CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 August 1992
Appointments review
Gary Ireland
Lorne C. Mitchell
Keith David Hambly
Douglas Porter
Patricia L. O'Malley
Susan L. Meyer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell
*Mancini, Remo (Essex South/-Sud L) for Mr Bradley
*White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Marchese
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1012 in committee room 1.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
GARY IRELAND
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Come to order, please. Our first witness this morning is Gary Ireland, who is an intended appointee as a member and chair of the Ontario Food Terminal Board. Mr Ireland is present now. Mr Ireland, would you please come forward and take a seat. Welcome to the committee, sir.
Mr Gary Ireland: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I apologize for being late. I forgot about the traffic coming in and construction and trouble parking.
The Chair: Understandable. You were selected for a half-hour review by the Liberal Party, and we're going to ask Mr Grandmaître to begin questioning.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Ireland, who owns the terminal?
Mr Ireland: I believe it's owned by the government.
Mr Grandmaître: Is it? I don't know the answer.
Mr Ireland: That's going way back.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, well, 1954, but in my notes it doesn't say who owns it.
My next interesting question is about leases. I can recall that a good number of people were critical about some of the leases that went on for a period of 30 years. Some of them had at least a 30-year period with automatic right for renewal and at very low rents. You're quite familiar with the food terminal. Has this been corrected in the last few years, or what's been done to put the rents up or whatever they had to do to make it more feasible?
Mr Ireland: I've been away from the terminal for a couple or three years, but my understanding is that it has still in the past been a problem. I understand that the previous board, on more than one occasion or at least one occasion, has met with the standing committee about possible changes in the lease to get away from a perpetuity situation where it seems the perception has been that it has inflated the price of the lease to kind of discourage, to price higher than maybe what it should have been or what they would like it to have been to attract new business.
Mr Grandmaître: So as far as you're concerned, the lease problems haven't been resolved.
Mr Ireland: To the best of my knowledge, no.
Mr Grandmaître: Is there a waiting list of old sailors to have a stall or a stand at the food terminal? Is there a waiting list?
Mr Ireland: The last I knew I thought there was, but then I understand that there was a proposed expansion that was under way. Now I just received some documentation -- I didn't get it until late yesterday, and was going over it last evening -- but my understanding is out of five of the proposed new clients, so to speak, three of them had tried to back out. I guess there's a lawsuit ongoing on that situation now. So whether there's a waiting list, other than the people who were going to come in under the new expansion, I'm not exactly sure at the present time.
Mr Grandmaître: I can recall four or five years ago there was a lot of talk about the possible expansion of the terminal because it was very popular and it was quite in demand. I haven't heard a thing in the last four or five years.
Mr Ireland: Correct. I'm not sure whether the state of the economy has kind of slowed things down in that regard or not. That could be.
Mr Grandmaître: Talking about the economy, what about the free trade agreement? How has this affected not only our consumers but old sailors?
Mr Ireland: I could speak more, I think, from a producer's standpoint than from a wholesaler's.
Mr Grandmaître: Producer's, then.
Mr Ireland: Personally speaking, from the producers I've spoken with and my knowledge that I have, I think it's put us at a disadvantage.
Mr Grandmaître: John, have you got a question?
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Yes, I do. I take it, Gary, that you've been interested in being on the board for some time. Is that true?
Mr Ireland: Mr Cleary, I found that quite interesting. I know with my involvement in the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association -- I think it was about two years ago when we moved our office out of the terminal and up to Guelph -- I always found it a fascinating place. I'd come in for a meeting at, say, 9 o'clock in the morning and I found it busy then, but I know the major activity was basically over for the day. Some of the problems we encountered the year that I was president -- I just found it a fascinating place.
Mr Cleary: I see here that you're a third-generation apple grower.
Mr Ireland: Correct.
Mr Cleary: And I know you must have been involved with the terminal for many, many years.
Mr Ireland: Well, more through my involvement with the OFVGA than anything else.
Mr Cleary: Yes. Coming into this position -- most people have a little agenda -- what changes would you like to see take place there?
Mr Ireland: I guess one of the problems, if you want to call it a problem, that we seemed to encounter the year that I was president was producers complaining about whole product being dumped on the terminal at lower prices and hurting the domestic market or the domestic producers. I know there was never any proof of this.
I think this has been an ongoing issue, local producers complaining about imported product coming in at prices lower than cost of production or being offered at lower than cost of production. I think sometimes that may have been the case and sometimes that may have been a perception. I'm not sure, but I know that was one of the major things we had to deal with through four different cases, I think, during the year with those kinds of complaints.
Mr Cleary: I take it that the produce from there finds it going even further than Ontario boundaries. Is it true that it's shipped into the United States and other provinces too?
Mr Ireland: I've heard that rumour, yes.
Mr Cleary: I guess the other way haunts you a bit too, maybe produce indirectly finding its way there from other -- would that be true?
Mr Ireland: I would have to say it is.
Mr Cleary: It is, eh?
Mr Ireland: Yes. Certainly with my involvement in apples and in the few commodities that I had knowledge of through the OFVGA, that seemed to be a perception.
Mr Cleary: You're more familiar with apples. What would be the other areas where the apples would come from?
Mr Ireland: For example, we had a major problem back a few years ago -- I know certainly through the apple commission -- with the Red Delicious situation from Washington being dumped here at prices lower than cost of production, so that we ended up with a suit against the Washington growers, which you probably recall that we did win, but it cost a lot of money to go through that procedure. There were ways that they ended up getting around it, so I really question whether we actually won. We won that case, but I question whether we won in the long run.
Mr Cleary: As my colleague Ben just asked you about free trade, do you find it's going to be worse from now on than it has been in the past?
1020
Mr Ireland: I don't really see it getting any better. I guess the main reason I say that is that I've been involved in the National Horticultural Safety Net Committee in Ottawa as one of the Ontario representatives. Some of our complaints there, which are the same as my provincial counterparts around the country, I don't see improving, and I've been sitting on that committee for two to three years now. I just don't see any change. With the new proposed North American free trade agreement, I can see things getting worse not better.
Mr Cleary: Yes. I guess talking to some of the other groups that use the terminal, they say they have big challenges ahead. I have no further questions but only to wish you good luck. I know you've got a big job ahead.
Mr Ireland: Thank you very much.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to this committee, Gary. Are you appointed to any other boards or commissions at the present time?
Mr Ireland: I'm a director for our area on the apple commission. I am second vice-chairman appointed through the OFVGA to the Ontario Agricultural Commodities Council and I'm also a director and vice-president of the Norfolk Fruit Growers Association, which is the organization I belong to in Simcoe.
Mr McLean: You have a 125-acre apple farm?
Mr Ireland: Correct.
Mr McLean: Who runs it?
Mr Ireland: I do.
Mr McLean: You must have some good help there.
Mr Ireland: At the moment I've got two offshore workers who have been very good.
Mr McLean: How many days would you anticipate that, as the chairman of the food terminal board, you would spend away from the farm in a year?
Mr Ireland: A good question, Mr McLean. From the inquiring I've been able to do and the information I've received, my understanding is that the board has met approximately monthly. Whether that was sufficient or whether it should be meeting more, I'm not sure. I've spoken with Bill Carsley but I haven't met with him yet.
Mr McLean: Is Bill Carsley the manager of the food terminal?
Mr Ireland: Correct.
Mr McLean: How long has he been there?
Mr Ireland: I don't know exactly. Certainly I've been on the apple commission for several years and he was there then. So he's been there quite a while. I couldn't give you the exact date.
Mr McLean: Are you looking at making any change in the management of that food terminal?
Mr Ireland: Not at the moment, no.
Mr McLean: You're familiar then with the leases and some of the expansion that was to be made at that food terminal a few years ago?
Mr Ireland: Vaguely, yes. I remember a few years ago, in fact, I recall Bill coming to the apple commission one day, and that was going back I think when the original expansion was planned. As for the more recent one, the only information I have received is just what I received yesterday and speaking with Bill on the phone.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the other board members?
Mr Ireland: No, I'm not, only one.
Mr McLean: Do you know there's been, some would say, a management problem there for many years?
Mr Ireland: No, I don't.
Mr McLean: We did a review of that food terminal a few years ago and there was a lot of discussion with regard to the rents that were charged and the people who were wanting to be tenants there. There was some indication that it was over $1 million in order to rent a unit there. Would you be familiar with that?
Mr Ireland: I heard that rumour, yes.
Mr McLean: What do you anticipate doing as chairman of the board to have the board oversee more of what goes on at that food terminal? Or do you just want to carry it on the way it is?
Mr Ireland: It's pretty hard for me to comment until we've had a chance to meet to find out some of the problems and just to see what the potential is in making any changes that the board feels should be made.
Mr McLean: There have been some recommendations to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which has jurisdiction over that food terminal, with regard to the leases that are there in perpetuity, and nobody seems to want to say that we're going to cut that off after a certain period of time. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Ireland: Vaguely, yes.
Mr McLean: You're going to get a great learning experience when you get there, aren't you?
Mr Ireland: I believe you're right.
Mr McLean: Have you transported apples to the terminal and used the terminal as a vehicle to sell your products?
Mr Ireland: Basically, right now the Norfolk Fruit Growers Association has a stall at the farmers' market. We've been there for at least two, or maybe three years, and that's been the extent, certainly, of my involvement through the association.
Mr McLean: Have you any idea of the volume of business the food terminal does in a year?
Mr Ireland: Not really. I remember hearing numbers back a year or two ago, and I haven't had a chance to go through all the information Mr Carsley faxed to me yesterday. I went through some of it last night and I haven't seen any financial numbers.
Mr McLean: I would recommend that you review the report of this committee of some years ago, when we did the investigation into the food terminal. It would be good information for you to review. The revenues are about $5 million there. There's a proposal by the ministry to have a checkoff for every farm that makes over $7,000 a year. I'd like your opinion on that. Do you think that would be a good thing?
Mr Ireland: Is this the checkoff for stable funding?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Ireland: I agree with the concept, yes.
Mr McLean: Okay. Gary, have you any questions?
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Yes. Is there time?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for appearing. I understand the vacancy was a fairly long period of time. Are you aware of how long the vacancy was?
Mr Ireland: I understand that the board hasn't met for approximately six months. How long it was before that I'm not sure.
Mr Carr: I know there's been some concern. Was it a case of trying to find somebody for your position? Maybe you could just fill us in on when you were contacted and let us know how you found out, because there are some major concerns that the board hasn't met and that there's been a long period of time, and there's been some criticism of the government for not moving more quickly on this. Maybe you could fill us in on exactly how you got to become aware of this and the whole process of how you came to appear before us.
Mr Ireland: I believe you're correct. I did hear the rumour that there was a complaint or criticism that it had gone for a longer period of time than they felt it should.
I was contacted by George Collins back, I would say, possibly in early to mid-June, somewhere in there. He called me one evening and I told him then I'd be back to him within a week to 10 days, to get a chance to think about it. I wanted to make some inquiries of some people who I knew had had some direct involvement with the food terminal over the years. I called George back about 10 days later and said that yes, I would consider pursuing and going through the process and seeing what happened. At that point I put together a résumé and faxed it through to his office. Then I was notified -- oh, it went for a fair length of time, which he told me it probably would by the time it went through the process, so here we are.
Mr Carr: I take it you don't have any political affiliation with any of the parties, then.
Mr Ireland: No, I don't.
Mr Carr: One last question to you: In light of the fact that there have been some of these concerns voiced over a long period of time and that there have been problems there, when you take over, exactly what are you going to do? How are you going to approach it? Maybe you can give us an idea who you're going to meet with, how quickly, what some of the things are that you'd like to do immediately to sort of get back on track. Have you any idea yet?
Mr Ireland: First, I'm not aware of all the problems, just some of the ones that we have spoken about already. I feel that certainly the board should have an initial meeting quite soon and find out exactly what some of these problems are, and then plan a strategy as to how we're going to deal with them. Then, I guess, how often the board should be meeting: whether it should be meeting more often than monthly or whether that's sufficient. Certainly there should be an initial board meeting quite soon, I would think.
Mr Carr: Do you see having a real hands-on type of style, or do you see the management continuing to run it and you more or less taking more of an overview? How would you assess your sort of management style, if you could?
Mr Ireland: I guess the philosophy I've always taken, and I've been through two or three different hiring processes -- different organizations -- is that the management is there to run the organization, whatever it's running, and my position is an overseer. If there are problems, then I have to step in or the board has to step in. But I feel the management basically is running the show. That's what they're there for.
Mr Carr: Good luck.
1030
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a quick question. It comes out of a concern that I have. If the total revenue from the board is $5 million, the amount of money that is being spent on disposing of wastage is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $600,000 and $800,000 a year.
Mr Ireland: I've heard that, yes.
Mr Wiseman: That's a lot of money to be used on wastage. I understand that at one point the food terminal had worked out a deal to compost the material and then turn it back to the farmers that were hauling in. Do you know whatever happened to that deal?
Mr Ireland: No, I don't. I did hear the figure that you're saying, $600,000 or $700,000 to get rid of the waste. I have not heard this about the composting, but certainly if that's feasible, that sounds like a good idea.
