most of the
appointments, 99.999%, are Tories. If they mixed it up a little
bit, it would seem to me at least that it would be a little
fairer, and then you could say, "Yes, some New Democrats might be
competent as well, and possibly some Liberals."
Mr Taylor: I
could comment that I have been around long enough and watched
things long enough. I left in 1985, and I suspect on most of the
agencies and boards I could, by recollection in my mind, know
some of their affiliations on a lot of these boards. When it
changed to the Liberals, I noticed the complexion changed with
the names, and then-
Mr Marchese:
And the NDP as well, and there's the problem.
Mr Taylor:
The same with the NDP: there was a change.
Mr Marchese:
Mr Taylor, yes, this is problem.
Mr Taylor:
So we've come back full circle.
Mr Marchese:
You're quite right. Let me finish that comment, because a
journalist commented on that as well. He said the New Democrats
did the same. I said, "Isn't that odd, because we were trying to
convince Bob Rae to do the same as everybody else." Our members
were saying, "Finally, we're in power; get our members in," and
Bob Rae wanted to be different because, you see, he had a
background in the civil service, where his father was a civil
servant. I respected that in terms of trying to be neutral,
trying to be fair and trying to open up the process to everybody.
But we were going to-
Mr Steve Gilchrist
(Scarborough East): Mr Chair, I wish Mr Marchese would
table a list of known Conservatives that he put forward in his
five years as a member of the government.
Mr Marchese:
You're eating up my time.
The Chair:
Order.
Mr Marchese:
Thanks, Steve, for your intervention.
You understand the problem
I'm having?
Mr Taylor:
Look, it's there. I don't think you can remove it, without
pontificating too much on it. The media are the ones that usually
comment on it, but with more criticism than members from each
party moving along-
Mr Marchese: Mr Taylor, all I'm
saying is if we get into power, boy, am I ever going to be in
trouble. I'm going to say to our leader, "We're only putting in
New Democrats here," and I'm going to read that quote that you
just read out.
Mr Taylor, I've got a couple
of questions.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese:
Relax, guys. What are you guys doing here, anyway?
Mr Taylor, comments and
questions: in the debate over the Tenant Protection Act, the
proponents, the supporters, M. Leach-mon bon ami at the time, who
has now left for better things-used to argue, and many other
supporters, that there's very little new rental construction in
Ontario. Vacancy decontrol would change that. People would have
the incentive and they would build. Lo and behold, we have less
construction now than ever before. The supporters of that bill
said, "Rents will not skyrocket under the new act." Lo and
behold, rents are skyrocketing, not just in Toronto but
throughout. The existing housing stock is run down, with
estimates of needed repairs running as high as $10 billion. Lo
and behold, in the last couple of years, there's been an
incredible increase in terms of repair applications to the
tribunal. I know you will be an adjudicator, but you did say you
might have an opinion on some of these things. Do you have an
opinion on that?
Mr Taylor: I
suspect that is a tenant protection that has taken place, where
the repair applications-I don't know whose side has made the
application, but either a tenant or a landlord could make a
repair application. So that may be the reason for the increase:
to bring the landlord to do the repairs that are required, either
by the municipal standards bylaw or some other bylaw. I haven't
got any facts as to-
Mr Marchese:
And on the other things that I raised?
Mr Taylor:
On the other ones I have no knowledge, other than what appears in
this material prepared by David Pond.
Mr Marchese:
I understand.
Mr Taylor: I
haven't studied it to the extent of whether it is or is not-
Mr Marchese:
I was just wondering whether you had an opinion. Do you have any
opinions, feelings, about landlords?
Mr Taylor:
Like do I dislike them or like them?
Mr Marchese:
Yes, what do you think?
1030
Mr Taylor: I
know some. Having sat, as I told you, for a number of years in
the Small Claims Court, where these matters used to be, there are
some landlords that would annoy me just by their atmosphere and
what they did in regard to their buildings. There are other
landlords that pleased me in what they were bringing forward.
Similarly, on the tenant side-
Mr Marchese:
I was about to ask you-
Mr Taylor:
-you would find some tenants certainly had rights to bring and
problems that were not being corrected in applying the law and
the facts. In my court those were applied judiciously and in
accordance with the law, but fairly. Sometimes the landlords were
not the winners and sometimes the tenants were not the winners.
What you usually find is that where a landlord tries to go for
rent, the tenant says, "Here's why I'm not paying rent." Usually
you'd see a very dilapidated or less-than-perfect building.
Mr Marchese:
I get the impression you would be fair as an individual and as a
lawyer in practice, obviously. You can look at both sides.
Mr Taylor: I
hope so. I don't have a bias one way or the other. When the
material comes before me, I look at the individuals and make a
decision at that particular time.
Mr Marchese:
CERA, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, did a
study which was referred to by the Liberal member. It's one of
the points that we have been talking about that is of serious
concern to us. Of the 411 households they have studied, they've
found that of the tenants interviewed, 29% said they had never
received copies of the eviction application and 32% of the
tenants contacted did not realize that they had to respond to the
notice in writing within five days.
New Democrats are thinking
that this is a serious concern and that if people either have no
knowledge of an application or, where they do see it, they don't
understand they've got to respond in five days, it ought to be a
serious concern to people in general. Do you have an opinion on
that?
Mr Taylor: I
saw that and I would agree with you. Supposedly, if the process
is working properly, first of all, there has to be some notice by
the landlord to the tenant or vice versa. That's to say, by the
way, "If you don't do this, then there will be an application
made." The application notice is then sent. In the material that
I would receive from the tribunal, I have to receive an affidavit
that the person has served those documents. That means
supposedly, in the process of serving, those documents should be
in the hands of the tenant or the landlord. Then you move to, do
they understand them? The forms seem to be simple enough and
explanatory enough. Whether they comprehend, having read the
words, the consequences of not doing anything, would be something
for the tribunal to do. I know, sitting as a Small Claims Court
judge, there are many similar forms that go out. To me it is
always startling how, as that progress goes along, again, the
statements are made that people do not receive these documents.
Sometimes they do not get them, for any number of reasons,
because they're allowed to be mailed.
Mr Marchese:
For a variety of reasons. We're not all lawyers or professors or
teachers or professionals who understand things, even though they
might appear simple to those of us who have an academic
background.
CERA recommends two things
which to me seem to be reasonable. "The length of time within
which tenants must respond to an eviction notice should be
extended from five to 14 days," which was the case before, and
"the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal should communicate directly with tenants who are
facing an eviction to ensure that the tenant is aware of the
proceedings against them." Doesn't that sound eminently
reasonable?
Mr Taylor: I
have no difficult with changing those dates, but you legislators
would have to do it. Frequently, time frames in all of our court
proceedings are short, which does give grief to some parties; I
can't deny that. You get them and you have to make decisions.
The only thing I can say in
defence of the shorter time frame is that prior to anything
happening by way of the application, they should have received
some other notice from the landlord or tenant, in reverse-
Mr Marchese:
But we just argued, for a variety of reasons, at least in terms
of this research and from a lot of things we hear, many of them
don't get it. In order to prevent that, we're trying to suggest
to them-and you as a former politician, would presumably have
some sympathy for this-that we need a mechanism to make sure they
get it. Hand deliver it.
Mr Taylor:
Hand delivery is one of them. I know they've put them under the
door, they've mailed them. There are any number of opportunities
to do it. I don't know what the most precise one is.
