CONTENTS
Wednesday 7 October 1992
Subcommittee business
Appointments review
Warren Mazurski
John A. Roberts
Dorothy Christian
Terrence Glen Murphy
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:
*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Wiseman
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Members, I wonder if we could get under way. We're a little late starting. We'll bring the meeting to order.
The first matter on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee on committee business. Hopefully you all have a copy of that before you. Any questions, concerns, comments in respect to the subcommittee report?
One correction I should point out is on page 3 of the subcommittee report, where it mentions "Third Party: To be determined." That should read "Third Party: None selected."
I'll give you a minute to take a quick look at the report. No problems with it? No concerns? Hearing none, I'm going to move on to the next matter on the agenda.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
WARREN MAZURSKI
The Chair: We have a half-hour review of the intended appointment of Warren Mazurski, who is an intended appointee as a member of the Old Growth Policy Advisory Committee. Mr Mazurski, are you present? Would you like to come forward and take a seat, please. Welcome to the committee. Your selection was requested by the government party. This is a rotation, 10 minutes to each caucus, Mr Mazurski.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Wasn't it the official opposition, Mr Chair?
The Chair: It says government party in respect to -- my apologies. I'm jumping ahead. You're right, Mr Grandmaître. I'll let you start off.
Mr Grandmaître: I wouldn't miss that opportunity.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Mr Chair, have there been offered opening statements up to this point?
The Chair: No, we do not.
Mr Waters: When did this change, because we always used to.
The Chair: No, we've never done that. We only have very limited time and as a rule we do not allow opening comments because it eats into somebody's time.
Mr Grandmaître: Good morning, sir.
Mr Warren Mazurski: Good morning.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize that your committee is a new committee; it's in its infancy. I'm going to ask you, what are your thoughts on the responsibilities or the mandate of the committee, and also your personal definition or perception of what old growth is. What is your perception of old growth?
Mr Mazurski: That question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily in my mind, but my perceptions are just trees that are very old, a forest that has been around a long time. It's enjoyed for its beauty, it's enjoyed for its recreational purposes, it's got values added to it. It's just a real nice place to be, I guess. It's hard to say. This question has been going in my mind so long, I could get into it like --
Mr Grandmaître: Not only in your mind. I suppose in anybody's mind, there's no scientific definition of old growth.
Mr Mazurski: No, there isn't, none that I can put my fingers on. So many people have so many different views of it. Some people see it as a forest that you can use to cut lumber from and make a living out of it. Some people see it as a forest that should be left alone, protected, because it's disappearing very quickly and once it's gone it can never be replaced. Other people see it as a spiritual place, a place to be where they can sort of become basically part of what it's all about to be alive and on earth and stuff like that. So there are a whole mixture of thoughts running through my mind, in my perception, and I'm looking forward to hearing more from the public and people like that as to how they perceive old growth forests. That's a pretty wide question.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you familiar with the mandate or the responsibilities of the committee?
Mr Mazurski: Yes. We're to come up with an interim strategy by the end of this year, specifically centred at red and white pine, and then an overall strategy for old growth forests by the end of 1993, a conservation strategy.
Mr Grandmaître: You said "red and white pine."
Mr Mazurski: Right.
Mr Grandmaître: And in your opening remarks in your perception or your definition of old growth you said "trees." Do you think it should be limited to white and red pine?
Mr Mazurski: No, I don't. I think there's old growth in all areas. I've seen some beautiful stands of old birch and old poplar and cedar too that are just beautiful. All those areas should be looked at.
I can understand the red and white pine right now. It's probably the one that's most upfront because it's rapidly disappearing. There's very little of it left, so I can understand the immediate concern to come up with an interim strategy on that until we can get a better handle on the whole picture and try to encompass all of it together. I can understand that. It is disappearing very rapidly.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, it is disappearing very rapidly and I agree with you that especially the old red and white pines are fast disappearing. Don't you think that, until your study is completed, there should be a moratorium? Stop the cutting, then come up with a -- but the cutting is going on now. I find it very surprising that there's no policy. You're still looking for a perception or a definition of "old growth," and the cutting is going on.
Mr Mazurski: That's a problem with the moratorium. First of all, we don't know all the old growth site specifics and, like you just said, we don't really have a definition of what old growth is. So if we just put a moratorium out there and said, "Okay, nobody can cut," that's going to affect people's livelihoods, their jobs, communities. All those things have to be taken into consideration. It's a very serious decision to put a moratorium that could affect people's livelihoods.