Mr Wiseman: My understanding was that the Metropolitan Toronto works department put an end to the deal because it did not want to forgo the money that would be raised by tipping the waste in the Keele Valley landfill site, that basically it was Metropolitan Toronto's hammer that came down on it.
There are some very innovative techniques that are being used now. I had the privilege of seeing a new composting machine that does about 300 tonnes a month. It will do about 150 tonnes in 15 days. It's split in half and it flips it over and it comes out nice and black at the other end. It's very good for compost in terms of cutting costs at $150 a tonne for tipping. I would recommend strongly that you might want to look into that. That's an awful big slice of money coming out of a budget. It's all pretty clean compost. I don't think it would take too much to turn that kind of a budget item around.
Mr Ireland: I agree that is a large sum. I'm sure the new board will be looking at the options.
Mr Wiseman: I wish you a lot of luck on that one. I hope you can do it.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a couple of questions. Is the membership of the board made up primarily of growers or farmers who supply the terminal?
Mr Ireland: I think there are two producers on the board, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr Waters: And the rest are?
Mr Ireland: There's at least one, possibly two wholesalers. I think there are two consumer reps; seven all told, I believe, at the present time. I think there are only two producers.
Mr Waters: Do you think that's a fair breakdown?
Mr Ireland: I think there was a proposal by the previous board to possibly have the size increased. I think that was one of the recommendations, if I'm not mistaken, that they had made. What happens with that, I don't know yet.
Mr Waters: I guess what I'm saying is, on the ratio of the people who produce versus other people, do you feel the board should be weighted in favour of the producer?
Mr Ireland: I guess, Mr Waters, all I can do is base it on my past experience. I know with the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, the board has 23 directors, with 12 being producers. The producers might not necessarily make the best decision, but they do have the power to have the final say. I'm not saying that's always in the best interests of the industry as a whole.
Mr Waters: This probably could be seen as being off topic, but I'm curious about pesticides, because the terminal does bring in US and offshore produce. You, being an Ontario farmer, are very restricted in what you're allowed to put on your crop versus what some of the other people are allowed to put on. Is there any increase in regulations or scrutiny as to what's coming into this country and what is being used to irrigate it or to keep it pest free? I know in the past we have been getting all kinds of chemicals that we're not allowed to use. People don't realize that the produce that they're buying is --
Mr Ireland: Right.
Mr Waters: I just wanted your comment on whether that problem is being cleaned up or whether it's something that maybe the board could try to put some pressure on.
Mr Ireland: Certainly you're right. Sitting in Ottawa, on the National Horticultural Safety Net Committee, that's probably our main beef, the fact that we feel -- I guess to put it bluntly -- that's a ludicrous attitude on the part of our federal government, in the policy, that we can't use a certain product, but the product can come in, it being applied with that product because they come under a tolerance of 0.1 ppm, when they will not give us the same allowance to use that chemical if we can meet that tolerance.
We feel it's a very hypocritical attitude. How can you have one standard for our producers and another standard for product coming in? This is our complaint.
Mr Waters: I think the public is also deceived by that because they look at the Ontario standard or the Canadian standard --
Mr Ireland: Highest in the world.
Mr Waters: -- and assume that all the produce they're buying, that apple or whatever it be, is grown in a manner that we would consider safe for human consumption. Indeed a lot of this product is not.
Mr Ireland: That's very true.
Mr Waters: Is there a possibility then of the board going to our federal counterparts and doing some lobbying to, shall we say, protect the consumer? That is part of what the board -- I know that your function is to run the terminal, but the function should also, I think to a certain extent, be to make sure the terminal is indeed releasing or wholesaling produce that you feel is up to Canadian or Ontario standards.
Mr Ireland: I guess I would have to speak personally now. Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of the board. I'm not sure whether this is getting away from the mandate of the board. If we get into an area where possibly we can make a statement to help the situation, personally speaking, I'm strongly supportive of that because this is what we call a level playing field, which we don't have, not in this area.
Mr Waters: I've heard everything. I've heard a couple of reports that in the food coming out of Mexico, they're irrigating it with water that is polluted with chemicals that are carcinogenic. You wouldn't be allowed that.
Mr Ireland: No.
Mr Waters: Anyway, I wish you well. It's an interesting place. I know different people who work there and I wish you well. I hope that there may be some way that you can get some justice in there for the small person. If it's $1 million to rent a unit in there, then we have to find a way to better assist the small farmer and the family producer.
Mr Ireland: I totally agree.
Mr Wiseman: That's just to buy the right to rent the unit, it's not the rent. It's the bidding to get into there that's the million bucks.
The Chair: Mr Frankford, you have a minute and a little bit left.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): This is something I know very little about, but there's more exotic produce, particularly with the changing population we have here. How does this fit in with the food terminal? Can it be restricted or does it come in easily? Can you comment?
Mr Ireland: I guess, Mr Frankford, the only comment I could make would be that it would depend whether some of those exotic products can be supplied in the domestic market. I guess that if not, then it would be imported product. I know there are producers looking at alternative crops, certainly in my area. They're looking at a lot of these crops, but most of them are being done, certainly at the moment, on a small scale until they can maybe prove that it's economically feasible to get into it on the larger scale.
Certainly I would think if it can be done domestically, then there's a place. But if the domestic market can't supply it, then obviously it's going to have to come from imported product.
Mr Frankford: Do you feel this is something that you would be able to encourage through the food terminal or is this peripheral to --
Mr Ireland: To be quite honest, I don't know at the moment.
The Chair: That concludes the review, Mr Ireland. Thank you very much for your appearance here. Good luck.
Mr Ireland: Thank you very much. Once again, I apologize for being late. I forgot about construction and trouble parking.
The Chair: Better luck on the trip home.
Mr Ireland: It's always faster.
1040
LORNE MITCHELL
The Chair: Our next witness is Lorne Mitchell. Lorne, would you like to take a seat? Welcome to the committee. Mr Mitchell is an intended appointee as a member of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors. He was selected for review by the government party. Mr Wiseman will begin the questioning.
Mr Wiseman: Thanks for coming; it's nice to see you. Could you tell us a little about what the northern Ontario heritage fund is in fact to do and how you feel you'll be able to contribute to the success of its mandate?
Mr Lorne Mitchell: It's my understanding that the heritage fund board is to provide assistance for local economic initiatives in northern and northwestern Ontario, community-based. I've been involved in community developments since 1985, involved in the Metis and Non-Status Indian Association and now as the general manager for the Metis and Aboriginal Development Corp. We're involved in creating alternative economies to work towards economic development and self-sufficiency in our community. The heritage fund board, as far as I understand it, is put in place to provide support to projects such as these and others that may come forward.
Mr Wiseman: Could you describe what ideas you might have about creating alternative economies in the north?
Mr Mitchell: You look at the resources that are available and how you utilize them and how you manage and co-manage them. We've taken control of resources in our community, which are wild blueberries, cranberries and, in future years, probably different types of mushrooms that are edible. We harvest and market them fresh and also frozen, the blueberries mainly in Winnipeg; the city of Winnipeg is our main market. We have a frozen market in Parry Sound with Crofters organic foods and also the jam plant that is now under construction in Perrault Falls.
Mr Wiseman: How would this fund assist the kind of endeavour you're talking about?
Mr Mitchell: It assisted us in putting in place a freezer and cooler facility in the town of Wabigoon. Last season we could have harvested 50,000 to 60,000 pounds of blueberries had we had this facility in place, but we had to shut down operations for lack of capability of retaining any volume or product. Of course this year, with the weather the way it has been, it was a total washout, but next year we're looking at building to where we're in volumes of 50,000 to 60,000 pounds.
Mr Wiseman: You said this year was a washout. How much did you get this year?
Mr Mitchell: Basically, the amount of product that was available didn't justify a viable commercial operation, so the operation was shut down quite early.
Mr Wiseman: Could you perhaps give us some of your history of your involvement in the community?
Mr Mitchell: It began in February 1985, when I was elected the president of the association. We started from a converted chicken coop and a $14,000 deficit to now owning and managing a $500,000 cultural centre which receives no outside injection of cash anywhere, public or otherwise. It's totally self-sufficient.
In 1989 we formed the Metis and Aboriginal Development Corp to work towards creating an economic base for the community and work towards becoming even more self-sufficient as a community and as a people, where we have in excess of 90% unemployment and welfare. This is my third year as general manager, but now I'm under a contract from the parent association, as it was very difficult to run as the president and also act as the general manager for the business corporation.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. I think one of my colleagues wants some time.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I get the feeling that you're interested in small-scale, sustainable developments rather than what you might call the big industrial things. I just wondered what your perspective is on the prospect of more hydroelectric developments in the north. I know we've got quite a few already, but there's a question as to whether the Moose River basin should be developed further, and I think there's one on Little Jackfish River and so on. In light of what you tell me about that, what do you feel about power supplies and whether there might be other ways in which industries in the north could be powered, maybe through solar energy, use of biomass, vegetable material, that kind of thing? Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Mitchell: My main interest has been working with our development corporation and also the alliance we have formed, working towards the initiatives I spoke about. I haven't really been involved with the evolution of Ontario Hydro and its intentions in the north. I've heard different discussions and different views from different people, depending on where you live, about putting a dam in an area where it's going to flood a resource; for example, if Ontario Hydro wanted to put a dam in, say, where our harvesting sites may be and flood the whole thing.
Ms Carter: So it can damage the kind of enterprise you're involved in.
Mr Mitchell: It could be devastating to the environment, yes, and living in the present-day economy, being held ransom by multinational corporations, I think that's the end, because how long can these corporations continue supporting the grass-roots people?
Ms Carter: So you'd be interested in things like solar cells and so on that would give you the ability to have power in your own areas that would be independent.
Mr Mitchell: I would think there would be alternatives to supply the need for the hydro or whatever else, provided people want to take the energy to look into it, I guess.
The Chair: Any additional questions?
Mr Waters: Yes. I work with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, so I would ask if you have any ideas on how you would enhance tourism and recreation through the heritage fund. Certain areas of the north aren't doing too badly in that, but there are a lot of outlying areas, probably your home town as well as some of the little, wee places here and there, that really need a helping hand.
Mr Mitchell: Definitely, especially in the smaller towns where there are very few activities at the present time. Certain initiatives have been taken in certain areas to put in recreational facilities. To my knowledge, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has been an active player in northwestern Ontario and the north in attempting to provide these services that I think are vital to the community for both the youth and the elders.
Mr Waters: I'm curious about the blueberries. I represent Muskoka, and we have, shall we say, many blueberry stands throughout Muskoka. Obviously the days of picking blueberries in Muskoka are pretty much gone, so I'm assuming they're your blueberries that come in for the most part. Being next to Parry Sound, I imagine that's where they would come from. I'm curious about how you do it. Is it still done by hand?
Mr Mitchell: It's all handpicked. Blueberries are wild. They're not cultivated in any shape or form. It's also certified organic by the Organic Crop Improvement Association. We formed our own Anishnawbe chapter of the OCIA, of which I am president, to ensure there are no pesticides or chemicals whatsoever that go into that product; any product that gets overseas in the alternative trade organization we are involved with throughout the world is 100% guaranteed that there is no use of pesticides or fertilizers in our product.
1050
Mr Waters: So although they grow wild, you actually do try to, shall we say, keep the patch?
Mr Mitchell: That's correct. There is an enormous amount of paperwork that goes into ensuring that in fact these are certified organic, but we ask a premium price for the product and, if you want to play the game, play by the rules. A lot of the European countries insist that the OCIA stamp is on every box or container or jar that goes into the European market.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Waters. That concludes the time allocated.
Mr Grandmaître: I can recall back in 1988, when the corporation was created, the main purpose of the corporation was to diversify northern Ontario. Do you think this corporation has fulfilled its mandate?
Mr Mitchell: I don't think any corporation or system that's put in place ever fulfils its mandate. I'm not going to live long enough to fulfil mine, but I think it has certainly made an attempt in that area to work with the communities and individuals at least to start to diversify the economy of the north and northwestern Ontario.
Mr Grandmaître: A lot of critics of the program when it was first instituted back in 1988 and even today are criticizing the corporation for acting as a bail-out agency. Do you agree with this?
Mr Mitchell: It certainly hasn't bailed us out in any way. I can't speak too much on a bail-out situation. I haven't seen that in my involvement with the corporation.
Mr Grandmaître: When you look at the figures from 1988 to 1991-92, just to give you an example, the number of projects in 1991-92 was 261 as compared to 191 in 1990-91, yet in 1991, $375 million was invested in different projects and in 1992 only $101 million was invested. That's a decrease of $275 million.
Do you think we should have done more for northern Ontario? Because you've only protected jobs, you've only maintained jobs; you haven't created too many new jobs in northern Ontario, and that's the purpose of the corporation: to create jobs and to create new programs. Yet the corporation hasn't done this. It's maintained 3,000 jobs, and that's it, so it must be a bail-out if it's only maintaining jobs instead of really creating jobs in northern Ontario, because you are really affected when it comes to unemployment.
Mr Mitchell: Certainly we are. But I think the corporation was set up to enhance the various areas and different communities, in this case, northwestern Ontario and the north.