I have seen problems in our
court system the same way. The one that I chuckle with the most
is that nobody ever seems to receive it in the Small Claims Court
until the sheriff comes to the door and says, "You must pay this
or we're taking you to jail." That's the first notice that they
seem to get, which is amusing to me, but I sometimes look
cynically at whether they did receive it or whether the person
who said they gave it to them or mailed it to them did do that.
But I have no way of contradicting them.
Mr Marchese:
But the suggestion you find reasonable?
Mr Taylor:
No, I have no difficulty. If somebody wants to extend those time
frames, it would be a matter of, are they worthy to be extended,
having studied them?
Mr
Marchese: But "somebody" is them, right? Your
colleagues. They're not listening to us. What do we do? Help us
out, Mr Taylor.
Mr Taylor:
I don't know whether I can help you out on that. I'm sure, having
looked at CERA and the other ones, they could come to a
conclusion that time frames should be changed. I'm sure the
director could produce statistics from the tribunal, the overall
statistics to say, "Can we match this centre for equality study's
accommodation information, or are they the authority?"
Mr
Marchese: Thank you, Mr Taylor. Good luck.
The Chair:
That completes the questioning of Mr Taylor. Thank you for
appearing before the committee.
Mr Taylor:
Thank you, Mr Bradley and members, for the opportunity.
Hopefully, I will, if I receive the appointment, do the job with
your satisfaction and approval and not do anything contrary to
law.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly, sir.
BRUCE MILLER
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Bruce Miller,
intended appointee as member, Ontario Police Arbitration
Commission.
The Chair:
The next individual to appear before the committee and that the
committee will consider is the intended appointee as member of
the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission, Bruce Miller. I'll ask
Mr Miller to come forward, please.
Good morning, Mr Miller. As
you have probably heard, you have an opportunity to make an
initial address to the committee, should you see fit, or to share
with us any information you think would be appropriate and useful
for the committee.
Mr Bruce
Miller: Good morning. Just a couple of brief remarks.
First of all, the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission is
comprised of a chair, two representatives recommended for
appointment by the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards
and two representatives recommended for appointment by the Police
Association of Ontario.
The Police Association of
Ontario has put my name forward as one of their two
representatives on the commission. I have attended the last two
meetings of the commission as an observer, pending my
appointment. I understand that you all have a copy of my
resumé, but I would like to go over some of my
qualifications for this position.
I was a police constable
with the London Police Service for 22 years. I served in a number
of front-line areas and take pride in the fact that I received
the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery, the Canadian Police
Association Award of Excellence and the Police Exemplary Service
Medal. I was hired as the administrator of the Police Association
of Ontario in December of last year. Historically, our
administrator has always sat on the commission. I served on the
board of directors of the Police Association of Ontario as
director, as chair and president from 1995 to last year. I also
served on the executive of the London police association from
1992 to 1998.
I am a graduate of McGill
University and have the benefit of an extensive number of
courses, conferences and workshops in the labour relations field.
I also have a wide range of practical experience in the field and
believe that my qualifications leave me well-suited for the
position on the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission.
Those are my comments. I
would be pleased to try and answer any questions that you may
have.
The Chair:
We'll begin this time with the official opposition.
1040
Mr
Crozier: Good morning, Mr Miller. Welcome to the
committee. You were in the room when the first appointee was
brought in, so I just emphasize that oftentimes individuals are
requested to come to the committee so that we can get a feeling
about how they feel about the job they're about to be appointed to. For that
reason, among others, it's nice to have you with us this
morning.
You just mentioned that you
were a police constable for 22 years. Does that mean you've
retired or, because of your position now, you no longer are a
police constable in London?
Mr Miller:
I'm currently on a leave of absence from the London police
force.
Mr
Crozier: OK. I just wanted to clarify that. So you're
still a police constable.
My understanding is that
the arbitration commission doesn't get directly involved in
arbitration. In other words, you don't sit at the table. You
administer, you see that arbitrators are appointed, and you see
that the process works. Is my understanding of that correct?
Mr Miller:
That's correct, sir.
Mr
Crozier: So you don't actually get involved in the
arbitration.
Mr Miller:
We don't have any influence over any decisions.
Mr
Crozier: What was your particular interest for wanting
to be appointed to this commission?
Mr Miller:
In the first instance, legislatively the police association puts
forward the two representatives as per the Police Services Act,
and my name was put forward. The administrator has always served
on the commission because it's a venue where we can see how
things are going. It allows us to liaise with police service
boards and their representatives to pass on the information to
our members and to ensure that the process continues to run
smoothly.
Mr
Crozier: Does the police arbitration commission get
involved both with the OPP and what I call community police
services, those that are independent?
In my area, as you probably
well know, the OPP carries out policing services in Kingsville,
Tecumseh and Lakeshore, whereas LaSalle, Amherstburg and Essex
have their own local police services. Does the arbitration
commission get involved from both the OPP side and the Ontario
Police Association?
Mr Miller:
It's almost entirely municipal police matters, but there are some
limited areas that apply to the Ontario Provincial Police.
Mr
Crozier: I'm more familiar with a local police service,
ie, one of the communities like Essex or Amherstburg that I've
mentioned, than I am with those where policing services are
provided by the OPP.
You are in fact a
decision-maker and an opinion leader, as far as your experience
to this date. Now you'll be appointed to the arbitration
commission. Do you have any opinion on the recent debate that's
been going on about the police associations being involved in
political activities? Do you have any opinions in those
areas?
Mr Miller:
Certainly that we have a right to be politically active. Our
people are on the front lines and closest to a lot of the
law-and-order issues and we, like anybody else, have a right to
express our opinions.
Mr
Crozier: So you, for example, didn't have any problem
when the Toronto Police Services had their sticker campaign where
you were visibly known to be a supporter of the police by having
a sticker in the windshield? That's OK?
Mr Miller:
The Toronto Police Association's members are not members of the
Police Association of Ontario.
Mr
Crozier: I'm aware of that. Does that mean you don't
have an opinion, then, about what they do?
Mr Miller:
We respect their right to do what they do. They're a professional
organization. They're closer to some of those issues because
they're not in our organization presently.
Mr
Crozier: Why aren't they?
Mr Miller:
I suppose, sir, with all due respect, that would be a question
that would be best directed at the Toronto Police
Association.
Mr
Crozier: Are you interested in having them back in the
Ontario police association?
Mr Miller:
Just to correct, it's the Police Association of Ontario.
Mr
Crozier: The Police Association of Ontario.
Mr Miller:
We do see a benefit in a united membership.
Mr
Crozier: I would hope so.
I can't think of much else
that I have to ask you about. You are listed on the Police
Association of Ontario Web site as the administrator of the
London Police Association, so you'll still retain that position,
will you?
Mr Miller:
I don't believe I'm listed as the administrator of the London
Police Association; that person is Bob Wilson. I'm the
administrator of the Police Association of Ontario.
Mr
Crozier: OK. I'll ask David Pond to recheck the Web
site, because that's some of the information we have.
Help me. What would happen
in the case of an arbitration issue with the London Police
Association and the police services board of London? Would you
have any kind of conflict there? I just don't know, so I'm asking
you how you feel in a case like that.
Mr Miller:
The Ontario arbitration commission is at arm's length from local
matters. I can tell you I think London is reflective of a good
working environment that we have with management and with police
service boards. In London, we never went to interest arbitration
in the 22 years that I was there. We were always able to
negotiate collective agreements.