It's also very serious not to address the problem and allow the cutting to continue, where an old growth stand could disappear off the face of the earth for ever. So it's sort of one of these. Hopefully, through the interim strategy, we can identify areas that are really rapidly disappearing, that are being cut. Maybe we can look at something there that can save that forest until we can come up with a final decision on how we feel that part should be looked after.
Mr Grandmaître: But don't you think it's going to be too late in a year from now when you realize -- I don't know what the final report will say. Let's say the report says, "We've been too generous or overgenerous in the past and those trees are gone." They're gone for 40, 50 or 75 years. Don't you think you're putting the cart before the horse?
Mr Mazurski: Again there's so much more to learn that I can't really answer you. All I can say is I hope it isn't too late. At least we've started something now that is going to address the problem. Prior to this, we hadn't done anything to address the problem. We're very close now to the end of 1992 here and the interim strategy will be coming in very soon. So if there is an area that is rapidly disappearing, hopefully we can address it. If we have to protect it, and that's the decision of the committee, we will recommend that to the minister and he can take that action from there.
I know this, because I've been actively involved in that committee since May already. I took the place of a friend of mine who was on the committee from our union, Kim Ginter. That was one of the reasons I was nervous about coming here, because when you're actively involved in the committee and you've already been publicly named as an active member in that committee through a discussion paper and you haven't had an order of council yet, I guess you kind of feel, "Whoa, what's going on here?"
Mr Grandmaître: No, I realize what you're faced with. You just said you've been active since May.
Mr Mazurski: Yes, I have.
Mr Grandmaître: What else should the Ministry of Natural Resources be doing to protect old growth?
Mr Mazurski: What should the MNR be doing to protect it?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, any thoughts? Because I don't know. I'm not trying to --
Mr Mazurski: I don't know. I have a lot of my own thoughts about things, but it's one of those things where we're not really sure just what should be done yet. That's why it's so important that we get to hear what everybody has to say out there, so we can make those decisions with some facts behind them.
To say to you honestly right now what MNR should be doing, I really couldn't say. I hope they're following proper forest management tactics. I hope they're properly out there doing their job, watching what's going on and making sure that everybody is following the rules that are in place now. That's all I can hope for.
I'm from northern Ontario and I've seen many, many clear-cuts and things like that and I don't think that's necessary, personally, in my own mind. I think the forest could be properly managed and properly used by the people who need it for a livelihood and for the people who need it for recreational and spiritual values and whatever. I think it's all there and if we all work together I think in the end we can come up with a solution to the problem so that everybody can feel they had a part of it and continue to use the forest in a manner that's job-related, in a manner that's spiritual-related, in a manner that's recreational-related and stuff like that.
1020
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that we should be better managers of our forests, but I still find it very, very strange that there's still a great deal of cutting and now we're putting another committee in place. I understand there's about four committees. There's the forest industry advisory group, the old growth, the forest policy committee and also the ministry has a scientific advisory group set up to assist all of these committees.
While all of these committees are meeting trying to come up with a solution to our forestry problem, there's still a great deal of cutting, and that's why I asked you previously if a moratorium was necessary, because I can recall 36 months ago when the government was criticizing the government of the day for the lack of management of our forests, and now it's got all kinds of committees in place, at least four committees.
Cutting is still going on and people block roads to prevent the cutting of this old growth. I find it very, very strange that while cutting is going on people are meeting still trying to find a solution and it might take a year or two before a final decision is made. I'm not blaming you because I know of your interest. I'm told you're a great birdwatcher as well.
Mr Mazurski: Yes, I am. I really enjoy it.
The Chair: If you have another question, Mr Grandmaitre, you're just about out of time.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think we've got too many committees doing the same thing?
Mr Mazurski: I don't know what the other committees are doing.
Mr Grandmaître: The government doesn't know either, so that's why I'm trying to --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Only the opposition knows.
Mr Mazurski: I don't want to comment. All I do know is that I just hope in the end -- and very soon the end comes, and I've got to agree with you that while all these people are meeting, the forest is still continuing to be cut and somebody has to look at that -- when it all comes together that finally we'll have something out there that takes into consideration a sustainable forest and that we don't lose a natural resource that is very special to this country and to the people who need it for all kinds of reasons. That's all.
Mr Grandmaître: Good luck to you.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): You work for the Canadian Pacific Forest Products. Has there been a cutback in that place of business in the last two years?