The decisions on what happens in these areas and what resource is going to be utilized I think remains a decision of the people who live in these communities. Corporations, I think, are set up to assist the different structures and infrastructures that are going to be put in place in these different communities.
I don't think anybody sitting in a corporation or on a board or anywhere else can wave a magic wand and pass a miracle policy that's going to fix everything. I think people have to be given at least an alternative to the way they're living now, especially if they're living on very low incomes, as a lot of people are: unemployment and welfare. I think it takes time to initiate certain projects in certain communities based on what the people there decide to do.
At the present time, a lot of our economy is based on what the multinationals are doing; $50 million was just pumped into a mill in Dryden. It shut down for two weeks last month, and in October, 56 people going to be laid off permanently. So what did that $50 million do?
Mr Grandmaître: I realize that you can't shake a magic wand and create new industries. I realize this, but my biggest concern is that over last year, this government spent -- I shouldn't say "spent," but its total investment budget was $275 million down. Instead of creating jobs, they spent less money, $275 million less.
Mr Mitchell: Again, I can only speak on where I'm coming from, what's been my involvement in the last seven years, my understanding of where the grass-roots people are, what the situation is in my communities and what we're planning on doing to change them.
Like I say, everything you put on paper doesn't fly. I think that more work has to be done in the communities, at the community level, with the people who reside in these communities if we're ever going to come out or change anything that's existing today. Whether you talk $200 million or $100 million or whatever, a lot of the time money isn't the issue when you're talking about community building and building a better quality of life for the people who are in these communities.
Mr Grandmaître: But you'll agree with me that you have to invest money if you expect this corporation or these programs to be successful. Now that you will be a member of the corporation, what are your thoughts on improving those programs?
Mr Mitchell: Basically, I don't intend to change anything I have been doing in the last seven years, and that's working with the grass-roots people, building on their initiatives, building on their decisions and working with them to help create a better quality of life for them and our children to follow. That's what I'm all about, and I don't intend to change that in any way, shape or form, except to maybe bring new ideas to the board, new initiatives, new ways to approach different issues and policies; whatever it takes to fulfil the mandate, as you say, of the corporation.
Mr Grandmaître: One last question: Do you think this government or previous governments -- go back 20 years if you want to -- have been fair in their investments in northern Ontario?
Mr Mitchell: I haven't been keeping up with the government for 20 years.
Mr Grandmaître: Ten years, then.
Mr Mitchell: From my understanding of, as I said, how the economy works and how the system works, I think it's up to me, as a grass-roots representative -- it's up to us to dictate how we want to live and how we want to shape our future. It's not up to the government.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Lorne.
Mr Mitchell: Thank you.
Mr McLean: Whereabouts is your home close to? Is it close to Kenora or Thunder Bay?
Mr Mitchell: It's approximately 200 miles west of Thunder Bay and 100 or so miles east of Kenora. It's in the Dryden area, 20 kilometres east of Dryden.
Mr McLean: Where does the committee meet?
Mr Mitchell: It's my understanding it meets in Sudbury and in various communities in the north and northwestern Ontario.
Mr McLean: How often does it meet, do you know?
Mr Mitchell: Every four to five weeks, approximately, or nine times a year.
1100
Mr McLean: The chicken coop that you converted into a cultural centre, what was the cost of that?
Mr Mitchell: The chicken coop or the cultural centre?
Mr McLean: Well, both of them. What did you pay for the chicken coop?
Mr Mitchell: The chicken coop was basically erected by volunteer labour, and we tore down another building to erect that one in the late 1970s or early 1980s, I believe. So basically it didn't cost anything except for the roofing. The cultural centre, I think it cost in the neighbourhood of $400,000 to build.
Mr McLean: And where did that money come from?
Mr Mitchell: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars came from a native community branch, $65,000 came from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and $65,000 came from cash, borrowed money and donated labour from the association itself.
Mr McLean: So it's all paid for now.
The laundromat business that you were in, did you get a loan to establish that or a grant?
Mr Mitchell: It was grants, loans and cash.
Mr McLean: How much of a grant would you get?
Mr Mitchell: One hundred thousand dollars, and the Royal Bank mortgage of $45,000.
Mr McLean: And the storage facility for blueberries?
Mr Mitchell: We applied to NODC, Northern Ontario Development Corp, for that facility. It was 50% performance grant and 50% loan.
Mr McLean: Does Nordev work in cooperation with the Northern Ontario Development Corp?
Mr Mitchell: Not to my knowledge. Nordev is a federal program, is it not?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Mitchell: Not to my knowledge. They may work together. I have no recollection.
Mr McLean: Your appointment is mainly to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp board of directors. When we see the word "heritage" in there, does that mean that its efforts are mainly directed to maintaining the heritage of the community by way of maintaining the buildings and what you have done in the community?
Mr Mitchell: I guess it could have some part in that, but I don't see the board -- if I understand what you're saying correctly, that it goes to maintaining the upkeep of the cultural centre, I'd have to disagree with that.
Mr McLean: Establishing heritage --
Mr Mitchell: Establishing heritage, establishing different ways that people look at themselves and each other, I think, is more along the lines of what the heritage fund board is supposed to be about.
Mr McLean: I'm just curious about why there has to be a heritage fund corporation board of directors. Do you think it's necessary?
Mr Mitchell: What they're trying to do is bring different people together with their ideas, initiatives and energies to try to make things work more effectively and efficiently for the people of northwestern Ontario, in the north, and on that basis, I would say, yes, we need a board of directors to do that.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Mr Carr: Thank you for appearing, Mr Mitchell. I was interested in the process of how you came about with this. How were you approached regarding this job or did you approach them or how did it happen?
Mr Mitchell: I was approached by our MPP for Rainy River. He's been involved in our community, in the vision of our community, since 1987, and over the years he's been a part, more or less, of the evolution of the community and been involved in the works that I've done, who I represent and how I represent them. I guess he felt that I'd be a likely candidate to sit on the board to represent the people of northwestern Ontario.
Mr Carr: But your involvement with him wasn't political, like you're not a supporter?
Mr Mitchell: Well, not political. I'm not a politician. I'm a grass-roots representative.
Mr Carr: You're not a member then of the NDP?
Mr Mitchell: I'm a member of the NDP, yes.
Mr Carr: How long have you been involved in the politics or the political process? How far back does that go?
Mr Mitchell: I more or less involve myself with the people whom I represent and where I come from and let the politics take care of itself.
Mr Carr: Formally, as a member of the NDP, how long have you been involved with it?
Mr Mitchell: I became a member a couple of years ago, I believe, two years ago. I can't remember exactly when I joined.
Mr Carr: With regard to what you see happening, I noticed that on a couple of occasions you talked about multinationals and problems with that. I was wondering, in terms of specific numbers, how many jobs you see need to be created there and how you are going to see them. Do you have any specific targets of what we should be looking at in terms of the number of jobs created, and where do you see them coming from? I was wondering if you could maybe be fairly specific. I know what you've talked about now is some of the industries, but do you have a real idea and plan of what you would like to see in terms of the number of jobs and how we're going to create them?
Mr Mitchell: Are you talking about our development corporation?
Mr Carr: Yes. How are we going to help your community with the number of jobs we need? You mentioned that a number of people are on unemployment and social assistance. If it was up to you and you could make the decisions, specifically how would you help them if you could? Be as specific as you can.
Mr Mitchell: It's pretty hard to be specific, with an exact number of how many people and how many jobs I want to create. In an average harvest there are 40 to 50 families affected that subsidize their incomes. There's an office worker who's in place on a part-time basis. We have a person who drives a refrigerated vehicle during the harvest and into the rice harvest.
Our future plans are to establish an organic fresh-frozen product in the marketplace. That would include installing a blast freezing facility, and realistically may include up to eight to 10 people working full-time in the facility.
If we can create eight or 10 permanent, full-time positions over the next three, four or five years, and also part-time employment that is created during the harvest seasons and also the benefit that goes to the harvesters themselves, I would think that would be at least a start in the vision I have for the development corporation.
Mr Carr: With some of the money you got that you talked about and some of the grants and so on, you wouldn't have been able -- you talked about the successes you've had. Without that, do you feel you would have been able to do it? In other words, without that, would you have been able to be as successful as you say you have been?
Mr Mitchell: Without the assistance of the NODC, at least for this year there wouldn't have been a freezer and cooler facility in place. So I would say that yes, it had a lot to do with the assistance we did receive through the Northern Ontario Development Corp and, coupled with that, the support we do get from the Royal Bank in terms of putting operating lines of credit in place for purchasing and other things that come up before and during the operations. It all pretty well makes for a successful project. The only things that stopped it this year were the elements and the weather. Those we have no control over -- at least I don't, anyway.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Mitchell. That concludes the questioning. We appreciate your coming down here. It's a long haul from that part of northwestern Ontario. Someone suggested you started out without a moustache, but I know that's not true.
Mr Mitchell: Yes, and by canoe too.
The Chair: It's a long way, but not quite that far. In any event, we certainly appreciate your appearance and wish you well.
Mr Mitchell: I'd like to thank everyone for having me here today. I've enjoyed the questions and I hope you enjoyed the answers just as well.
The Chair: Good luck.
Mr Wiseman: I think you gave us the perspective that we needed.
1110
KEITH HAMBLY
The Chair: Our final witness for this morning is Keith Hambly. Welcome, Mr Hambly. Am I pronouncing that correctly?
Mr Keith Hambly: Yes, that's correct, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Hambly's the intended appointee as the vice-chair of the Ontario Film Review Board. This is a half-hour review, and the review was the selection of the government party, so Mr Wiseman will begin questioning.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to begin by asking you a question about the criteria that will be used, and perhaps you could give us a very brief outline of the criteria that are used to evaluate films.
Mr Hambly: Basically, there's one rule of thumb, I think, in the past few months that I've been on the board that we try to follow: We view each film and each video in its context. It's very easy, I think, to have a knee-jerk reaction, so to speak, when you see a movie or scenes of a movie that are certainly taken out of context.
Legally, we are required to follow the Theatres Act. I could go into great, gory detail, but I think basically we follow the Theatres Act in terms of the violence. Certainly the pornography is a big issue, and in the past few years we have been allowing that type of film through. We follow the Butler decision, the recent Supreme Court decision in terms of degradation, humiliation, as well as respect to minors, and we do not allow those films through.
First-run movies or run-of-the-mill types of movies: Again, we judge by context. We have criteria or standards ranging from family-type movies all the way up to restricted movies, and in each of those movies there are varying degrees of violence, sexual content, if you will, or lack of it.
Language is another criterion. If it's a strong element or a dominant element with the movie, the panel again looks at the movie to determine whether or not that dominant element should be flagged or what we term as flagged, and there are a number of information pieces that the film board has at its disposal, ranging again from coarse language to violence, sexual violence, graphic violence, martial arts violence, mature theme. In a nutshell, those are the criteria by which we judge or rate a movie or video.
Mr Wiseman: Why would anybody want to sit there and view these films? Why do you want to do this?
Mr Hambly: I think it's important. As you probably gathered from my résumé, I am a member of the gay community in this province and I felt it was important. This is why I applied for the position so that there should be some visible representation at least from the gay community on the film board to provide the film board with the perspective of the gay community. That was a big thing for me.
Your question, why would anybody sit through all these movies: That's part of the territory going with this job. You have to accept that and it's the luck of the draw what movies you see on any given day. It could be pretty schlocky videos to first-run movies. It's run of the mill, but every movie and video has to be viewed and rated by a civilian board to provide community input as to what community standards should be vis-à-vis movies and videos. That's the mandate of the film board. It's a tough job, yeah.
Mr Wiseman: My next question is, there's a considerable debate going on and raging among people who are trying to evaluate the impact of violence on the behaviour and attitudes of young people. Do you, as a board, sit down and discuss this material and re-evaluate the way you view films, based on the debate?
Mr Hambly: We continually talk about it, both within our own panels -- our panel is made up of three people: two members and a vice-chair. In the general sense, we do have our regular board meetings where the entire board, including the board chair, sits down and discusses issues. There's also a committee called the issues or policy committee, which I was elected a couple of months ago to sit on, and there we discuss issues such as violence, certainly violence against women, any range of issues that we as representatives of our various publics, if you will, bring to the film board and hopefully discuss in a very thorough manner the pros and cons of whatever the debate may be.
As well, we try to bring in people, and I know the board chair brings in people who are experts or have a certain opinion on various subjects, and that again sparks debate within the board itself. From there, we develop policies or we develop new information pieces or expand on the meaning of violence and what not.
Mind you, there's only so much the board can do. Since I started there, that became abundantly clear. You can't change the world overnight. I think the minister actually said -- I didn't hear her say it, but I heard somebody else say that you can't change Hollywood. We're just one board out of hundreds of boards around the world. Our best job is to inform the public, to make an educated choice as to what movies and videos they see. There's the question of enforcement. What enforcement mechanisms does the board have at its disposal? We leave it up to the politicians to determine that.
Mr Wiseman: I'm going to allow my colleagues to ask questions, but I have another one at the end, if there's time left.
The Chair: Mrs Carter and I think Mr White had a question as well.