Mr
Crozier: That's great. I found it the same when I was on
the police services board myself. I was supportive of the local
police and appreciated working with them. I tell anyone who comes
before us who has police experience that when I was mayor I asked
if I could go out in a patrol car for a night. I have to tell
you, if all our citizens could do that-certainly if all our
elected officials could do that-they'd have a better opinion of
some of the problems that our police services face on a
day-to-day basis. That experience is one I'll not forget.
Thanks for coming before the committee. I wish you
well in your appointment. Perhaps we'll see you again some
time.
The Chair:
To the third party, Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Miller, I only have a few questions.
I look at the role of the
arbitration commission and it says: maintains a register of
arbitrators; assists arbitrators by managing the administration
of the arbitration process; fixes the fees of arbitrators;
sponsors the publication and distribution of information about
collective agreements, arbitrations, and awards; sponsors
research on the subject of agreements, arbitrations and awards;
and maintains a file of agreements.
Is there anything you would
change in all of that in terms of what you think ought to change,
or do you think what is there is reasonable and doesn't really
need much changing? Have you thought about it?
Mr Miller:
I think the legislation as it stands has served both communities
and our members well.
Mr
Marchese: I have another question. By the way, I have
tremendous respect for the police and the work they do. I
wouldn't do it. There are a few jobs that I just don't think I'd
be capable of doing. But it's a hard job and it's something
that-
Interjection.
Mr
Marchese: What's so funny? It's a difficult job. They
put their lives on the line often.
Interjection: What's the
question?
Mr
Marchese: The question: given that, do you think they
should get more or less than other workers at city hall, given
the fiscal conditions they find themselves in, that this
government has generously passed on to the city? What do you
think about that question? Do you think police are entitled to
more or less or the same? What do we do?
Mr Miller:
I'm somewhat confused. Are you talking about a base salary or
percentage increases? There are different comparators. We've
always put forward the role that police officers do, and civilian
police members. It's becoming increasingly difficult and
challenging. But I'm somewhat confused by the "more or less," or
who you're comparing us to.
1050
Mr
Marchese: I wasn't comparing-oh, to the other workers
that the city of Toronto administers, as an example. Mel Lastman
said the other day, "We've got a problem. We've got to freeze
wages." Otherwise we've got to fire, presumably, policemen and
policewomen and firefighters. I don't know how we're going to do
that. He was talking about freezing wages and that if they didn't
like it, he thought we might have to fire people. That would be a
problem.
I raised this question in
that context and in the greater context of the fiscal problems
the city is having, and I was asking you, how do we deal with
that?
Mr Miller:
I think those decisions are basically passed on from the
community to their elected leaders.
We commissioned an Angus
Reid poll in 1996 which showed that the majority of Ontarians
would approve of increased taxes for policing because they were
concerned with community safety and they saw it as a priority
over other municipal services. I think that's the way Ontarians
feel, and they are concerned about their own safety.
Mr
Marchese: So, Mr Miller, what do we do? The public says,
"We need them. Safety is a big issue. Policemen and policewomen
should be better paid." The city, Mel Lastman, says, "We've got a
problem, a fiscal fiasco." They blame the Tories, and rightfully
so, of course, but they've got a problem in terms of the money.
We don't have it. You're saying the public supports higher fees,
but it means tax increases of a great proportion to be able to
meet their deficit, let alone any other increases. So what do we
do?
Mr Miller:
That survey did show that over 50% of Ontario's homeowners would
pay increased taxes to ensure community safety. We appeared at
the pre-budget hearings yesterday in regard to policing, and
certainly we have seen a number of very positive steps taken in
the last several years in terms of putting more police officers
on the street, in terms of strengthening our laws, and we
certainly appreciate that.
Mr
Marchese: I'm sure you do, and by the way, I support the
idea of having more police on the beat. I met Julian Fantino the
other day because I was doing a program and he was doing a
program, and he was the one who pointed out to me something we
pointed out in the Legislature: that when New Democrats were in
power, we had 1,000 more police on the streets than we do now. He
said there were 400 more police on the streets in Toronto than
now. He said that before I even commented on the issue. So I was
happy; I agreed with him. I said, "You're right. Nobody's
listening to us; maybe they'll listen to you. Maybe you should
say it more publicly."
I agree with the idea of
having more police on the streets, but you're saying, "The public
agrees. However the mayor and the city deal with this issue is
not my problem. We should have more police, and people will pay
for it, and however they deal with this is not really my
problem." You have no opinion on that, more or less?
Mr Miller:
No opinion? I'm saying I think the elected leaders react to their
communities and I don't see any decisions being made in this
area. Are you talking provincially, sir, or just about
Toronto?
Mr
Marchese: Yes, I was talking about Toronto. I'm saying
they have a deficit and they're trying to cut $300 million. They
have a fiscal problem.
Mr
Gilchrist: You said there were 1,000 fewer police
province-wide.
The Chair:
Order.
Mr
Marchese: Province-wide, and in Toronto there are 400
fewer.
Mr
Gilchrist: Answer his question, then.
Mr
Marchese: I was saying in Toronto they have a fiscal
problem and it's hard for them to address those issues. I was
saying, "How do we deal with that?" and was asking how we deal with the fiscal problem.
But I think I've got enough from your answer, so I thank you.
Mr Miller:
Thank you, sir.
Mr
Marchese: Good luck.
The Chair:
To the government members.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): You say most of the arbitration work
will involve municipal police forces.
Mr Miller:
That's correct, sir.
Mr Dunlop:
Places like the city of Barrie would be included in that as
well?
Mr Miller:
That's correct, sir.
Mr Dunlop:
I know there was a long debate over whether they would go to the
OPP or keep their municipal police force, but it's interesting
listening to the deficits Mr Marchese predicted-
Mr
Marchese: Sorry?
Mr Dunlop:
The deficits you predicted-
Mr
Marchese: What was my name?
Mr Dunlop:
I can't pronounce it right-Marchese? Sorry.
Anyhow, he predicted a
$200-million deficit for the city. A fast-growing city like the
city of Barrie, which I believe is the fastest-growing city in
the province today, had a $5-million surplus last year with all
the downloading that you seem to talk about all the time. I just
thought I'd make that point in the Hansard as a comment when
we're talking about surpluses and deficits etc around this table
today.
The Chair:
Do any other members of the Conservative caucus wish to
participate?
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
You're waiving the remainder of the time? Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr Miller, for
appearing before the committee.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Chair, just as a reminder, my name is
Marchese, in case in the last couple of years people haven't
picked it up.
The Chair:
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Marchese.
BOB BETTS
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Robert J.
Betts, intended appointee as member, Ontario Energy Board.
The Chair:
The next individual to appear before the committee is an intended
appointee to the Ontario Energy Board, Mr Robert J. Betts. Mr
Betts, you may come forward, please. As you are likely aware, you
have an opportunity to make an initial statement to the committee
should you see fit. Then there will be questioning by the three
parties if they see fit.
Mr Bob
Betts: Thank you, Mr Chair and committee members. I'm
honoured to be here today and appreciate the opportunity to cover
some of the items that I believe you should know about
myself.
I am a happily married man,
a father of two, grandfather of one, with one on the way. I was
born and raised in Toronto and attended the University of
Waterloo; I studied mechanical engineering at that university. I
began my working career with Shell Canada just three blocks south
of here at 505 University Avenue. They trained me well in all
aspects of corporate marketing, planning, financial management
and strategic planning, and allowed me to experience business
challenges that most young people are not given at that early
stage of their careers.