Mr Mazurski: Yes, through technological change. I can remember when the membership I'm with used to have 1,900 members during peak time. Through modernization, we're down to 1,400 now and we feel after they do away with our wood room and stuff like that we'll be down to about 800 people. That's a lot of people who have lost a lot of jobs.
Mr McLean: Have you noticed in the last several years the quality of lumber that's coming into that mill? Has the grade of that lumber gone down?
Mr Mazurski: What has gone down there is the size of the lumber. I can remember when I first started back in 1973 you used to get logs like this. Now I call them toothpicks or matchsticks. The size has gone down. I guess the fibre content is still the same qualitywise, but the size has definitely gone down.
Mr McLean: The company that you work for, is it doing clear-cutting?
Mr Mazurski: Well, yes, they are.
Mr McLean: Are most of the pulp and paper mills now doing clear-cutting?
Mr Mazurski: As far as my knowledge is, yes, a lot of them still do clear-cutting. Their argument, then, on that note is that they also do a lot of replanting. They plant a lot of seedlings. The big question of the day is -- again, that is another study -- do they regenerate properly and do they clear-cut?
Mr McLean: I guess the other question of the day is, too, that we've cut back and about 35 million less trees are planted than in the previous years. What are your comments with regard to the cutbacks that are taking place with the nurseries that are closing? I've been here long enough, and I remember that the minister was always adamant about planting more trees. If everyone is now planting less, what do you think's going to happen with the regeneration of our forest industry?
Mr Mazurski: Personally, I don't agree with the idea of cutting back on the planting of the trees or cutting back on the nurseries. Those are my personal feelings. If they come up, in the end, with a strategy that does away with clear-cutting, then that may be a different story. But until that strategy is in place, they have to continue to plant trees, because there's a big need for seedlings. I don't pretend to know the whole picture. Maybe they have enough seedlings out there when they analyse the whole situation; I don't know. All I know is that I don't see the sense in it.
Mr McLean: The seedling growers and the people who're involved in the industry sure are very unhappy with the amount of cutbacks that have taken place and the amount of seedlings that they're selling. It's mainly the private companies that are buying the seedlings now and planting them and the government is the one that has cut back.
The report is supposed to be done by the end of October, but you'd indicated that you've been involved in some of the discussion that's gone on within that report. Do you anticipate the report will be done by the end of October?
Mr Mazurski: The interim report? Actually, the interim report doesn't have to be ready by the end of this year, the end of December.
Mr McLean: The committee members told a press conference that it would not adopt a precise definition of "old growth" until after public hearings were completed in October.
Mr Mazurski: Yes, but they're doing public consultation in October and then they're doing a sectoral consultation in November. Then, by the end of the year, the committee is supposed to come up with an interim strategy to recommend to the minister on red and white pine.
Mr McLean: Do you have a definition of what you would call "old growth"?
Mr Mazurski: I'm telling you, I talk to everybody. I'm from Thunder Bay and I know a lot of professors at Lakehead University. Dr Willard Carmine is a forester and old growth is his love, you know, and he doesn't have a proper definition for it. The one the committee is using is "relatively old and relatively undisturbed," and there are a bunch of criteria that go with it, like questions to be answered. No, I don't have a proper definition.
Mr McLean: There were about 12,000 acres around Thunder Bay that were prepared for seedling planting. Do you know if they were ever planted, or are they still sitting there prepared, with nothing done to them?
Mr Mazurski: I couldn't answer that.
Mr McLean: You're not aware of that?
Mr Mazurski: No.
Mr McLean: That's all for now, Mr Chair.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'd just like to say what a good background I think you have for this, because you've got a foot in both camps. You're in the industry in the union, and you're a botanist and a concerned person from that point of view as well, which I think is ideal.
It seems to me we've really got two related problems here. One is the old growth forest as such, and I understand that there are only about 1,400 square kilometres of that left, so it seems to me that is quite a small amount. It could very soon be cut if there were no moratorium on it, and then we would have lost whatever it is that old growth forests offer uniquely. I think you and I would agree that there is something special about old growth forests. It's not just one species; it's the mix with all the wildlife that goes with it.
Then I think the other question, when we're looking at jobs and the economy and so on, is whether the forestry we're doing in general is sustainable. Certainly, the information I have suggests that it's not, that as has been said we're clear-cutting, we've overestimated the reserves we have, and we harvest areas where it won't regrow or it will take a very long time to regrow. We send students out planting, but in such a way that it's not going to take. Maybe too much slash is left behind and they don't have a proper field to operate. Does it seem to you that there will be jobs in the forest industry down the road if we don't change our ways quite drastically?