Ms Carter: You spoke to some extent about your criteria, but this is a question obviously that's been hashed over a lot and it's one that interests me: where you draw the line. I remember the controversy some time ago about the movie Not a Love Story, which had what you might call an educative function. It was set up to be something very good and useful, but it included material which was to show you the kind of thing you don't want, and therefore the whole thing got banned. I was just wondering how you'd see your way around that kind of situation and also how much you take into account what you might call the artistic merit of a production. For example, Lady Chatterley's Lover was literature; something might be less offensive to some people but of no particular artistic merit. Could you tell us a little bit more about your criteria?
Mr Hambly: In view of films or videos that would be educative, if that's the word we want to use, we have to take that, again, in context and also where this movie's being shown. I was certainly not on the board when Not a Love Story went through, and I think times have changed since then. In fact, I remember seeing it in high school.
I think a more recent debate centred on The Accused, a movie starring Jodie Foster, where there was a very graphic scene of a gang rape. I was not on the panel, and again it was before my time, but the debate centred on what this movie should go as or what rating. Because of the educative value and the forcefulness and the message that the movie was trying to get across, we have to take that in context and review it as such.
We put the appropriate information pieces as best we can on those movies, and again we're just one board, and the panel itself is one panel of three. Each member can call for what we call an accumulative vote, bring the movie back or the video back to be discussed by a larger group of five members, and there the debate sort of expands, if we think it's a movie that would be controversial in that sense. It's more of a judgement call on that.
Also, the film distributors have the right to appeal a decision and they bring it back for an appeal process, at which a new panel views it or a new increased number of panel people view it.
1120
Ms Carter: Would you say that there's a move to discourage violence as opposed to discouraging sexual content, which might be non-violent?
Mr Hambly: As you know, "sexual content" is an information piece we certainly do apply to first-run movies. As you know, adult sex videos are available and passed by the board under the guidelines, not only of the Butler decision but also under the Theatres Act, of what is allowed and not allowed and there are eliminations made or the distributors are requested to make those eliminations. I throw it back to the politicians again. It's a matter of enforcement. We're just one board that would make that decision.
The Chair: Mr White, you have 20 seconds.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm interested in your perspective as a member of a number of gay groups and organizations. Two things: First off, how would a film which in any way depicts male homosexuality be viewed; and second, I'm interested if you have any experience in that regard. For example, there's a film entitled Edward II which has a certain gay background but certainly also has cultural values, being a Marlowe play. What is your perspective there?
The Chair: Very briefly, Mr Hambly. We're over time.
Mr Hambly: First of all, I would view it in its context. That's the number one rule we have. I view it by the criteria that is laid out by the film board and by the information pieces that are at the disposal of the film board. Briefly, that would be how I would judge it and put it in the context and apply the appropriate pieces.
The Chair: There are other questioners.
Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): You've been on the board a period of time?
Mr Hambly: Since January.
Mr Mancini: Have you had a chance to review the difference between how the Ontario Film Review Board and other such agencies across the country work? What would be the major differences?
Mr Hambly: I haven't personally had that opportunity. I would think nobody on the board has, except for the board chair, who has travelled and is required to meet, I would imagine, his counterparts across the country. We do try to keep abreast with what's happening with other boards and jurisdictions and meet with them to exchange information basically. I think that is the sole responsibility of the chair.
Mr Mancini: In trying to keep abreast with how the other boards work, could you tell me what the main differences are between how the Ontario film board and some of its counterparts in other provinces work? Do you know of any major differences that come to mind at the present time?
Mr Hambly: The processes, I think, are very similar. It's a civilian board. Obviously, everybody's aware of Project P within the OPP and the recent court cases revolving around distributors or people who own video stores. I'm aware that happened in British Columbia, but I'm not aware of it happening in other --
Mr Mancini: But you can't tell us this morning about any specific major policy differences between our board and, say, the board in British Columbia or Quebec.
Mr Hambly: Other than philosophical differences, I think Quebec traditionally has allowed a lot more and is a bit more lenient in the sense of its ratings. I think we, as a board, are far more critical and more thorough to a certain extent as to how a rating would affect the general public in terms of its information value and whether we are giving enough information to the public to make a decision.
Mr Mancini: What different responsibilities does a vice-chair have as compared to just a member of the board?
Mr Hambly: The biggest responsibility is to facilitate discussion among the board members. A decision by the chair is usually the last decision made during the discussion. You basically facilitate and weigh the pros and cons of a movie, particularly a borderline movie, between A or restricted. Within a debate after the movie, the other two members are allowed to and will say what they feel about the movie, what things they saw, what things were dominant elements. The board chair will at the end of it enter into the debate and talk about it, "Okay, did we see this, or X or Y? Did we take that into consideration for an information piece? Is it warranted here or is it not warranted?" and also provide as best we can a certain amount of historical background.
Mr Mancini: So basically you chair the meeting?
Mr Hambly: Yes, it's chairing the meeting, basically, as well as doing the paperwork that's involved in it.
Mr Mancini: I'm very concerned about a lot of the unnecessary violence we see in many films and movies, and I was wondering what your opinion on that is.
Mr Hambly: There is a lot of unnecessary violence and what we would call gratuitous violence. Again, I work within the guidelines we presently have, and certainly we are aware of the public's concerns for violence and we are currently in debate about, how can we best provide information to the public to flag them?
Mr Mancini: I'd like to know a little bit about your record, since you have served for a period of time on the board. Are you on a regular basis objecting to this gratuitous violence, or are you on a regular basis nodding approval and letting it go by because there might be some people in the community who might appreciate viewing this gratuitous violence?
Mr Hambly: There is -- I guess it sounds rather facetious in this context -- artistic merit. I would allow it through, yes, but with the appropriate and adequate information pieces that would be available there. As I keep saying, we're always open for more information pieces that would best reflect what the public wants.
Mr Mancini: You see, I'm concerned about that. If you felt the violence was unnecessary and gratuitous, whether it's some type of karate action or whether it's violence against women or children, I was wondering why you would nod approval if you found it didn't meet your own standards, so while we have you there to --
Mr Hambly: Personally, I've not seen any violence, certainly gratuitous violence, against children in any movie, and there are mechanisms within the act that would not allow that, which we're required to cut or make eliminations.
Mr Mancini: I'm not trying to disagree with you at all, but I sat on a committee a number of years ago when we reviewed the work of the film board and we -- Mr Wiseman -- actually went down there and saw some of the cut-outs. We didn't see any of the movies. We saw the cut-outs, which probably wasn't the best way to see things because you have to see everything in its full context, but I'm of the opinion that there is a lot of unnecessary and gratuitous violence.
I don't believe the act really deals with it and I don't believe the act can properly deal with it, and I think that's why the film board is there and that's why we appoint people such as yourself to kind of look at things and make a decision as to whether or not this would meet some type of community standard. So I'm a little bit concerned that you would see violence and maybe personally object to it and then nod approval. I think you're there to do otherwise, and I'd like to know from you whether or not you've rejected any type of violence you've seen during your tenure as a member of the board.
Mr Hambly: I share your concern, but I respectfully say I'm not nodding it through; I'm nodding it through with the appropriate pieces of information.
Mr Mancini: Can you tell us whether or not you've objected --
Mr Hambly: There was one case on which I sat on appeal, I think very soon after I started -- there's a learning curve involved with any board you sit on -- and yes, I was really offended by the amount of violence and the gratuitousness of it, and I voted for --
Mr Mancini: Can you tell us what type of violence that was?
Mr Hambly: It was a slasher movie, sort of like a Friday the Thirteenth type of thing, only much worse, and that is something that really bothered me and it really questioned my own values of artistic merit and what not. I'm on record at that point of not allowing it through. It was an appeal vote of I think five of us on that, and because it was so gratuitous -- and that is frankly the worst I've seen at that board, and that was early on.
1130
Mr Mancini: Is that the only case where you're on record as objecting to extensive violence and also gratuitous violence?
Mr Hambly: Yes.
Mr Mancini: Have your colleagues on the board made objections to this type of violence?
Mr Hambly: Some have, yes. I've not sat with all members on the board in a panel situation.
Mr Mancini: I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the movie that the gentleman officially objected to, so I can't make any comments about that. I don't know if my colleagues have questions. Do you have questions?
The Chair: One minute left.
Mr Mancini: I just want to wrap up very quickly by saying I think your appointment to the board is a very important appointment. Visual impact on all people has a profound influence. There's already far too much violence in our society, and I would hope that you would recall that during your review of these films. It's not necessary to have movies where we have violence for no good reason other than somebody thinks it might appeal to a very narrow group in society.
Mr Hambly: I would also invite the public to make those --
Mr Mancini: I'd like to turn it over to my colleagues.
Mr Grandmaître: One short question: I know it's out of your jurisdiction, but I was somewhat surprised when I was going through my notes last night about the distribution and the production of Ontario films which are being, I guess, prohibited to be viewed in the province of Ontario. Are you familiar with this?
Mr Hambly: Can you expand on that?
The Chair: Sorry, we're over the time. We don't have an opportunity to expand on it. Perhaps the following questioner. Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Thank you for appearing. I notice on your résumé that it says you've canvassed and have coordinated fund-raisers in some of the elections: municipal, provincial and federal. Was that with the NDP?
Mr Hambly: No, actually, it was not.
Mr Carr: Which party would it have been with?
Mr Hambly: I vote and work for the person I think is the best person to represent me in whatever office, whether it's municipal, provincial or federal, and that person may be NDP, may be a Liberal or may be a Tory.
Mr Carr: I'm thinking provincially. Who have you worked for provincially and what was the party affiliation?
Mr Hambly: Who have I worked for? I've worked for both the Liberals and the Tories, actually.
Interjections.
Mr Carr: No, I'm just asking the questions, you guys. Who are the members? Do you remember?
Mr Hambly: The first one I was involved with was Nancy Jackman.
Mr Carr: That was in Toronto?
Mr Hambly: That's right.
Mr Carr: Originally, how did you find out about the job?
Mr Hambly: I knew that any government position is up for applications. Movies are a bit of an interest for me and I was encouraged to apply by a number of people.
Mr Carr: One of the concerns the people have in the community -- I'll give you an example. There was, I guess, a video store that had some things that people were concerned about, and they called the police. The police say the crown has to lay the charges. We spoke to the Attorney General and brought it up. He said it's up to the police to lay the charges, that they can lay the charges if they want. The police say, "No, we usually check with the crown to see if there is another" -- basically handing it back and forth.
Do you believe the police should be able to lay charges on something that you've passed and, say, in the community of Oakville, my area?
Mr Hambly: I find it rather ironic. You have one arm of the government, such as the film board, and then another arm, however distant, the OPP, arresting people or what have you, in this case video store owners, and taking videos allegedly passed by the board. I have not seen these movies and I'm not even sure what things were offensive or "obscene." Personally, I think a civilian board should have the power and the final say in such matters. That is why we are appointed. For better or for worse, we are representatives of the communities in Ontario.
I find it difficult to understand why the police are arresting video owners because they have videos that have been previously passed by the Ontario Film Review Board. I have no objection to people being arrested if there are videos that aren't, or are altered; I don't know if it's in the courts at the moment, I'm not sure. Also, videos like underground videos -- we're all aware of the underground pornography videos that are out there. Most things we never see, particularly the violent stuff. We never see that.
Mr Carr: I was thinking of the ones that were being sold and so on. So you believe you should be the final authority?
Mr Hambly: Yes, if we are to have a civilian board. What's the point of a civilian board if we don't have that type of authority over it? Currently, I think you're well aware that the board itself is being reviewed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.
Mr Carr: Specifically, with your background, coming from the gay community, what concerns or complaints have you got specifically, representing that community, about what's maybe happened? Is there anything in particular?
Mr Hambly: There's an impression, and rightly so, that in the past, particularly for movies dealing with gay content or gay and lesbian content, that they were somehow bumped up on the rating scale or cut in some cases. I'm talking about first-run movies. Somehow the panel was not viewing it in a very objective manner, was letting perhaps some of its biases come through. I haven't seen that yet, because I haven't seen that many, to be honest.
Also, there's a need for a voice from the gay or lesbian community on the government panels, regardless of what government is in power and regardless of what panel. We are a community out there like any other community and one that is increasingly being heard in many different ways. I think the film board is just one more example of that.
Mr Carr: Specifically, on this board how would you apply the gay and lesbian perspective to this position? Specifically, how would you do that? Would it be informing other members? How would you do it?
Mr Hambly: They may have questions about the content of a movie: Does this actually happen in the gay or lesbian community? Or I would add my perspective as to whether people would view something as homophobic or something like that, or even within the discussions, panel discussions to identify rather homophobic statements, which do happen, whether intentionally or not intentionally. That may skew the decision of the panel in terms of how it would rate a movie.
Mr Carr: As you know, one of the concerns that has been raised, and it is along the lines of before, when they talked about police laying charges, is community standards in different areas in communities. If you're saying that you should have the final authority, what happens now?
For example, in the incident I explained to you, they called the police because they were upset, I think mainly because a lot of people don't know the process. How could you see the process being improved and what would you like to see, so that if somebody in Oakville, for example, is concerned about something, rather than calling the police who then say, "We can't lay charges," this back and forth, is there anything we can do to streamline it, to make it so that we have community standards on some of the concerns that have been voiced by some of the members on some of the problems, whether it be violence or whatever? How do you see that happening? The basic problem right now is that the general public doesn't feel like they're being heard. Is there anything you could see being done to alleviate that?