In our early 30s, with my
wife's support, we acquired a mechanical contracting business and
began a new phase of our lives in Gravenhurst in Muskoka. That
business has made me familiar with field-level work associated
with, among other things, natural gas, propane and electricity
handling and transmission systems. In addition to that, I learned
that controlling costs is the single most important component of
business survival and success. I learned that a business is
measured by its reputation for honesty, consistency,
dependability and concern for its customers. I managed our
corporate and financial resources and maintained control by doing
my own accounting and bookkeeping, and in fact preparation of our
own financial statements.
Twelve years ago I entered
municipal politics and have since sat on both the town and
regional levels of municipal government. For the last six years
I've enjoyed and been proud to be the mayor of the town of
Gravenhurst.
As mayor and commissioner,
I took an unusually strong interest in our local utility. I led
it through an expansion under Bill 185, and we were one of only
20 municipal utilities to seize that opportunity. We acquired
additional customers from Ontario Hydro and effectively doubled
our size. I was asked to be spokesperson for 14 of those
expanding municipal utilities in policy discussions with energy
ministry staff, and transfer agreement negotiations with Ontario
Hydro senior executive.
I led our town's
investigation into whether to merge, amalgamate, sell or keep our
utility, and finally, after deciding to keep and operate it, I
assumed a role as a founding director and assisted our utility to
restructure under Bill 35 as a new local distribution
company.
1100
Last summer I decided to
end my career in municipal politics. At the same time, my son
indicated his interest in taking over our family business. These
decisions, together with my interest in the electricity sector,
and sparked by a friend's casual comment that there were two
openings on the OEB, led me to send a resumé to Minister
Wilson. I sent that resumé roughly November 5, which in turn
led to an interview with the minister, with Chair Floyd Laughren
and a representative of Management Board, and that was on
December 20. I felt that the interview went well, and I was
pleased to hear on January 17 that there had been an order in
council and that now I must await concurrence of this standing
committee.
If I may, I would like to set the record straight
about a newspaper report that suggested that the government had
strategically planned my appointment for some hidden political
purpose. Mr Chair and committee members, there has never been any
political force pushing me into this position on the OEB. The
idea was mine, the motivation was mine, and the effort has been
all mine. It was not until several weeks after I had prepared my
letter of application that I even informed my member, Mr Eves, of
my intentions. At that time, he indicated that he felt I would be
a good addition to the OEB and that he would support my
application, should he be given the opportunity to do so.
I would just like to close
by saying that I have lived in a large urban centre, I've lived
in a rural home and a small-town setting and I can understand the
consumer issues of all of those areas. I offer knowledge and
experience gained from large multinational corporate exposure,
small business management and by involvement in government and
legislative systems.
Mr Laughren has expressed
to me his pleasure at the prospects of having me join his team
and I hope you, the committee members, will concur. Thank you, Mr
Chair and committee members.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Betts. We'll commence the questioning
with the third party.
Mr
Marchese: There's a New Democrat, Mr Floyd Laughren.
Mr Dunlop:
You're right.
Mr
Marchese: If we appoint one or two, then we can say,
"Ha."
Mr
Gilchrist: We took all the good ones though.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Betts, I have some concerns about the
deregulation scheme of this government on electricity. In my
view, electricity is something that we depend on for almost
everything, public and private, and our economy really depends on
that as well, I argue. So I'm concerned about deregulation.
I like the old system, the
public power system, which involves one single system of
generation, publicly owned, with one pool of power. It seemed
reliable. We were getting good rates, at least cheaper than the
US. I'm afraid this is going to change. As I looked at the
California experience, I thought, it's making me nervous. I
wondered, when you saw what's happening there in California, what
you felt and what your thoughts were about that and how,
presumably, this could never happen in Ontario.
Mr Betts:
Certainly it's reasonable as a consumer to be nervous, and I
share that nervousness. But in looking at the situation in
California versus what we have here in Ontario, I think there are
some significant differences that might suggest the course would
be different here in Ontario.
First of all, the degree of
regulation in California effectively established a price to the
consumer or the retailer in most parts of that, but it allowed
the generator a great deal more flexibility in terms of their
pricing. You add to that some other things that were happening in
the marketplace in California, the fact that there was an
increased demand in this particular period, not only an economic
boom in California, but an unusually cold period of time that
really pushed the generators in terms of their energy supply
requirements.
Those kinds of factors
contributed to an unusual situation that caused the cost of
generation to go up and unfortunately did not allow in most cases
the pass-through of those costs. In some cases it did, but in
every case it's caused some serious problems.
In Ontario, on the other
hand, we are rich in generation at this point in time, and we
certainly have substantially more than even what our peak loading
is expected to be. That's a positive thing. It is controlled at
this point by OPG and it truly does give everybody comfort to
know that, but we also know that over time, to deregulate, we'll
be expecting them to reduce their share of that market.
We are unlikely in Ontario
to be faced with the shortage of generation to the extent that
California has been. They have the Pacific on one side; they have
the Rockies on the other side. There are a limited number of
people that can supply them. In Ontario, we can be supplied
happily from Quebec, New York, Minnesota and Manitoba, and there
are some others that are being extended now.
Mr
Marchese: So you don't see any problem vis-à-vis
what happened there possibly happening here? You're giving
reasons why it might not happen or ought not to happen, and
presumably we would have whatever means in place to make sure
that we prevent it, more or less?
Mr Betts:
I would say that the things that caused this to happen in
California are unlikely to cause that here in Ontario.
Mr
Marchese: What about the other concern? The Canadian
Energy Research Institute, sponsored in part by the Ontario
Ministry of Energy, revealed the following: they found that
privatization in the UK pushed prices up higher than they
otherwise would have been and that investors earned stunning
rates of return at the expense of the consumer.
I'm afraid of that. Does
that worry you? Forget about the investment rate of return.
That's what they're there for, right? To make money. But what
about increases in prices?
Mr Betts:
I think increases in prices will be driven by the marketplace,
when we can ever reach an unregulated market. We are not in that
position at this point. Regardless of what we think, it is a
regulated market and it will be for some time.
If we can introduce
competition-and I believe this is the objective of the minister-I
believe that the forces within a competitive market will cause
those prices to be as good as they can be. That doesn't mean that
the participants in the market won't attempt to maximize their
profits. That's what drives our economy. But I do believe that
competition is one of the few safe ways of controlling that.
Mr Marchese: So you support
deregulation?
Mr Betts:
Yes, I do.
Mr
Marchese: Do you think the Ontario Power Generation
ought to be required to make energy conservation one of its
priorities?
Mr Betts:
I believe all participants in the energy sector should have that
as one of their priorities, to maximize energy conservation. It's
in all of our interests, going right back to the environment and
our natural resources, to maximize those.
Mr
Marchese: Is that one of your priorities?
Mr Betts:
Certainly, personally it is. I would say that to the extent that
I'll have the opportunity to judge those issues as an
adjudicator, I would hold that to be high.
Mr
Marchese: And you would advance such a view with other
board members, including mon ami M. Floyd Laughren?
Mr Betts:
Whenever I had the opportunity to express that, I would do so. I
believe that energy conservation, as well as efficiency within
the participants' own area of expertise, will help to reduce the
costs and therefore keep the price to the consumer down. I think
that is, on the bottom line, what all of us want.
Mr Dunlop:
Mr Betts, thanks very much for coming today. I just wanted to ask
you a question about your role in the utility in Gravenhurst for
the number of years you sat on the commission there, and I know
you went through an expansion. Did you have any of your own power
generation there or did everything come from Ontario Hydro? I
know with all the streams, lakes and rivers around that area-I
just couldn't remember.