1030
Mr Mazurski: If we don't change our ways, no, there won't be jobs in the forest industry, as far as I'm concerned. It takes a long time for a tree to grow back in Ontario because of the climate. In some places, due to clear-cutting and siltation and stuff like that, they'll never grown back. So unless something is done to manage the forest properly in a sustainable way, no, we won't have a forest industry here any more. We'll have mills, but we won't have any forests.
Ms Carter: Whereas in the States they can keep growing much more rapidly.
Mr Mazurski: There's a faster growing cycle there, yes. In some places that I've been told about, farther than the States, they build the mill before they grow the trees, because the trees grow so fast.
Ms Carter: So I take it you feel that putting a moratorium on cutting at 1,400 square kilometres wouldn't make a big impact on jobs compared to what we could achieve by getting the whole industry on a renewable basis.
Mr Mazurski: I would put a moratorium on something if nothing was being done, because somebody has to draw the line. But if there's something being done and there's time there to look at it before it's wholly devastated, then you have to take into consideration people's livelihoods, communities and stuff like that, if you have the time. I believe right now we have that time, by the end of this year, because of the interim strategy. That's back to his question about red and white pine.
Ms Carter: Do you feel that some economic use can be made of those forests without actually destroying them?
Mr Mazurski: Yes, I do.
Mr Waters: I'd like to get to this definition of "old growth." Basically, do you think the committee can ever come up with a working description of what we mean by "old growth" in the province? It may never be quite static, because times change and what we value or what we consider old growth changes, but do you think we can come up with the basis of it?
Mr Mazurski: I think we can come up with a basis, and I think we can come up with some general direction for maybe the resource managers or something. But an equal system is so complicated, and there's so much work to be done that we haven't been doing to come up with characteristics that are related to old growth and stuff like that, that I don't think we can come up with an overall description right out of the chute. But I think we can come up with a general description with some direction for further work to continue on in the way of identifying old growth and stuff like that. I don't know if that answers your question.
Mr Waters: With the moratorium that is in place on red and white pine, do you ever see that being lifted? I think we've sort of gone around the issue, but it's my understanding that there is a moratorium in place. To be very plain about it, do you think we would ever lift that?
Mr Mazurski: Again, we have to look at all the facts. I think the moratorium was put in place because we weren't aware of all the facts. So if the facts indicate that there is a possibility of lifting it, then we'll look at that possibility as a committee. If the facts indicate that we can't lift it because it's at its final stages, then the committee may decide at that point that the moratorium will continue.
Mr Waters: I have one last question. There's a sustainable forest strategy out there, and I see where we have the Ontario independent forest audit, the forest policy panel, the forest industry action group, the private woodlands strategy, yourselves, the community forestry initiative and a couple of others. Do you ever talk or do you ever plan to talk? It probably isn't a question you want to hear from me, but I'm curious.
Mr Mazurski: No, that's a good point, because it's nice to know what the other groups are doing so that we can sort of get a feel of how it's all coming together. Our committee has met with the forest policy panel and we have exchanged thoughts on what's going on and where we're going and stuff like that. The other committees? No, we haven't talked to those people yet, but we are looking at getting information from the different groups so that we can go over basically where they're coming from too, so that we can all have an idea where we all are and where we're all going. Yes, we should be talking and we should be corresponding with each other so that we know what's going on. Somebody's going to have to put all this together.
Mr Waters: I would hope that will come together in the near future, because I think if we're going to deal with our forest and retain our forest for our future generations, we have to work together.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Chair, if I can get a quick point of order, my friend Mr Waters may answer this, because it just came out of his question: I didn't know there was a moratorium on the cutting of old growth, except around the Temagami area.
Mr Waters: It says here on page 3 of your background from your legislative research --
Mr Bradley: Except the Temagami area?
Mr Waters: It says, "Until this strategy is developed, harvesting of major old growth red and white pine stands has been stopped."
Mr Bradley: All over Ontario?
Mr Waters: "About 1,400 square kilometres of such pine has never been cut."
Mr Grandmaître: What about the Turtle River provincial park? That's close to your area.
Mr Mazurski: Yes. There are still some --
Mr Bradley: Just for clarification, because it was a good question.