Mr Hambly: I think the best way, in any circumstance where you have that situation of people wandering around and not knowing what's up, is better communications, better information available for the public to have access to, whether that be in first-run movies when they call up -- and sometimes when they call up a theatre, the theatre manager doesn't even know that such and such is R or AA or something like that; they may not know the information pieces.
Maybe they can have some way that we have a better access number or what have you, so that people would have easy accessibility to not only the ratings, but also easy accessibility to the board over its policies, what are the guidelines, and if they are very keen, certainly to come in and talk to us, either as an individual or as a group. That has been done before and continues to be done, and each member --
Mr Carr: Is there a formal process for that to be done now?
Mr Hambly: They obviously would call the minister. That seems to be the first place anybody would call.
Mr Carr: Or their MPP.
Mr Hambly: Or an MPP, or what have you. I would encourage them to contact the board chair or the board itself and arrange for time to come in or for a member to go out and speak to the group.
Mr Carr: But that doesn't happen now.
Mr Hambly: Yes, it does.
Mr Carr: Very regularly?
Mr Hambly: It happens regularly. I've only been invited to go to one. The board chair gets a lot of requests for general information. He usually handles it over the phone. That's enough for that, but if there is a group that wants a meeting, it will get it. We will explain as best we can the process the board makes its decisions in, the legal guidelines we have to follow and all that sort of thing.
Mr Carr: One of the problems with what's happening now, and specifically, when you're saying you feel the board should have the final authority, the big problem is almost like a politician's. How do you keep in contact? Right now we do it because most of us -- and I'm not saying it's the same thing -- have regular meetings on Friday and have regular feedback.
One of the concerns I have is that somebody like yourself comes on the board and doesn't have the regular feedback on what's happening in the community without some type of formal process. It seems, from what you're saying, to be on an ad hoc basis. If somebody complains enough and phones the chairman, he'll handle it over the phone. I'm thinking in terms of a member. Is there anything you think you can do?
Mr Hambly: Members are encouraged to go out to their respective communities, whether it's a geographic location or a representative community, and make themselves available to answer questions or concerns people have. I think that is an obligation a board member takes on when he comes on to the board. I would imagine that goes for any board or commission in this province. It's hard to be all things to all people, as any politician knows.
Mr Carr: Just like politics, although politicians try.
Mr Hambly: I think the basic thing is to open the lines of communication and be more accessible. But at the same time you have to remember this is a board which was filled with part-time people. We have jobs, and that was part of the requirement that most of us -- we may even have a firm footing in the real world, as it were, to have that input and bring that input to the board.
I think there are many ways in which the public can access the board and access the information there. Perhaps it could be better communicated; that's true. I think it's incumbent upon the chair, the board members and the bureaucracy around it as well as, certainly, upon people who are most in touch with the public, those being politicians, to know they can call upon the board to answer questions or for board members to go out to their constituents.
Mr Carr: Thank you. Good luck.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr Hambly. I'm going to stop you at this point. That concludes the review. We appreciate your appearance here this morning. Good luck. That concludes the meeting for this morning. We'll break and reconvene at 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1144.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1402.
DOUGLAS PORTER
The Chair: I bring the meeting to order. Our first witness this afternoon is Douglas Porter, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Board of Funeral Services. Welcome, Mr Porter, to the committee. This is a one-half-hour review, 10 minutes to each party represented in the committee. Your review was at the request of the official opposition, the Liberal Party, and I'll look to Mr Grandmaître to begin the question.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Cleary will start.
Mr Cleary: Welcome, Mr Porter. I understand that you and your family have been in business for many, many years and I understand that you have a lot of experience. I just have a couple of small questions I'd like to ask you.
We've read quite a bit in the newspapers and on television about -- I think they call it The Simple Alternative.
Mr Douglas Porter: That's correct.
Mr Cleary: Would you like to expand on that?
Mr Porter: On what The Simple Alternative is, you mean?
Mr Cleary: Yes, and your feelings about it.
Mr Porter: The Simple Alternative, I'd say, is a minimal type of transfer service for families who wish that type of disposition of the remains. It's something funeral homes have provided for a number of years but of course the homes are not advertising a lot. They haven't advertised that basic type of service. There's a need for it, and I really don't have a problem with it being provided. Our funeral homes have provided it for years, as have many of the other funeral homes in Toronto too.
Mr Cleary: The other thing I'd like to ask you is about the supply of caskets to Ontario. Where do they come from? Are there many of them manufactured in Ontario or do you get them from other provinces?
Mr Porter: Not very many in Ontario. There are a couple of casket companies in Ontario, but the majority of them are out of Quebec and a number of various companies through the United States provide caskets.
Mr Cleary: So a lot of them are coming in from the United States?
Mr Porter: I can only speak for our firm so it's hard to say, but a little less than half of the ones we get would come in from the United States.
Mr Cleary: Do you think that will stay the same, or would there be more now under free trade and all these other agreements?
Mr Porter: It's really difficult to say. The casket companies in the States are fairly large. I know the Ontario casket manufacturers have difficulty competing with them, so if the smaller companies fall by the wayside, I can see more coming in from the States. I don't know that free trade is going to make a lot of difference in it.
Mr Cleary: Do you think the Quebec manufacturers have the same problem as the Ontario ones?
Mr Porter: I think they do. I don't know that much about Quebec. The labour costs I think are a little less. We buy a number out of the two companies in Ontario. There are only a few we get out of the Quebec companies.
Mr Grandmaître: In the early 1980s or late l980s a lot of US firms were buying out quite a number of our establishments in Ontario.
Mr Porter: It was actually a Canadian firm. It was a Canadian firm that was doing the buying then.
Mr Grandmaître: Well, I know in the Ottawa area, three of the funeral establishments are owned by US interests. Is this still going on?
Mr Porter: From what I understand, Louwen, which is the most aggressive buyer at the present time, really isn't doing a lot of buying in Ontario or in Canada. Most of it is in the United States at this time. I haven't heard lately of a lot of interest in Ontario or Canadian firms by any of the three larger buyers.
Mr Grandmaître: Can you tell me what you know about the pre-paid funeral services? If I had an agreement or a contract with an establishment for a pre-paid package, could I walk in there and ask the funeral director or whoever is responsible for the program what the real cost in today's dollars my package would be worth? Let's say I bought it 10 years ago, 15 years ago or whatever.
Mr Porter: Most definitely. Yes, you can have an update of what that package would be, but in most cases the insurance, the pre-paid funeral, would cover the cost. Most funeral homes guarantee the service. Even if they were to give you a cost at this date that was actually a little higher than what was in the package, most of the funeral homes would provide that service for what was in the pre-payment plan.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. So this package -- if I can call it a package -- this pre-paid funeral service, what would be the interest rates gain on these packages or agreements per year? I know it all depends on the market, but what would be the average? Not that I intend to invest my money that way, but --
Mr Porter: There are really two different ways that pre-paid funds are usually held in Ontario. One is through guaranteed funeral deposits, and their rate fluctuates. It's usually comparable to the street rate that people would get on a premium savings account, so it fluctuates up and down with the interest rate.
The other way that funeral homes will hold their trust funds would be in the individual debenture with the bank and it would just be whatever they could buy the debenture for. All the money has to be held in accordance with the deposit insurance.
Mr Grandmaître: In trust.
Mr Porter: So it has to be a security that is cashable and if they bought it, say, on a five-year term, the rate would be whatever that five-year term rate was.
Mr Grandmaître: Is there an auditor, like the province of Ontario, for instance? Does he go in and check your books every so often?
Mr Porter: The Board of Funeral Services goes in and checks the books. Firms are different. We have an audit and our trust accounts are audited, but I know with smaller firms sometimes they're not, just because they don't require an actual audited statement.
Mr Grandmaître: I was going through my notes last night and apparently -- not the compensation fund committee -- the registrar received 21 complaints last year. What kind of complaints would they be from funeral directors? How much would they vary? I'm talking about a serious complaint. What would a serious complaint be?
Mr Porter: Well, professional misconduct could be a serious complaint. Misappropriation of trust funds would be a serious complaint. From what I understand, most of the complaints that come in are ones that really are lack of communication between the people who are involved, but I guess the most serious one we hear lately, other than the one that's been going on with the four funeral homes in Ontario for the last year, is really misappropriation of funds. That's the other largest. Professional misconduct is the one, I think, that's going on right now with the four funeral homes in Toronto.
1410
Mr Grandmaître: One last question. Do you think that you people should be in the tombstone business and also crematoria? Do you think you should be in that kind of business or should it be separated?
Mr Porter: I don't feel that we should be. There is sufficient out there now to provide the public with their needs. Personally, I don't have an interest in the monument business, but I know that in some areas outside of Toronto some funeral homes do get involved, I think mainly because there aren't any monument dealers in their area and they do it just to help the families in their community.
Mr Grandmaître: Do they need special permission to start this type of business?
Mr Porter: I couldn't accurately answer that, but I don't believe they would require any special permission.
Mr Grandmaître: I remember three or four years ago there was quite a hullabaloo about that possibility of funeral directors getting involved in or owning or having part ownership in --
Mr Porter: I think it was really the integration of everything. It was cemeteries, funeral homes, monuments, flower shops, that type of thing.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. This has died down, though.
Mr Porter: I'm sorry?
Mr Grandmaître: It has died down, if I can use that word.
Mr Porter: Well, it has to an extent, yes.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you. Good luck to you.
Mr McLean: I have a few questions, Mr Porter. Can you indicate to us -- you probably have some knowledge of it -- the amount of increase in pre-paid funerals in the last two years? It has been tremendous, I would imagine, has it not?
Mr Porter: There has been a fair growth in dollars just because of the number of dollars that are invested out there from the number of funeral homes, but there has been an increase in the number of people wanting pre-arrangement. It would be difficult to say, but I would say, based on our firm, there might have been a 25% to 30% increase in the number of people who are pre-arranging.
It got thrown out of whack a little a couple of years ago with the GST coming in, because if people pre-paid before a certain period of time they could do it without the GST, and that put a bit of a flurry on.
Mr McLean: The GST -- is that "Get Sick Today"?
Mr Porter: Funerals are charged GST today.
Mr McLean: Have the hearings that are conducted with regard to misconduct increased? There were 25 written complaints referred to the complaints committee in 1991, and the discipline committee had nine hearings on charges of professional misconduct in 1991. Have those numbers increased?
Mr Porter: To the best of my knowledge, not significantly over the years. Not being on the board, I only read what they print in their newsletter.
Mr McLean: What would be the average pre-paid funeral cost: $5,000, $7,000?
Mr Porter: I believe the average, and I really only speak -- I sit on the board of the Guaranteed Funeral Deposits of Ontario. I know the average certificate in GFD is about $3,800, between $3,800 and $4,000.
Mr McLean: So there's a lot of money here. I've noticed in the last while how they have increased and have been marketing the program, and it can involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who is monitoring how that is being established? I know Ben referred to how the interest is paid. That funeral home director could have that money for a month in his own account before the other account is set up, or he could have it six months in another account before that account is set up.
Mr Porter: Yes, that's very true. There is, through the board -- or through government regulations, actually -- legislation that states that the money has to be put into a trust within, I believe, 10 working days of receiving the money and that the family has to be notified that the money has been put in a trust. It is monitored by the board when they do their examinations of the funeral homes' books.
GFD works a little differently in the fact that it's really a third-party holding. The funeral director places the money in trust through GFD, which means that GFD notifies the family that they have received the funds. If the funeral director wants to get the money back out, he has to do it either through a letter from the person who originally made the deposit or the executor of the estate or power of attorney. He can't just draw it.
Mr McLean: Are you an appointment recommended by the funeral directors?
Mr Porter: I believe so, yes.
Mr McLean: Do you know any of the other members on the board at the present time?
Mr Porter: I know Andrew Doyle from Ottawa, and I believe there's a gentleman from Kitchener whom I haven't met before. I've met some of the board members, the funeral directors, on occasion.
Mr McLean: When the act was changed here not long ago, was your organization, the Metropolitan Toronto and District Funeral Directors Association, in agreement with the change that took place with regard to -- I guess there were some problems with regard to the monument part of it. There were some changes, and I was just wondering if those changes were acceptable to your people.
Mr Porter: I think really the main part of the legislation was the separation of cemetery and funeral home, more than monument business and funeral home, but I would say in general, yes, that the majority of the funeral homes were in favour of the legislation as it was set up.
Mr McLean: I wish you luck.
Mr Porter: Thank you.
Ms Carter: We've talked about pre-paid funerals, but I've just pulled a card out of my purse that I carry around. It's the Funeral Planning Association, otherwise known as the Memorial Society that exists in my city. We don't pay, but certain funeral operators have stated that they will give a simple service and so on for a certain rate.
Mr Porter: That's correct.
Ms Carter: There's a kind of ongoing deal. I just wondered how that fits into the scheme of things.