Mr Betts:
No, all of the generation for the Gravenhurst utility is provided
through Hydro One now, or Ontario Hydro. The communities to the
north and south of us enjoy some generation themselves, and that
would be Orillia, as well as Bracebridge.
Mr Dunlop:
I just wanted to compliment you. I spend a fair amount of time in
Gravenhurst. I go to the Seguin at least once a year and it's
always nice to visit your community. I know there's been a lot of
work that's taken place in that community over the last few
years, and I congratulate you for that work.
1110
Mr Betts:
We're proud of the community. Thank you.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair:
Thank you kindly. Mr Crozier, of the official opposition.
Mr
Crozier: Good morning, Mr Betts. How are you today?
Mr Betts:
I'm very well, thank you. Yourself?
Mr
Crozier: I'm fine, thanks.
Mr Betts:
Especially being a new grandfather, you should be.
The Chair:
There's good research.
Mr
Crozier: Is the note on the Web already?
Interjections.
Mr
Crozier: I'm particularly proud of that. It was
difficult on me.
Former mayor of
Gravenhurst. You said last summer you decided to move out of the
political arena. Why would you give up one of the best jobs in
the world, being mayor of a town like Gravenhurst?
Mr Betts:
Several reasons, and it wasn't an easy decision. I'd have to tell
you that I actually announced prior to that my intention to run
for mayor, and then I announced that I was not running. I had
been at it for 12 years and I came to the conclusion that,
particularly in the next race, I was really now running because
it was a race, it was another competition. You've been there
yourself. You almost look forward to the event, rather than the
conclusion. I began to wonder, if I won-and there was a very good
chance that I was going to-would I then be happy in winning? That
was certainly in the back of my mind, and I wasn't certain that I
would be.
I felt that I had achieved
personally the objectives that I had set myself in governance.
From day one, I started off, I seem to recall, with about three
platforms and worked hard on them from start to finish. I felt
that we had moved our community out of a terrible depression,
almost, because of some changes that occurred in our economy some
eight years ago and moved it to something that I looked at as a
bright future. So I felt it was time for a change, perhaps, and a
time for a change for me as well.
Mr
Crozier: You made reference to a newspaper article and
wanted to correct the record on that. I have one here from the
Bracebridge Examiner on February 1, where it says, "Betts has
often been cited as a possible successor to Parry Sound-Muskoka
MPP Ernie Eves in the case of the latter's rumoured impending
retirement." Is that correct?
Mr Betts:
It's correct it was a rumour. I think the fact that I retired
when I did would probably have caused someone to think that that
was even a more supportable rumour.
Mr
Crozier: Certainly when I look at your resumé, I
see that not only might they be kind of taking a good competitor
away from Mr Grimmett, but you would have probably made a fine
candidate for that too. Anyway, I share some of your background
as being a mayor of a small community, and that's why I
originally asked the first question.
You were on the public
utilities and you said you were quite active and interested. Were
you chair of the public utilities at that time?
Mr Betts:
No, as the mayor, I sat as a member. Although the opportunity
arose, I didn't feel it was appropriate for the mayor to be
actually chairing that committee. We always sought someone who
could put a little more effort in and certainly bring a sense of
independence to it.
Mr
Crozier: You said as well in answer to some questions
that you are a proponent of deregulation and the direction in
which we're moving in the province. We talked a bit about
California. Alberta is another one where things do not seem to be
going well, and the example of England. Can you give me an
example of a jurisdiction in which there has been
deregulation and competition introduced that's been good for the
public?
Mr
Marchese: That's a good question.
Mr Betts:
I haven't researched that thoroughly. Hopefully, I'll learn more
about this as I get into it. But I understand that Australia has
had a relatively successful movement toward deregulation. Despite
what was said, I've heard that the United Kingdom's experience
has not been that bad. I'm afraid I couldn't give you too much
detail, but I've heard that there are positives from that that
suggest the future should be even better for them in energy than
they saw in the first case.
Mr
Crozier: The reason I mention that is, I appreciate that
you may not-none of us-know of all the jurisdictions perhaps that
have tried this, but it just seems to me that the rhetoric
surrounding this deregulation issue is, "Things will get better;
I can't give you an example of where they've gotten better, but
we're all looking to the future," and yet all we hear are horror
stories. I want to see us do what's best for the consumers in
Ontario, no doubt, and I think we all share that objective. But
notwithstanding the fact that you've said you would be a
proponent of this, I have yet to be convinced that it's the right
way to go. In light of what I've just asked and what we've just
discussed, what makes you a proponent of privatization and
deregulation and competition?
Mr Betts;
It's probably more fundamentally theoretical than anything else.
This is a very complicated market, you're absolutely right, and
no matter what happens, it really can't be unregulated. There are
components in it that must be shared and will have to be managed
in a sense that all the participants who are acting competitively
get a fair shot at all of that at a fair price.
I just believe
fundamentally that, generally speaking, with few exceptions-and
none come to mind right now-the free enterprise system and
profit-motivated businesses, as long as consumers have choice,
will create a better, more effective system than government, and
I say that with all due respect, coming from government as well.
I believe the opportunities for better service, better
performance and lower prices exist only as we can get closer to a
competitive environment.
Mr
Crozier: Notwithstanding the fact that you can't give an
example of it; that's interesting.
You say "provided there's
choice." That's an interesting comment that's added. We read in
the paper this morning that the Premier is even more enthusiastic
about a two-tier health care system, provided there's choice,
notwithstanding the fact that the United States, which is our
closest example, has a system that is considerably more expensive
than ours. I don't mind change and I want to move in the right
direction, but when nobody, it appears, can give us examples of
how it can be successful, I really have a concern.
You've said it's one of
those things that needs to be regulated. Why does it need to be
regulated? Why can't we get the best of everything, move to full
competition in energy production in Ontario, totally deregulated,
and let the best survive, those who can give us the best service
at the best price? Why regulate it at all?
Mr Betts:
Right now the energy has to get from the generator to the
consumer through wires. It's impractical, it's impossible to
think that every competitor could have their own set of wires
going to a consumer so they could provide their energy whenever
the consumer decided to switch. Perhaps some day, if some bright
scientist can figure out a way of transmitting that energy
through the air by some energy source directly to a consumer, I
think at that point you would have true and unregulated
competition. Unfortunately, there are major components within the
system that must be shared, by definition, and they require
someone to look out for the consumer, someone to think like a
consumer, someone to ask consumer-like questions of those people
to ensure that we're getting the best price.
Mr
Crozier: Natural gas prices are another one that's at
the top of the list these days. The Ontario Energy Board, which
you'll be appointed to, I don't doubt, regulates price on
distribution. The general public, I feel, is not well enough
informed as to what really affects natural gas prices, ie, the
cost of the gas itself, and the regulated side, which is the cost
of distribution. Do you see the Ontario Energy Board playing a
role in the education of the public when it comes to the cost of
energy, be it natural gas and/or electricity?
1120
Mr Betts:
I think within the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board there is
certainly a component that says there is a responsibility to
assist the whole market, including the consumer, to move to a
more efficient arrangement, to use the energy more efficiently. I
think that is one of the ways the board could help. It does
relate to pricing but clearly there are few motivations any
stronger than rising prices to move the consumer and all
participants toward an energy-efficient environment. I think if
we looked at trying to promote that energy efficiency, we would
probably find that we would accomplish what you're looking
for.
Mr
Crozier: It will be interesting to see, if and when this
market opens up-I see there's a newspaper report this morning
that says, "The target date in a plan submitted yesterday by the
Ontario Energy Board and the Independent Electricity Market
Operator is...." They're looking at November again.