Mr Waters: I was going to refer it maybe to Mr Pond, the researcher who wrote the paper.
Mr Bradley: Thanks, Dan; I appreciate it.
Mr David Pond: My understanding is that the moratorium applies to what has traditionally been regarded as old growth, which is the uncut virgin red and white pine, which is in the north, obviously. It's north of Sudbury from Wawa, Temagami and bits of the western part of the north shore of Lake Superior.
As the witness has indicated, it's up to the committee and the government to provide a definition of "old growth" which may be larger than that, which may encompass parts on here which are now being cut. The moratorium applied to the red and white pine which has not been cut.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate that. I knew there were trees falling all over northern Ontario and it just seemed odd, but it's good clarification. Thank you. I'm sorry to take your time to do it that way.
The Chair: Anything further from the government members?
Mr Waters: No, I just think the witness, by his qualifications and interest, shows that he will make an excellent member of the panel and I wish him well.
Mr Mazurski: Thank you.
Mr Bradley: I didn't even get a chance to ask if he was NDP.
Mr Mazurski: I'm not a card-carrying member of the NDP.
Mr Bradley: Good. That's great. I didn't think so. Your answers were so good.
Mr Mazurski: But just on the defence of the NDP, I think it's about time we came up with some kind of forest strategy. I'm sure we all agree with that, and I respect them a lot for that.
Mr Bradley: I agree with that. This witness has the qualifications -- Mr Chair, I'm going overtime -- both of a person who's been in the industry end of things and at the same time is a person concerned about botany. That's an excellent kind of appointment, in my view.
Mr Mazurski: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Mazurski, you travelled all the way down from Thunder Bay for this today?
Mr Mazurski: Yes, I did.
The Chair: I didn't afford you an opening opportunity for comments, so in fairness, since you travelled all this way, I'll afford you an opportunity for a closing statement. Is there anything you'd like to say before we close off?
Mr Mazurski: I'm just honoured to be on a committee like this. To me, it's a chance of a lifetime. With my interest in the forest, in the natural setting and stuff like that, I've seen a lot of things out there I don't like and I've never been given a chance to express those concerns. I know a lot of people too who are friends of mine who have never had a chance to express their concerns on how the forest is being managed and things that are being done to it. Because my livelihood also depends on the forest, I'm also very concerned about that.
I look at the forest as a renewable resource that if properly looked after and properly managed, will last not only my generation but my children's and their children's and so on and so on. I think all it takes is the will to do it, so again I compliment the government for starting these committees and I hope in the end something comes out of it, though, that it doesn't just fall by the wayside. That's one thing I don't want to see happen. In the end, I hope we all go ahead and commit ourselves to it. Financially, I guess, is one area that's always a problem with these kinds of things.
That's basically my closing statement, and thanks. I'm glad it's over.
1040
The Chair: Fine. Thank you very much for travelling all the way down. We appreciate it.
Mr Bradley: You should know that I complimented the government on your appointment.
The Chair: Before I call the next witness, I want to make reference to the suggestion Mr Waters made with respect to opening statements. The clerk reminds me that on occasion I have allowed opening statements, primarily with witnesses such as the chair of Ontario Hydro, for example, where we have had an hour for review, but if it's the wish of the committee that there be a practice that we afford the opportunity to all witnesses, that's certainly fine by the Chair.
We should perhaps be guided by the committee again, but when we're looking at only a half-hour review, some people can certainly take advantage of that by chewing up a significant portion of the time for an opening statement. If it's a half-hour review, I think they should be limited to a minute or two, and for a one-hour review, then we can look at something perhaps longer than that. Is that fine?
Mr Grandmaître: Why can't we look at the possibility of having 30 minutes of questions, but also give the witness five extra minutes? That would be a total of 35 minutes.
The Chair: It's up to the committee.
Mr Waters: How about we talk this over either with our caucuses or in subcommittee and work this out over the next while? We're a committee that's still evolving.
Mr Marchese: A quick comment, Mr Chair: I think most people won't use up a lot of time in introductory remarks, actually, simply because they may not know what to say. They may have something to say, however, at the end of the question period, as we did today. It gives the person an opportunity to say things that may have arisen out of the questions that he or she may not be able to think about in the introduction. We may even think about allowing two minutes or so at the very end even, because I think that's all the person would need.
The Chair: We'll toss it back to the subcommittee, I guess, as we have a number of opinions on this.