Mr Porter: Memorial societies have been around for a number of years. They started out on the west coast and kind of moved eastward. It's a membership organization. I believe you do pay a small membership fee to belong.
Ms Carter: Yes.
Mr Porter: They do have a contract with a number of funeral homes in different areas that provide, I believe, two types of services, one which is more of an immediate disposition, and one where there's a funeral service and things provided with the family.
Ms Carter: Would that come cheaper than the average, pre-paid type of funeral that you were referring to?
Mr Porter: Would it come cheaper? It possibly might be a little cheaper just because of the way the Memorial Society is set up, their program, what they want. Most funeral homes -- at least ones that I know, anyway -- would provide the same type of services for the same dollars whether or not they were members of the Memorial Society.
Ms Carter: I see. I also wondered how prevalent cremation is. Do most areas have cremation facilities, and if so, how widely are they used?
Mr Porter: Pretty well in Ontario most areas have some accessibility to crematoriums. There has been a significant increase in cremations over the last number of years, more maybe in the Metropolitan Toronto area for various reasons, some because of the land costs. A cremation service is basically a different means of disposition of the remains, so people will quite often still have what we refer to as a traditional funeral, if there's anything that's traditional. Everybody's wishes are a little different. But the cremation is the means by which the body is disposed of after the service.
People do it because they don't want to spend the money for a cemetery lot, which is fairly costly in Toronto. They might have an old family lot, and by having a cremation they can bury the ashes in that lot if they have the right permissions. People talk about it more. It's just become a way that people want to have their final disposition rather than burial.
Ms Carter: There are more of us. It is a way of avoiding taking up land, from that point of view.
Mr Porter: Well, yes.
Ms Carter: Thank you very much.
1420
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to know the difference between a transfer service and a funeral. How do they work? In our notes it says, "The operators of transfer services are limited to collecting the body, placing it in a casket...and taking it directly to the cemetery or the crematorium." I'm not very familiar with how funerals work. What's the difference?
Mr Porter: It's just that a licensed funeral home can provide full funeral services, where they would have services from their facility. They would have embalming, if that's what the families wish, visiting and a funeral service from their facility or from a church.
A transfer service, which The Simple Alternative is that we were speaking of a few minutes ago, goes to the hospital or the place of death, picks the remains up and takes them to the cemetery or the crematorium directly without having any type of visitation or service at the time. Quite often people might have a service of remembrance after the interment has taken place.
Mr Wiseman: Then a funeral home would have an array of skills that are different from just a transfer service.
Mr Porter: They would have the facilities to provide preparation and visiting and things. Transfer services don't have to have those facilities.
Mr Wiseman: Is embalming not automatic?
Mr Porter: No.
Mr Wiseman: You can be buried without being embalmed?
Mr Porter: Yes, definitely. The only time that embalming is required by law is if the remains are being transferred out of Ontario into a country that requires preparation. Quite often the airlines and things like that like to have the body prepared before it's transferred anyway, but there's no law in Ontario that states a body has to be embalmed.
Mr Wiseman: Is there a difference of opinion between the transfer services and the funeral services over what should be allowed? It also says here that the transfer services would like to be allowed to have a stopover for a service. Would that then be encroaching on what the funeral services would be offering?
Mr Porter: Yes, it definitely would, because they would be able to provide services like the funeral homes provide.
Mr Wiseman: So this leads to a difference of opinion between the two forms of service.
Mr Porter: If they were allowed to stop at a church or a facility where they could have a service on the way, then that would be doing what a funeral home can do now, yes.
Mr Wiseman: You say you have to be licensed. What criteria do you have to fulfil to get a licence? What kind of education or courses do you have to have?
Mr Porter: The current course for a funeral director's licence is a two-year term. They take half of it at Humber College with the prescribed number of courses, which would include embalming and funeral directing, some grief therapy and other parts that would be required for a funeral service. Then they spend a year of apprenticeship at a funeral home before they receive their licence.
Mr Wiseman: So a transfer service wouldn't need to do that.
Mr Porter: At this point, I know that under the new act there is provision that there is going to be a licensing process for a transfer service, but I don't believe that's been set up yet.
Mr Wiseman: So we can expect to be lobbied by the people in the transfer services.
Mr Porter: That's possible.
Mr Wiseman: What are the regulations about where you're buried? It has to be in a regulated, licensed cemetery?
Mr Porter: Yes, with human remains; with ashes, there are a number of people who scatter ashes, but I don't believe there's any legislation on that.
Mr Wiseman: On where you scatter?
Mr Porter: Yes, but with a full body burial it has to be in a cemetery.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you. That concludes my questions.
The Chair: Mr Waters, did you have a question?
Mr Waters: I just have one quick one. Coming from small-town Ontario, I never heard of a transfer operator. Are there many of these people around? This is something new to me.
Mr Porter: There are two that are active right now, one being The Simple Alternative, and then there's The Basic Funeral Alternative. The Basic Funeral Alternative is based in Toronto. Both of them are, but I know The Simple Alternative runs outside of Toronto to an extent as well.
There's a difference too because there is a removal service which is really a facility that funeral homes use if they don't have the staff to do transfers from a hospital, so there are really three different ones. There's the funeral service, transfer service and a removal service.
Mr Frankford: So the board you will be on oversees both, or doesn't oversee transfers?
Mr Porter: The board would oversee anything that was to do with funeral services, not cemeteries or monuments. Anything like funeral homes, transfer services and removal services would all come under the Board of Funeral Services, yes.
The Chair: Before we conclude, when we're talking about cremation, it reminds me of a story the former Liberal member Eddie Sargent used to tell -- you've probably heard this -- about the lady whose husband passed away. She had his remains cremated, and she mixed the ashes with marijuana and smoked it and said later that was the best he'd made her feel in years. You may want to take that to the next conference.
Mr Porter: I haven't heard that one before.
The Chair: Mr Porter, thank you very much for appearing here. We wish you well with your new responsibilities.
Mr Porter: Thank you.
PATRICIA O'MALLEY
The Chair: Our next witness is Patricia O'Malley. Ms O'Malley, would you like to come forward and take a seat, please. Welcome to the committee.
Ms O'Malley is the intended appointee as chair of the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board. Ms O'Malley, you were selected for review by the Conservative Party.
There are 10 minutes allocated to each party represented here. We'll begin the questioning with Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: Welcome. Are you with a firm now which is involved in the stock market?
Ms Patricia O'Malley: Sorry? Involved in the stock market?
Mr McLean: Yes. Peat Marwick Thorne. They're in accounting, an auditing firm.
Ms O'Malley: A chartered accounting firm, yes.
Mr McLean: Some time ago we did a review of the Ontario Securities Commission. I believe Mr Wright was probably the chairman of the commission at that time.
Ms O'Malley: Yes.
Mr McLean: He had made some recommendations with regard to the salaries of the senior people. Do you agree with the basic philosophy that they should be made public?
Ms O'Malley: You're speaking about the disclosure of executive compensation?
Mr McLean: That's right.
Ms O'Malley: In public documents?
Mr McLean: Well, mainly corporate executive salaries.
Ms O'Malley: Yes, in the public documents.
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms O'Malley: Within the structure of the Securities Act there are a number of documents that are required to be prepared by a reporting issuer. Financial disclosure, in terms of this board, is dealing more with the audited financial statements and the notes to those statements that would be included in prospectus documents and the continuous disclosure documents that are required to be filed under the act. The kind of information that's disclosed in respect of executive compensation is included in the proxy documents that go to shareholders. So, by rights, that's really not encompassed within financial disclosure.
I guess I don't have a firm view one way or the other. I think the commission itself is trying to come up with the policy that treads a very fine line between protecting the privacy of the individuals and providing full and fair disclosure to the shareholders and investors in the public market. I think that, to a certain extent, some of the calls for disclosure have been driven by our proximity to the United States market. The Securities and Exchange Commission in the States has different disclosure rules, so in the past, people have been able to find out more about the compensation of Canadian executives from their US filings than from the Canadian ones. We are going to see more disclosure, I believe. I'm not sure it's going to go as far as the US rules.
Mr McLean: Would your advisory board be looking at insider trading?
Ms O'Malley: No.
1430
Mr McLean: They don't look at that aspect at all? I'm curious about some of the things that have happened over the years, where young lawyers would get on the board of the commission, they would work for two or three years for the commission, then all of a sudden they would leave and go to work for a law firm dealing with brokerage firms, advising clients on how to negotiate, I would presume. But the thing that always bothered me was that those people on that board and commission could trade on the market the same as you and I could. Why is that allowed?
Ms O'Malley: I believe they can, after. To the best of my knowledge, there are rules for the staff of the commission, while they are staff, that severely restrict their ability to trade in any securities on the public market in the same way as I, as an independent auditor. When you say as freely in the market as you and I can, you may be free to trade in the market, but the list of securities that I'm not allowed to trade in, because they're clients of my firm, is that deep. We send out notices to our partners and staff every week about changes in that list in order to maintain our independence from all of the public companies and their affiliates.
It's fair to say that certainly the staff of the commission has an independence rule that's very similar to, or in fact may be even stricter than, that of the accounting profession, which is pretty strict already. I don't believe that they would be allowed to trade in any of that stuff with insider knowledge at all.
Mr McLean: Who does the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board look at?
Ms O'Malley: We don't look at anybody.
Mr McLean: Then what's the purpose of the board?
Ms O'Malley: The board is there essentially as a sounding board or, as its name implies, an advisory board to the accounting staff at the commission. The Ontario Securities Commission is regulating, as you know, the largest capital market in Canada. The office of the chief accountant of the commission was created only five or six years ago. There are only four accountants in that office of the chief accountant. They are, in fact, consulting people within the commission for all the lawyers and other accountants on staff at the commission.
The financial disclosure requirements in the act are substantial. The amount of information that public companies or reporting issuers are required to file on the market is large. There are a lot of policy questions. I look at it as sort of evening up the sides. When the commission is looking at a reporting issue or its financial statements and believes, for instance, that they may not be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or there's something that they don't like, there are four of them; but the issuer has all of its corporate financial reporting staff and all of its advisers from its auditing firm.
Certainly, if I'm dealing with one of those tough questions, I can walk down the hall or pick up the phone and call 20 of my partners like that. They don't have all that many people to talk to. Essentially, what the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board does for the staff of the commission is give them that same opportunity to bounce ideas, to test concepts, to develop policy.
Mr McLean: Is it an advantage to your firm to have one of them, as you, appointed to the advisory board?
Ms O'Malley: I don't know, frankly.
Mr McLean: Then why are you applying for the position?
Ms O'Malley: I didn't actually apply. They asked me if I would let my name stand. After a discussion with my partners about whether or not that was an excessive time commitment on my part, the firm said, "Yes, I suppose you can if you really want to."
Mr McLean: Is this an appointment as an accountant, recommended by the accounting association?
Ms O'Malley: As an accountant, yes; but, no, I was approached by the chief accountant of the commission to ask whether I would be prepared to serve on the board.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Mr Carr: Are you familiar with Bill 150 that just went through the Legislature?
Ms O'Malley: Sorry, I don't know the numbers.
Mr Carr: It's the employee ownership. During that discussion before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, there was some concern about what was going to happen with some of the disclosure, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on it. Obviously, you don't.
Ms O'Malley: No, I haven't seen it. I noticed that in the commission's annual report this year, they specifically mentioned that a certain amount of the attention of staff had been devoted to that issue, but I am not -- we haven't met yet.
Mr Carr: I know there was a great deal of discussion of how a disclosure will happen with that; like what usually happens when bills are pushed through without thinking that far down in detail. I suspect you may get asked on that, and I wondered if you had any thoughts on it, obviously without having read it. When you get appointed, you will probably be asked to comment on it. You may want to brush up on that before the first meeting because that's maybe on the agenda.
Ms O'Malley: So far it's not, but given that the staff have indicated in the annual report that that's something they've been devoting a fair amount of time to, it may very well be.
Mr Carr: It is complicated. If you've read the annual report, how we're going to make the financial disclosure of that appear to be aboveboard and so on is going to be very difficult. I looked at your résumé with your background and many years and awards and so on. This may be one where they need to go outside and say: "This is something different. How are we going to do it?"
Ms O'Malley: In terms of policy areas, that's one of the things the commission uses the advisory board for. For instance, there's a program under way right now. The Ontario Securities Commission belongs to something they call the Canadian Securities Administrators, which is an interprovincial group. They have a chief accountants' committee and the chief accountants of the various commissions sit on that, and they are busy reviewing all the national policies. All the national policies go out in draft in the weekly bulletins circulated for comment, but despite the fact that we haven't had a meeting of the committee yet they are using the committee to run those pre-draft policies for comment, I guess I could say, before they are actually published.
Mr Wiseman: I'm just a little curious about how all of this works; it's kind of a new area. If a company is going to put out an issue, the Ontario Securities Commission will review the prospectus in order to understand and to make sure that all the information in that prospectus is accurate. Is that correct?
Ms O'Malley: I think what they're looking for in that review is to ensure that all the information required by the act and the policies is there. It's difficult for staff to ensure that the information is accurate. That's why there are a whole pile of experts involved in the process. There's material within a public offering document that they call "expertised," so that, for instance, the financial statements or the financial information has involvement by independent public accountants. If there are things like geological surveys or something like that, you'll have opinions from geologists who are qualified to opine on that kind of stuff.