I think the public is
confused. The public is getting messages from California and
Alberta and other places which aren't the best direction we could
go. We continue to delay the introduction of it. I just hope,
perhaps along with you, that we might get an example, just a
glimmer of hope that this might be the right direction. I hope
we're not making a terrible mistake. So do the best you can to
prevent us from doing that from the Ontario Energy Board's point
of view, please.
Mr Betts:
I will do that, given the opportunity.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Betts.
MELINDA ROGERS
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Melinda
Rogers, intended appointee as member, Ontario Media Development
Corp.
The Chair:
Our next intended appointee is an intended appointee as member of
the Ontario Media Development Corp, Melinda M. Rogers. Ms Rogers,
would you like to come forward to the chairs provided. As you are
likely aware, you are welcome to make an initial statement to the
members of the committee. Subsequent to that, each of the three
parties will have an opportunity to offer questions to you.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms Melinda
Rogers: Thank you for the opportunity of appearing this
morning. I'm very pleased to be considered for the appointment to
the board of the OMDC. If you'll permit me, I'd like to take a
few minutes to review with you my background.
As you may already know
from my resumé, I was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario. I
completed my undergraduate education at the University of Western
Ontario and later received my master of business administration
from the University of Toronto.
I am currently the
vice-president in charge of venture investments for Rogers
Communications. In my present capacity I'm directly responsible
for sourcing, developing and managing the venture investment side
within Rogers Communications. As part of this role, I work with
the operating companies of Rogers and the companies in which
Rogers has an investment, to identify and structure mutually
beneficial relationships. I also function as the company's
liaison with other venture capital funds with which the company
has either an investment or a business relationship. Many of
these are in the States as well as Canada.
I believe my background and
experience will support the efforts of the OMDC in reaching out
to the converging media sectors within its expanded mandate.
Having worked in a family company that spans all of the
converging communications sectors, I have been fortunate to work
in publishing, radio, production, television and digital media.
Additionally, my work experience in Silicon Valley with
Excite@Home in sales and marketing, product development and
business development has provided me with great exposure to the
emerging technology in interactive media space.
With that in mind, I
believe my experience could assist the OMDC in fulfilling its
mandate over the next few years. I look forward to the
opportunity to dedicate my time and knowledge to working with the
OMDC. Thank you.
The Chair:
We'll commence our questions with the government.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive our time.
The Chair:
The government has waived its time, so we will move to the
official opposition.
Mr
Crozier: This appointment is to the Ontario Media
Development Corp, which is a relatively new structure, only
recently announced, and it will focus on, we are told,
encouraging strategic partnerships among the converging cultural
media industries, including film and television production, book
and magazine publishing, sound recording and interactive digital
media. That's very interesting. What, in your view, does that
mean?
Ms Rogers:
I have yet to participate within the board, but what I've seen in
my experience has been that a lot of the different media are
beginning to overlap. It's very difficult for a content play, for
example, on the Internet to be successful on a viable business
model on its own, whereas if you take content and span it over
multiple platforms-so you'll take a cartoon series and port it
over television, the on-line space, and then you could also
develop the rest of it in a magazine or comic book-that is the
way for one type of content to span multiple media. You can see
the same with it being carried on a wireless platform. To do
this, though, you have to get the different sectors to begin to
talk together and work together. In Ontario I think, as in many
other places, it's difficult to get this to occur naturally.
Mr
Crozier: Do you see this responsibility of the
corporation as one of being proactive on the part of Ontario, to
go out into other jurisdictions, other countries, and promote
Ontario as a place to come and develop their media enterprise?
Would that be part of your job?
Ms Rogers:
I don't know if it's defined as something to be putting us on to
planes and doing, but by no means will we discourage anybody, any
foreign group or corporation, from spending their money in
Ontario and promoting Ontario. So to that extent, yes.
Mr
Crozier: Do you think, as an individual, as part of this
corporation, that you will be actively involved in working
outside the Toronto area in proactively attracting business
here?
Ms Rogers:
To the extent that I could encourage business to come to
Ontario?
Mr
Crozier: Yes.
Ms Rogers:
I try to encourage it every day whether I'm working for the OMDC
or just as a Canadian. My answer is, I will do that. It doesn't
change, whether I'm part of the OMDC or not.
Mr
Crozier: Did you seek this position?
Ms Rogers:
No, I did not.
Mr
Crozier: Someone came to you. Who?
Ms Rogers:
A woman by the name of Justine Deluce. I believe she works for
the former minister.
Mr
Crozier: And outlined what it is that this corporation
is about and-
Ms Rogers:
And asked if I would be interested in having my name put
forward.
Mr
Crozier: When it comes to media-I'm not suggesting
anything about qualification; I think you're well-qualified for
it-do you think that perhaps they looked to you to join this
corporation because of your experience?
Ms Rogers:
I think there are very few people with qualification in the
digital media today, and my experience in Silicon Valley and my
ongoing experience with different individuals within the United States
has provided me a lot of insight that I've been very fortunate to
have. I think that is in part why Justine Deluce contacted me and
asked me if I would consider working with the OMDC.
Mr
Crozier: How long is the appointment, for what term, or
is there a term attached to it?
Ms Rogers:
I believe it's a maximum term of three years.
Mr
Crozier: Ms Rogers, according to the information we've
been given, and I think you probably have it, the film and
television production in Ontario is big business, over $1
billion. As I say, you are probably aware of that without the
information that you were given.
1130
I hope you take from what I
was asking you that I'm encouraging, that is, I trust this
Ontario Media Development Corp will be a proactive organization
in attracting this type of business to Ontario and wish you well
in your appointment.
Ms Rogers:
Thank you.
The Chair:
Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Welcome, Ms Rogers. I'm curious. You are the
daughter of Ted Rogers, are you not?
Ms Rogers:
As far as I know, yes.
Interjection.
Mr
Marchese: Except I didn't know. You would know better
than I would.
Obviously Ontario is doing
as much as it possibly can to attract film production, because it
is big business, and why wouldn't it? The problem is there has
been a drop in production. Do you have a sense of why that
is?
Ms Rogers:
I haven't studied the matter, frankly, to be able to tell you why
there has been a drop in production. As has been explained to me
recently, one of the greater drops has been in domestic
production. I'm not sure if foreign production in Ontario has
also dropped. I am not aware of what the cause for that is at
this time.
Mr
Marchese: I don't know if they passed this research on
to you-I don't think they did in the past, but they probably do
now-but it's research that allows us to be somewhat intelligent
when we ask questions. They say:
"Adam Ostry, the CEO of
Ontario Media Development Corp, has argued that one solution to
the problem of Ontario's declining share of production activity
is the construction in Toronto of a state-of-the-art sound stage
complex. This facility is needed to attract the big-budget,
special-effects film productions which generate significant
levels of economic activity. It appears that in recent years, the
superior sound stage facilities in Vancouver and Montreal are an
important reason why those cities are now attracting big-budget
film productions."
He's recommending that's
what we do, that we create a better state-of-the-art sound stage
complex as a way of solving some of the drop. I'm assuming he's
probably right. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Ms Rogers:
I have also read what you have read. I have not heard Adam
explain in detail why he believes building a state-of-the-art
sound production system would increase production in Ontario.
Given the facts I read, though, as I read them, they state that
was one of the driving reasons to increase production in both
Montreal and Vancouver. If what I've read is accurate, then that
should boost production here in Ontario.
Mr
Marchese: Right, except we have to create it before that
happens, right? We have to actually build it.