So to the extent that the information is factual, they'll be looking for accuracy, but much of the discussion talks about the company and its business and its plans, and what's required is -- I think the phrase is "full, true and plain disclosure." But when it's not facts, it can't be as precise, as accurate. True, yes; accurate --
Mr Wiseman: In other words, what has been reviewed has been reviewed by the necessary bodies that are outlined in the legislation, and therefore somebody buying that particular stock can be assured that accountants and geologists and all these people have looked at it --
Ms O'Malley: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: -- and therefore the information that they have certified is certifiable to the best of their ability, which leads me to my next question. Are all the stocks, all the prospectuses put into the market reviewed by the Ontario Securities Commission?
1440
Ms O'Malley: Well, there is a system they call the prompt offering system, where the largest issuers put on file what is called an annual information form, and that information is reviewed once a year. What that allows them to do is to go to the market much more quickly because they don't have to go through the full prospectus process. But the information is all reviewed. It may not all be reviewed as one document, because they're allowed in the prospectus to incorporate by reference a pile of other material that's been filed with the commission, but it's all looked at at one time or another; it may not all be looked at as part of the prospectus.
Mr Wiseman: Under what circumstance would the advisory committee, the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board, be asked to make comment on that? Or would they?
Ms O'Malley: Basically, the board is used and members of the board are used where there is a difficult accounting or disclosure issue, when the staff of the commission may have reviewed a document, either a continuous disclosure document, an ongoing annual report or something like that, or a prospectus document, and they're uncomfortable with an accounting treatment or they're not satisfied with the disclosure or something. They'll call people up and bounce it off and say: "Here's the set of facts. Do you think this is the right treatment?" or, "Do you think that is adequate disclosure?" It's basically an opportunity to consult.
Mr Wiseman: Could one of these pension funds or the employer ownership or the Ontario investment fund, if it ever gets up and running, or the labour-sponsored venture capital fund, if it ever gets up and running, ask the advisory board to do a disclosure statement on one of the prospectuses that was before them by you, or does it have to come from the other end?
Ms O'Malley: I believe that in the past, anyway, the board has generally been consulted by the staff when they have an issue. If there are concerns raised by the public, they generally go to the inquiries part or the compliance division or the enforcement division at the commission. Certainly there have been situations, and some of them were spectacular financial frauds, in the past few years. I'm thinking in particular of NBS, National Business Systems. The review of those financial statements was initiated by financial analysts phoning the staff. Then the staff, because there are so few of them, brought in outside help to help them look at both the financial statements and the actual audits that had been done in that case. So it's a way of finding help.
Mr Wiseman: Are there any changes that you think should be introduced into the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board other than maybe a greater disclosure of remuneration for board directors?
Ms O'Malley: At the moment it probably works reasonably well. I think we could probably help more, and I think to a certain extent the board in the past has been perhaps more reactive than suggesting change. That, I think, is because it existed long before the office of the chief accountant was created within the commission. They had an office of general counsel long before they had an office of the chief accountant, and now there is more to work with within the commission itself. I think the board could offer more suggestions than simply being there as a committee to have things bounced off.
Mr Wiseman: So you'd like to see it a little more proactive.
Ms O'Malley: And I think we can probably work with the staff in the office of the chief accountant to do that. We're having an awful lot of difficulty trying to get the first meeting arranged because of all the hearings and things that are going on at the commission, but I think that's something I would like to see discussed at the meeting we're planning for October.
Mr Wiseman: Do any of my colleagues have questions? No. Thank you.
The Chair: We'll move on to Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: If I can follow up on the salary disclosure, in Canada, as you know, executives don't have to disclose their salaries, whereas in the States the laws are much more stringent than in Canada. Do you think our executives should be compelled by government legislation to reveal their salaries?
Ms O'Malley: As I said before, I think there are a couple of competing policy issues in that whole debate, one of which is a privacy issue with respect to the individual and the other an investor issue. To a certain extent, certainly in following some of the kinds of things that have gone on in the US debate, I think there is a legitimate right of investors and shareholders to demand accountability from the people who are running the company they've invested in.
I think to a certain extent some of the disclosures and the kinds of things that are being suggested in enhancing the US disclosure which the SEC is proposing will help to do that. On the other hand, there is a lot of disclosure that is made fairly sensational by the financial and other press. Some of that I would characterize as -- well, I said "sensational" and that's probably sufficient; people who are just looking at the numbers and really have no reason to hold those people accountable for their performance. I think what people are trying to get at is a legitimate relationship between performance and the total compensation package.
Mr Grandmaître: You referred to accountability. Politicians are supposed to be accountable in Ontario to 10 million people. Try your luck, try and find out what an assistant deputy minister or a deputy minister -- a minister you can find out -- makes in the province of Ontario. You won't be able to find out. I find this somewhat ridiculous, when we say we're accountable and yet we won't reveal the salaries of a deputy minister. They'll give you a range of salary between $110,000 and $160,000, but they won't give you an accurate figure. Do you think this is right, for a government to promote accountability and it won't even disclose its deputy ministers' salaries or anybody's salary, even Hydro?
Ms O'Malley: It's interesting that you talked about the ranges, because that is my understanding of the direction and the way the commission is going. In the US there are tables that break down the pieces, the components, of the compensation. I think we're talking about dealing with totals and we're also talking about dealing with a number of people. The question I always ask is, why is it really important for somebody to know the exact number?
Mr Grandmaître: Well, they're spending taxpayers' dollars.
Mr Mancini: It makes good talk over a cup of coffee.
Mr Grandmaître: Remo, take over.
1450
Mr Mancini: I want to say that I have no problem with Ms O'Malley's appointment to this committee. I think she's highly qualified and I think you'll do an excellent job in your appointment as chair.
I'd like to follow up on some of the comments my colleagues have made, because I believe your position of chair of the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board is going to have an impact on some of the decisions that are made about financial disclosure of top executives and whether exact salaries should be disclosed, and I have a couple of other questions after that.
I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but you are taking the position, you're going to have to address the issue, and this committee should have the privilege of knowing your views on this matter now that you're before us. Having looked at your résumé and having seen just how professional and extensive your background is, I would be less than honest with myself if I believed that you did not already know substantially what your position is on this matter.
I think that we, as members of the Legislature who are going to endorse the government's proposal that you be the chair of the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board, should have the privilege of knowing your views on this matter. To be very succinct, do you support the disclosure of salaries of executives in the private sector here in our province?
Ms O'Malley: When you say salaries, do you mean the total of the executive compensation?
Mr Mancini: Yes.
Ms O'Malley: By individual?
Mr Mancini: Yes, by name.
Ms O'Malley: No.
Mr Mancini: You do not? All right. So we got that answered.
Ms O'Malley: That's my personal opinion. If they ask me, that's what I'm going to tell them.
Mr Mancini: All we want is your views today. We don't want anyone else's. Having said no to that, what would you be prepared to recommend in your capacity? I'd like you to be very specific, please.
Ms O'Malley: If the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board is consulted about this issue -- and I have no reason to believe it will be --
Mr Mancini: You may be surprised.
Ms O'Malley: I think the proposals Chairman Wright has already made are a reasonable compromise between what I've already mentioned, that there are two competing public issues here. I think there is a need to compromise and I think a compromise has been proposed which the commission is probably going to implement in its requirements and then it'll see how that works. If it's not sufficient, there will be, I expect, a call for greater accountability from shareholder-activist kinds of groups who will call their managements to account and pressure the commission for more disclosure.
Mr Mancini: Okay. What are your top three priorities?
Mr O'Malley: I don't know that I actually have any specific priorities.
Mr Mancini: What three things are important to you that you want to get at as chair of this board?
Ms O'Malley: I think our role, as I said, I think we can --
Mr Mancini: What are three things you want to comment highly upon?
Ms O'Malley: I want to be as helpful as we possibly can be to the staff of the commission in fulfilling their responsibilities within the commission. That's what we're there for. If there are other items, policy issues we see, we will suggest them to the commission for action.
Mr Mancini: So as of this time, you have no items that you think need to be addressed? Are you telling me and this committee that your chairmanship is going to be one of: "We'll give advice only when we're called upon and we'll respond only when we're asked. On our own, of course, we're not going to take any initiative to pass what we consider to be valuable pieces of information and advice to the Ontario Securities Commission"? Is that what you're telling us your attitude is going to be?
The Chair: I'll jump in here, Mr Mancini; I'll give you an opportunity to respond to that, though. Would you like to respond to that briefly?
Ms O'Malley: I already said that I believe in the past that has basically been the way the board has functioned, simply because by and large there was no one in this commission to provide that advice to until the office of the chief accountant was created. I think you need to understand that by and large the Ontario Securities Commission is full of lawyers and has been for years.
Mr Frankford: What can you do?
Ms O'Malley: You said it. The accounting people within the compliance area and corporate finance basically had no one within the structure of the commission to talk to. The board was there to advise the commission.
Now there's senior accounting staff and the role of the board is developing. I think there probably is an opportunity for us to provide suggestions about where they might go, but don't forget that because of the way the securities regulation is organized in this country, an awful lot of coordination has to take place between the provinces and with the agreement, the multijurisdictional disclosure system --
Mr Mancini: Can I --
The Chair: No, you can't. I'm sorry; you've concluded. Thank you very much, Ms O'Malley.
Ms O'Malley: You're welcome.
The Chair: We appreciate your appearance here today. We wish you well.
SUSAN MEYER
The Chair: Our next witness today is Susan Meyer. Would the witness come forward, please, and take a seat here. Welcome to the committee, Ms Meyer. Ms Meyer is an intended appointee as a member of the Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario. You were selected for review today by the Conservative Party. There's a 10-minute allocation to each party, and we will begin with Mr Carr.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for appearing. I was interested in the reason that you'd like to become involved. Do you have any thoughts on why you would like to?
Ms Susan Meyer: My experience goes back for probably about 12 years working with people who have had trouble accessing one system or another. Eventually I've ended up going with either my young mothers, when I was working with children's aid, or my probation after-care clients, when I was working for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or in my experience with the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario, with a woman who is in one stage or another of her pregnancy and helping that person to access hospital care, nursing care, care from a physician.
The people who I didn't actually actively go with I heard a lot about the system from. I felt that now is a good time for me to use my experience and try and affect one college or another, so I applied.
Mr Carr: With your background -- it says here you are a board member at the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario -- do you see that as your area of specialization? What would you like to see happen? Do you have any idea, obviously with the experience in that area, where would you like to see us go in this province?
1500
Ms Meyer: With midwifery?
Mr Carr: Yes, in that area.
Ms Meyer: I'm applying to the College of Nurses.
Mr Carr: Yes. I'm just interested in where you see them going.
Ms Meyer: With midwifery? Well, the midwifery task force, which is a consumer-based organization, has presented several briefs to the Ministry of Health of the Ontario government, and those basically outline our vision for maternity care as provided by midwives. The proposed legislation under the Regulated Health Professions Act that's going to be coming in some time in the next year or so answers most of our concerns about midwifery care.
Mr Carr: Right now, what do you see as some of the areas of concern with the Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario? Do you have any areas of concern with the way things are running now? What would you like to see changed in that area?
Ms Meyer: I have had an opportunity to observe only one council meeting -- well, two council meetings actually, because one day was the end of one and the next day was the beginning of the new council. In fact the projects that the College of Nurses is working on now seem to be very future oriented, very progressive.
The main thing that I would like to ensure as a member of the public on the College of Nurses' council is that consumer interests, members of the public's interests and safety and access issues -- not just safety, but sort of an autonomy within the system -- are protected, as is in the spirit of the legislation. I see that the College of Nurses is very much trying to do that itself, so I'm hoping it will be possible to work without too much conflict towards that goal.
Mr Carr: You haven't been involved in politics, a member of a political party?
Ms Meyer: No.
Mr Carr: As you know, right now the whole issue of health care in this province is under a tremendous amount of pressure. Is there anything else you would like to see done? In other words, with this committee -- and I guess sometimes you have to put modesty aside here -- what do you think you can bring to the college in terms of your skills that would be helpful?
Ms Meyer: My most recent involvement with the midwifery task force has exposed me to concerns from people around the province, so I've gained a fairly good grasp of the northern issues, native North American concerns, francophone women. I'm none of those, but they've talked to me, so I have a feel for what the college has taught. I'm not going in as a neophyte. I understand what they're talking about when they start talking about these concerns and issues.
Also, I'm quite familiar with the new legislation that's coming in and with the fact that all the professions are having to reformulate their regulations and their scope of practice. So in terms of a knowledge base, I feel that I'm coming to the college with some knowledge. They don't have to teach me everything.
As my history shows, I have had a long history of being more than willing to advocate for the members of the public and willing to speak up and at the same time appreciate the problems within the system. I've worked with the Ontario Hospital Association in putting on a conference and I've worked with the Association of Ontario Midwives in trying to set standards and regulations and models of practice which are reality-based, as well as what consumers would like to have if we had all the money in the world to pour into the system.