Ms Rogers:
Again, I cannot speak for Adam, but I would not assume he means
that the government should build it.
Mr
Marchese: Right, and that somehow we should find the
money for it. I don't know where we're going to find the money
for it.
Ms Rogers:
My interpretation was, he was in the belief that it's a private
sector initiative.
Mr
Marchese: It usually is. With this government everything
is private sector initiative and/or at least making sure
government and the private sector get involved in doing things,
so I'm assuming that's the way we're going to find the money. God
bless, and hopefully that will happen in this case.
Can I ask you about tax
credits in the field? There's the Ontario production services tax
credit, Ontario computer animation and special effects tax
credit, Ontario interactive digital media tax credit, Ontario
book publishers tax credit. You're familiar with all those
programs and the tax credits we provide for them?
Ms Rogers:
I have read them over recently. Again, I haven't actually joined
the board yet.
Mr
Marchese: I just wondered if you had an opinion about
whether a tax credit is effective, not effective, whether we need
to do more or less, what else we should be doing. Any thoughts on
that?
Ms Rogers:
I hesitate to give an opinion when I don't have all the
information before me, one of the reasons being it might be a
very ill-informed opinion.
Mr
Marchese: Ms Rogers, I wish you luck.
Ms Rogers:
Thank you.
The Chair:
That is the end of your questioning then?
Mr
Marchese: That's it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Rogers, and you may step down.
Mr Wood:
Mr Chair, I wonder if the committee might be interested in
dealing with the concurrences from this morning right now.
The Chair:
Is there any thought on that? Does anyone wish to object to
dealing with the concurrences?
Mr
Marchese: Dealing with what, Bob?
Mr Wood:
Dealing with concurrences right now for this morning.
Mr
Marchese: Of course.
Mr Wood:
In that case, I will move concurrence in the intended appointment
of Mr Taylor.
Mr
Marchese: Can I recommend we move concurrence with all
of them so that we can dispense with the-
Mr Wood:
Yes, I'd be pleased to.
The Chair: Actually, I would
prefer if we did them individually, if we can, because that would
be perhaps a bit frivolous. I'll ask Mr Taylor-
Mr
Marchese: Oh, no, no, it wasn't frivolous.
The Chair:
I realize that, but for the committee it might be. I know what
you're saying-
Mr Wood:
If Mr Crozier agrees with it, I'll do it.
Mr
Crozier: Pardon me?
Mr Wood:
Do you want to deal with-
Mr
Crozier: Sure, let's deal with them individually.
Mr
Marchese: If there's no disagreement, I would prefer
that we deal with it all at once.
Interjections.
The Chair:
I'm not going to accept that particular suggestion. I'm ruling
that we're going to do it individually, because I can't make any
presumptions as to how they will go. That's fine. It will only
take a moment.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Taylor.
The Chair:
Any discussion on Mr Taylor's appointment? All in favour?
Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Miller.
The Chair:
Any discussion on Mr Miller's appointment? All in favour?
Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Mr Betts.
The Chair:
Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? The motion is
carried.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence in Ms Rogers.
The Chair:
Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? Carried. We are adjourned
till 2 pm this afternoon.
Mr Wood:
There's one other matter of concurrence we could deal with, if
desired, and that's item 3. I move concurrence in the intended
appointment of Mr Johnston.
The Chair:
For Mr Marchese, who was not the designated member for the New
Democratic Party at that time, Mr Johnston appeared before the
committee. There were questions directed to Mr Johnston at the
request of Mr Wood. It was delayed until a future time, and that
concurrence is now coming before the committee. Do you wish to
move that now?
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
This afternoon we will
return at 2 pm for the intended appointee as member, McMichael
Canadian Art Collection board of trustees, Jan Dymond. The
meeting is adjourned for this morning till 2 pm.
The committee recessed
from 1137 to 1406.
The Chair:
I'm going to call the meeting to order. Ordinarily we might look
at different circumstances, but we're going to begin.
JAN DYMOND
Review of intended
appointment, selected by official opposition party: Jan Dymond,
intended appointee as member, McMichael Canadian Art Collection
board of trustees.
The Chair:
Our intended appointee this afternoon is an intended appointee as
member, McMichael Canadian Art Collection board of trustees. I'll
ask Janice Dymond to come forward-although I've never known her
as Janice Dymond; it is Jan Dymond who is before us.
Ms Dymond, you know that
you have the opportunity to make a statement at the beginning-we
dutifully subtract the time from the government side when we do
this-but that should never intimidate you, because I'm sure we
will enjoy your initial remarks. Then each of the parties that is
here and wishes to direct questions to you will do so for 10
minutes apiece maximum. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Jan
Dymond: Thank you very much. I do have a brief opening
statement. I will try not to take up too much of the government
members' time with it.
Good afternoon, Mr Chairman
and members of the committee. My name is Jan Dymond, and I would
like to thank the committee for providing me with this
opportunity to meet with you today to share with you my
qualifications for what is actually a reappointment to the board
of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. You may know that I
have served as a trustee of the McMichael since October 1999. As
a board appointee, my position ceased to exist with the
proclamation of Bill 112. I am pleased that the government
has invited me to continue my service with this board.
I would like to take a
couple of minutes to give you a sense of my professional
experience as well as my background in the cultural field.
In my professional life, I
am the principal in a strategic communications consulting firm,
Janus Strategy Group. I formed Janus just over a year ago, after
working in partnership in a more broadly focused public relations
company for over 12 years. I work primarily with clients who are
instituting significant organizational change and who need
support to communicate this change to their various
stakeholders.
From 1981 to 1985, I worked
here at Queen's Park as communications assistant to, first, the
parliamentary assistant to and then the Minister of Citizenship
and Culture. For about 10 years prior to that, I worked in
documentary, public affairs and educational film and television
production as a researcher, writer, director and producer.
But none of this tells you
why I want to serve as a trustee of the McMichael. For that, I
think I have to go back many more years. I was born in Ottawa but
was raised in Toronto from the age of three. I consider myself
fortunate to have been raised in a family where the arts were
part of my day-to-day life. My parents, through their active
involvement in community and charitable organizations, also
instilled in me a responsibility to make a contribution other
than through work and family. One of the ways I have chosen to do
that is through involvement with cultural institutions.
My first involvement was as
a member of the development committee and the marketing committee
at the Art Gallery of Ontario. These were board committees
charged with raising funds through both special events and
tradition fundraising activities. In 1993, I was honoured with an appointment to
the board of the National Gallery of Canada. At the National
Gallery I served on several committees including the governance
committee, acquisitions committee, marketing and program
committee, and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography,
which I chaired.
I was approached to become
a councillor to the McMichael in 1998. At the time, I was
recruited specifically to participate as a member of the retail
and marketing committee, an area that fitted well with my
professional background as a communications consultant and with
my then client groups. As a councillor I had the opportunity to
reacquaint myself with the gallery, its challenges and its
opportunities.
In 1999, I accepted an
appointment to the board as a trustee. There is no question that
I chose to join the board at a time of some considerable changes,
and I did so because I believe strongly that the McMichael, with
its particular focus, has a valuable role to play in telling the
story of Canadian art.
The best boards, in my
view, are those that have people who collectively can bring a
wide range of expertise and experience to their deliberations. I
hope I can bring my experience in marketing, change
communications and public sector governance to the benefit of the
collection and to its stewardship on behalf of the people of
Ontario.
I thank you for your
attention and look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair:
We will commence the questioning with the official
opposition.
Mr
Crozier: Good afternoon, Ms Dymond. Welcome to the
committee hearing. I appreciate that you started your comments by
saying you appreciated the opportunity to come here and tell us
why you wanted to be reappointed to this board. So often when
folks come before the committee, they believe there is some sort
of ulterior motive as to why we have you here, and that couldn't
be further from the truth.
Recently a constituent
called me on an issue and, as part of the conversation, said,
"What do you do?" So as a public relations and public affairs
consulting person, what do you do?
Ms Dymond:
That's a good question. What I do varies a little from client to
client, but principally I work with clients who are going through
some kind of major organizational change. Change is often
difficult for people; it's difficult for organizations. Because
large organizations have quite a wide range of stakeholders, they
need assistance in figuring out the best way to let their
employees, their shareholders, their suppliers and their
customers understand why they're making the changes and how those
changes will ultimately be of benefit to the organization and,
hopefully, to all the stakeholders as individuals as well.
Mr
Crozier: I'll look at Hansard again, when I'm asked what
public relations consultants do, and I'll use that as a
reference.
Ms Dymond:
I should be clear that I have in the past practised public
relations; I really don't do very much of that any more. My
practice is currently focused on what is usually referred to as
strategic communications planning. We work quite often with the
business change unit within a larger firm, providing
communication support to the other kinds of business
transformation activities that are going on. I really don't do
public relations any more, which is more involved with direct
running of media campaigns, media conferences and those kinds of
things. I have really stepped back from that and have focused my
practice much more.
Mr
Crozier: Would the same definition apply to work you've
done for the government?
Ms Dymond:
To some extent, yes.
Mr
Crozier: You've been on the McMichael Canadian Art
Collection board of trustees as a board appointee since-
Ms Dymond:
October 1999.
Mr
Crozier: When Bill 112, An Act to amend the McMichael
Canadian Art Collection Act, was proposed in June 2000 and its
subsequent process, I don't doubt you were quite aware of what
was transpiring in that discussion.
Ms Dymond:
Yes.
Mr
Crozier: I'd like to ask a couple of questions in
relation to that. There is, at least in the view of some, a legal
obligation on behalf of the board of trustees to divest the
gallery of perhaps as many as thousands of works of art. But
again, in the view of some, there isn't any clear statutory
criterion to guide you in that divestiture. Could you comment on
that?
Ms Dymond:
Yes. The act, as I read it, is enabling. I don't think there is a
requirement to divest. I think that one of the responsibilities
of the board, and it may well be something that initiates with
the governance committee or the acquisitions committee, will be
to develop those kinds of guidelines.
Mr
Crozier: So you're able to develop, then, the policy
under which these works of art would be dealt with?
Ms Dymond:
I think it would be a responsibility of the board to do that in
the absence of any direction in the legislation, yes.
Mr
Crozier: The legislation does outline the nature of the
collection: that the board should ensure the collection reflects
the cultural heritage of Canada etc. You may even be aware of the
section; it's section 8 of the act. It lists a number of artists
and then goes on to say, "Other artists who have been designated
by the art advisory committee" under another clause. Would it be
in those two areas that you feel the board has the flexibility to
determine what pieces of art will be sold and what will be-
Ms Dymond:
I believe one of the other sections of the act-I'm sorry, I can't
cite the section number-indicates that the art acquisitions
committee would be in the position to make recommendations about
the disposition, de-accession of certain works. If the art
acquisitions committee
were to make a recommendation and the board were to accept that
recommendation, then clearly there would need to be some kind of
policy in place for how that de-accession would happen.
Mr
Crozier: I have an interest in this, because I'm a
citizen of Ontario. I may not be a constituent who has a keen
interest in it, but you're acting on my behalf nevertheless. If
you can define it, how will you personally approach this
responsibility of keeping this collection one that reflects the
cultural heritage of Canada? What would be some of the processes
of decision you will go through to make sure that happens?
Ms Dymond:
The act clearly states that the art acquisitions committee has
the primary responsibility for that. As a board member, I think I
would want to look at not just the recommendation but the reasons
behind it. Art and the ability to determine who has made a
contribution to the development of Canadian art is obviously
something that can be subject to personal interpretation. I may
well have a different view than you or someone else on the art
acquisitions committee. But I think the only approach one can
take is to look at it on the artistic and academic merits.
Part of the role of staff
at a gallery like the McMichael or the National Gallery, where I
was also involved, is to do a lot of research work that would
help the board members make those kinds of determinations. I
would not necessarily base it on my personal preferences but
rather on the academic and curatorial merits of whether something
actually fits within the designation.
Mr
Crozier: Is it the responsibility of the board to
operate in-I was going to use the words "a financially
responsibility way." I don't want to put it quite that way,
because I think we all should. Is it the responsibility of the
board to see that this art collection meets the objectives as put
out in here, and to what extent should the board do this,
considering making a profit or running at a deficit, if you know
what I mean? How do you balance the financial and the
cultural?
Ms Dymond:
In terms of the actual collection itself, clearly the board is
required to ensure that the collection reflects the mandate.
That's a given, and I don't think there are necessarily financial
issues around that, unless of course you get into questions about
spending more than you've got on acquisitions, and I don't think
that is what you're referring to. I think the financial issues
flow more around the expenses of the gallery, the ability to put
together exhibitions that will attract people to attend the
gallery, that will attract corporate sponsors. But those are more
around the kinds of works you exhibit rather than the kinds of
works you collect.
Mr
Crozier: How am I doing, Chair?
The Chair:
You have one more question.
Mr
Crozier: When it comes to disposing of some of the
art-some of it has been given to the gallery for a variety of
reasons: some in memory, some maybe simply for tax purposes-how
do you feel about that, that perhaps you are going to be
divesting the gallery of some of these pieces of art that were
given in good faith with a view that these pieces would be there
forever?
Ms Dymond:
If I can go back to my earlier comments, I think that's why it's
very important that the gallery-and it would be the board of the
gallery, I think, that would have the responsibility to do
this-put in place a very responsible policy to address possible
disposition or de-accession of art. Obviously, there can be tax
implications for donors, and there can be legal implications for
the gallery and the board. I don't think anyone would want to
de-accession pieces in a way that would impact negatively on the
gallery or, for that matter, on the Ontario and Canadian artists
whose works not may be considered suitable for the McMichael but
are still very suitable and terrific examples of Canadian art of
their genre.
The Chair:
That completes your questions. We now move to the government
members.
Mr Wood:
We'll waive the balance of our time.
The Chair:
The government members have waived their time.
Seeing no more questions
being requested, thank you very much, Ms Dymond, for appearing
before the committee.
We will now proceed with
concurring in the intended appointment.
Mr Wood: I
move concurrence re Ms Dymond.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has moved concurrence. All in favour? Opposed? The motion
is carried.
Mr Wood: I
wonder if I might raise one other matter of business before we
adjourn.
During the intersession,
when we have only five appointments to review on a day, I wonder
if we might schedule the fifth at noon rather than at 2.
The Chair:
Yes, we would normally do so. In this case, our intended
appointee in the afternoon was unavailable in the morning.
Otherwise, we would have done so. That's an excellent suggestion.
Our clerk always tries to ensure, where it is possible, that we
do everyone in a morning session when we would only have one or
two in the afternoon. Thank you for the suggestion. We certainly
would have done that in this case if that were possible.
Mr Wood:
Thank you.
The Chair:
Any further business for the committee? If not, I'll entertain a
motion to adjourn.
Mr Wood:
So moved.
The Chair:
Mr Wood moves that we adjourn. All in favour? Opposed? Motion
carried.