Mr McLean: I have a couple of questions, Susan. The nurses in Ontario have a long-standing problem that they've anticipated would be rectified by now, and that is the input they have within the hospital. Do you feel that the nurses have enough say in dealing with the overall operation of the hospital?
Ms Meyer: No, I don't. I don't feel that members of the public do either, but I don't feel that nurses have enough say, no.
Mr McLean: The recommendation some time ago was that there had to be some nurses on the internal board that makes the decisions. My knowledge that I understand is that there have not been many appointed. Do you know what has happened?
Ms Meyer: I'm sorry, I don't know. As I said, I'm just coming in and I am not fully aware of everything that's happened with that.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar at all with the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991?
Ms Meyer: Yes.
Mr McLean: What does it indicate in that act with regard to the nurses' availability of performing more professional duties?
Ms Meyer: It's my understanding there's a scope of practice outlined in there which was the one proposed by the College of Nurses and that they received everything they had asked for under their scope of practice except the management of labour.
It's my understanding that the Public Hospitals Act is being reviewed and the constitution of committees and so on within hospitals will be discussed under that act, and that presentations are going on across the province now. I don't think anything has yet been decided.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar at all with how a hospital would work with the administrator and the doctors on staff and all that?
Ms Meyer: I've seen many flow charts, yes. I haven't got them indelibly in my memory.
Mr McLean: The concern I have had over the years is that sometimes the administration at the hospital runs it and a lot of people don't have much say, including the medical profession and the nurses and the other maintenance people who work within that hospital. I hope that in your duties, you'll be looking at the overall administration of some of those because I have a feeling it needs to be looked at.
Mr Frankford: You initially applied to be on the midwifery body.
Ms Meyer: Yes, I did.
Mr Frankford: You're now going on to the College of Nurses and you're obviously a strong advocate of midwifery.
Ms Meyer: Yes.
Mr Frankford: Do you see any possible conflicts? I guess midwifery has not been fully set up yet, although the legislation has passed. But I think the nurses had some concerns about midwifery legislation. They wanted to feel it was part of what they were doing. Do you have any comments and do you see any conflicts in them and also in your role?
Ms Meyer: This was something I considered very carefully when I was asked if I would consider being on the College of Nurses instead of the transition council for midwifery. I thought about it a lot and I can understand how people might see that there might be a conflict, but when I come down to the nitty-gritty of what the conflict might be, I have difficulty sort of grasping it.
The organization that I'm involved with, that I sit on the board of, is the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario. It is a consumer-based, user-based organization. The bulk of our members are people who have had midwifery care or who believe that midwifery care is important or who would like to have midwifery care in the future.
I'm not a midwife. I'm not on the Association of Ontario Midwives' board. In terms of a conflict of interest, for instance, if I were working on the regulations -- I mean, I think it's passed because basically the nurses, unless they want to reopen their scope of practice under the health professions act, have more or less accepted that unless they are working in an outpost position they would not have management of labour.
In fact at one point there was quite a lot of acrimony between the nurses and the midwifery movement in terms of autonomy and this is one more profession we'll have to answer to and so on. But I think the reality is that there are going to be so few midwives in the province and they're going to be so scattered and so busy that nursing really isn't threatened by midwifery. I have a very strong feeling that is the way the Council of the College of Nurses of Ontario is feeling about midwifery right now too.
1510
There is a place in the college guidelines which outlines conflict of interest. Basically, if you've found yourself in a conflict of interest situation, there are three routes open to you. The one that I would probably choose is to remind them that I am involved with the midwifery task force and say for myself whether I felt this was a conflict and let them choose whether I should perhaps sit back from this issue. But maternity care is such a small aspect of nursing as a whole, I don't really feel that it would affect my ability to be a consumer or public representative on that council.
Mr Frankford: Just to follow up on that, the organization and payment of midwifery is still very much up for discussion. If the organization and payment for midwives is the same as for nurses, which is essentially within a hospital setting, on salary -- if it's different, then wouldn't that have at least the possibility of creating some difficulties or at least the nurses would be asking for the same sort of conditions regarding payment, autonomy?
Ms Meyer: How are nurse practitioners paid?
Mr Frankford: The ones that I'm aware of would be mostly working out of health centres and paid on a global budget or on a per capita basis.
Ms Meyer: Because I see that as being much more similar to the way that midwives would be paid, I am not aware of any proposal that's gone forward that would put midwives on salary at a hospital. It's something that both the midwives and the midwifery task force have been quite vocal in asking not to have done because it ties the midwife too closely to the hospital in terms of who she answers to for her practice and autonomy and community-based care.
Mr Frankford: I gather you would say that things would go easier if a broader range of options or an evolution to a more autonomous and alternatively paid system for nurses went on. Then the problem for midwives would not be such a problem.
Ms Meyer: It's my understanding that if you're a nurse in a hospital, you get paid by the hospital. If you're a nurse practitioner, you get paid in the ways you just outlined. If you're a Victorian Order of Nurses visiting nurse, you get paid by the VON. If you work for public health, you get paid by the public health unit. It seems there's already a wide variety. As a nurse, you have to choose where you want to work and how you are going to get paid.
Midwives have not by any means decided how they're going to be paid. It's an issue that I can't really answer.
Mr White: You're going to be a lay member of a professional college. We've been spending a fair bit of time talking about the new Regulated Health Professions Act, which is yet to be proclaimed. But regardless, as a lay member, we've talked about midwifery, we've talked about nursing, and my experience is that lay members get overwhelmed with the other professional members on that council.
You have a background, you have a diploma in social work, you have some experience from eight or nine years ago in child care work, in probation work etc. But you yourself don't have direct nursing experience. You've got experience with the midwifery task force.
How would you deal with the situation where you're there with all these nurses who know the field in and out? When there's a disciplinary issue coming up, when there's a scope of practice issue coming up, they can talk circles around it. These are issues that are new to you, foreign to you. How would you preserve your centre of balance, your way of dealing with things?
Ms Meyer: First, it's my understanding that as a public member, I would not have nursing experience.
Mr White: That's right. Of course.
Ms Meyer: I'm not easily overwhelmed. The College of Nurses of Ontario has provided in its orientation package, which, as a candidate, I received, a large amount of paperwork which is specifically designed to educate public members and its own members as to how the college works and what the code of ethics and standards of practice for nurses are and all those sorts of things. For instance, if I were sitting on the complaints committee and a complaint came in that this nurse had been acting in a certain way?
Mr White: Good example.
Ms Meyer: I suppose, first of all, I would put myself in the patient's or the client's position and ask, how would I feel if this had happened to me, read through the complaint and try to figure out if what the patient was saying was true, if it happened that way if it happened, how it happened, how the nurse reacted to it happening and what her colleagues said about it happening.
If it was a drug overdose, for instance, I would look at the drug overdose literature and what the attending physician had to say about the incident. If I were still at sea and hadn't come to a conclusion, I may go to an association such as the patients' advocacy group that's here in Toronto. I've heard them speak; they're very well informed and vocal. I believe there's another one, too. I have a list of three different agencies I could go to if I was really feeling that I needed advice from somewhere outside what the other complaints committee members could offer me.
Mr White: That was very thorough. What do you think your background with the community organizations, the policy development with the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario, your case work background and your personal life experience would offer you in a situation like the example you picked, the complaints to the committee.
The Chair: Very briefly, please.
Ms Meyer: I'm quite good at amalgamating a large amount of material and coming to a decision about it. The experience I've had has helped me learn how to put my decision, if it happens to be controversial to what everyone else in the room is thinking, into a somewhat non-confrontational form, which is more likely to be accepted by the other people in the room, yet to persist if I believe this particular viewpoint which I wish to put across is not being accepted. So basically diplomacy and persistency.
Mr White: Excellent. Thank you.
Mr Grandmaître: What's happening with the nursing profession in Ontario? A lot of RNs are being let go and being replaced by RNAs because apparently these RNAs are as competent as RNs. There's a feud going on. I have two files in my constituency office. I'm telling you, I'm getting all kinds of good reading from you people. What's happening?
Ms Meyer: I think when the Health Professions Legislation Review was going on it was made quite clear that the RNAs wanted to have their own college and that they didn't want to be lumped in or grouped in with the nurses. With the current budget cuts in the hospitals, hospitals are tending to favour the more lower-paid professionals, so it creating animosity.
1520
Mr Grandmaître: Why won't the RNs accept the RNAs in their college? Instead of creating two colleges right across the street from each other, why can't the RNs --
Ms Meyer: As I understand it, it was the RNAs who asked for a separate college, but as I have said, I have not had enough experience or been participating in enough council meetings and so on to really get a feel for those particular concerns. The RNAs and the RNs on the council certainly seem on the surface to be attempting to work out their differences. They're two professions that are quite frequently confused and that have different levels of qualifications. They are not equal. They're different, but people get them confused.
Mr Grandmaître: When you say confused, what would be needed in the province of Ontario to resolve this confusion? As you know, we went through the old Health Disciplines Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act. We've been at this problem for over 10 years and we haven't resolved the problem. What's needed?
Ms Meyer: I think the College of Nurses of Ontario has been at it even longer. I do get the feeling that it is a very long-standing problem, and unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough at present to be able to give an answer. If the government and the College of Nurses have been working on it as long as they have, I would be presumptuous to suppose that I could, after two months, say what the solution should be.
I do feel there is a strong feeling, with the decision that's been made under the Health Professions Legislation Review, that the college will remain as it is. There is a strong feeling that there is a need to work together to try to resolve these differences. There is a spirit at the college level to try to resolve the problems.
If I should be appointed, I would be happy to come back in a year or two and try to tell you what I think the solution is, but at the moment, I'm sorry, I can't help you.
Mr Grandmaître: What about the number of students entering the profession? Do you think we should increase the number of students or decrease the number of students?
Ms Meyer: Are there jobs for them when they come out?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm asking you, because right now they're saying out there that RNs are being replaced by RNAs. Do you think we should decrease or forget about the programs, hire foreign nurses or -- because our program is affected by the major changes in nursing and, from what I read, very few jobs are available in Ontario. We train them and they go to the US or whatever. What's going to happen with our nursing programs in Ontario?
Ms Meyer: It's my understanding that as the council for the College of Nurses is a disciplinary body which protects the public interest from a regulatory standpoint, I don't really believe that it has much to do with the quality of the nursing program. From that point of view, I would say that the quality of the program should be ensured to be as good as any in the world, which I believe it is now.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you.
Mr Cleary: Ms Meyer, do you think that when the change takes place -- and I guess it has in parts of Ontario already -- changing from the RNs to the RNAs will drastically affect the patients in the hospital?
Ms Meyer: Yes. I have not a lot of knowledge, as you obviously can gather; I haven't been involved with this for very long. But I do not think you can replace nurses with RNAs without some sort of safeguards being put in place for members of the public. Whether that means you have closer supervision of the RNAs or whether it means you start educating them better, I don't really know what the solution is. Perhaps there should just be more nursing positions paid for by the government so it wouldn't be a problem.
Mr Cleary: I was just reading through some of your résumé. What I get out of it is that I think you feel there would be other ways to save money besides making those changes. Is that true?
Ms Meyer: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
Mr Cleary: Would there be other ways in the administration in hospitals to save equal amounts of money?
Ms Meyer: I see. I do feel that community-based care is an important way of saving money. As I understand it now, the funding is quite different for hospitals and for community outreach care. The education of patients and the care of patients in their own homes certainly would seem to be more cost-effective than waiting until people are acutely ill and then hospitalizing them. If you were to encourage nurses to work out in the community more, if there were jobs available and the programs were available and funded for nursing care to be community-based, it seems to me that it would perhaps save some of your hospital dollars. It would mean rechanneling it, and studies would have to be done to see which would be more cost-effective. My sense from the reading I have done is that the community-based care is more cost-effective, but there's a reluctance to move away from the traditional hospital system.
Mr Cleary: I know many of the nurses in our part of Ontario, some excellent nurses, have said that once this change is made, if they have friends or relatives, they'll move right in and care for those people on their own, that they feel that strongly that the level of service is going to deteriorate. How do you feel about that?
Ms Meyer: I really don't know. I'm beginning to think this is perhaps an issue for the Ontario Nurses' Association or something other than the college.
Mr Cleary: Do you think this is one of the biggest issues of the time, the change from RNs to RNAs?
Ms Meyer: I'm not certain that all RN positions are being changed over to RNA positions. That premise is new to me.
Mr Cleary: I think it's going to happen in a lot of the hospitals in eastern Ontario. It has partially happened now. Mr Grandmaître: Instead of closing beds, they're letting RNs go.
The Chair: That concludes the review, Ms Meyer, and I wish you well.
Ms Meyer: Thank you.
The Chair: The next and final matter on the agenda is the determination with respect to all of the people who appeared before us today, the six witnesses we heard today. We'll go through the usual exercise. Do we wish to deal with all of the witnesses with one motion or on an individual basis?
Mr Wiseman: I'm in favour of one motion.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman moves that we concur with the intended appointments reviewed by the committee today.
Any discussion on the motion?
Mr Wiseman: I think they were all excellent and did a wonderful job.
The Chair: Any dissenting opinions? Hearing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Meeting adjourned. See you tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1530.