JOHN A. ROBERTS
The Chair: Our next witness is John Roberts; he's an intended appointee as member of the university research incentive fund selection committee. Welcome. As you've been listening to this discussion, I'm going to afford you a couple of minutes to make some opening comments, if you wish.
Mr John Roberts: No, I like the idea of making a statement at the end. I thought that was very good, actually.
The Chair: Okay, we'll give you that opportunity at the end, then. I'm looking to the government party to begin.
Mr Waters: Obviously, from all the information I've received, Mr Roberts, you're more than qualified. I understand you represent an area of electronics or something of this nature. Could you go into that and how you feel that will work with the selection committee?
Mr Roberts: I think the committee is getting proposals which involve electronic areas. I've seen proposals that seem to involve, for example, specialized areas of telecommunications, display technology and various esoteric research with gallium arsenide and so forth. These are all areas I'm reasonably familiar with. I'm obviously not a specialist in all of them, but I have to read widely. I feel it's important that these areas are covered properly by the committee.
Mr Waters: Can you tell us offhand, is there anyone else on the committee who represents the electronic side of research and development?
Mr Roberts: I am not intimately familiar with all the members, but as far as I could tell, in a recent attendance I had at one of the meetings, there was one person who was familiar with the computing industry, which is an aspect of electronics, but nobody who dealt with the technology per se that is used, for example, to build computers.
Mr Waters: Actually, when I looked at this, I've no idea why my colleague called you before us, and he's not here today. At this point I have no other questions of you.
Ms Carter: As I'm sure you know, there's a project for an international space university to be located on the campus of York University. I wondered what your opinions on that were and whether you think there's any possibility that might soak up funds that then would not go to other universities in the province.
Mr Roberts: I'm not aware of the funding problems or otherwise of all these various initiatives. I had the impression, having just attended one meeting of this committee, that there is some sort of funding problem. If it got worse, I think the committee's ability to attract interest from the academic community and industry would be imperilled. I understand there's already been several delays about the availability of funding, and people get very disenchanted if their applications are left lying fallow for a considerable period of time. After all, we're talking about advanced research. If there was any cutting back in funding, I would think it would jeopardize the stature of this granting program.
Ms Carter: Of course we are looking at a shortage of money in general in the universities.
I noticed that the whole emphasis of this research incentive fund selection committee is on universities working with firms on what you might call technical projects. I wonder if this might lead to a little imbalance in terms of what universities are devoting themselves to when you look at the wide range of disciplines universities traditionally undertake. Do you feel that there's any potential problem there, that we might put our money into things because they have possible commercial benefits as opposed to things that might be of more benefit in the long term?
Mr Roberts: I can appreciate your concern, but I have quite the opposite view, and I'm surprised by the tone of the question. I think one of the biggest problems we have is that the universities have not traditionally, outside of this granting program, keyed their research closely or even in any way associated their research with the needs of industry in Ontario and Canada in general.
Actually, on my first exposure to the URI funding -- and I've been on Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council committees for as long as 10 years, but this was my first exposure to URI funding -- I was so delighted to see specific, detailed contracts between companies and researchers in university, which I did not see and have never seen, of course, in the NSERC program, and this was a very positive discovery; in fact, I intend to spread it. So my view is, I'm afraid I represent industry. I'm very pleased that it is the way it is.
Ms Carter: Do you feel that the larger universities should be given more encouragement, as opposed to the smaller ones?
Mr Roberts: I'm specifically interested in smaller ones, actually. I noticed that in the recent awards there was an application from Lakehead. I did notice that the experienced members of the committee took particular care over trying to get funds to that university. Of course there are many very fine researchers elsewhere who are very good competitors for funds, but there was a very distinct interest, I noticed, in treating every application from a smaller university with the greatest care and interest and appreciation.
Ms Carter: As far as I know, sometimes the breakthrough discoveries or whatever don't always come from the research that's very specifically directed off in the large teams. Sometimes it comes from very basic research that is being done, as you might say, in the pursuit of knowledge, and then something comes up that has applications that nobody would have dreamed of.
1050
Mr Marchese: I apologize, Mr Roberts, if I'm about to ask something Mrs Carter may have asked, but it is around the whole issue of money. Clearly, what this fund is used for is important. The problem of underfunding is always an issue for everybody. What do we do when there is complete reliance, or at least a great deal of reliance, on government funding, but we as a government have a problem in terms of our ability to assist in the way we would like? How do you see us solving these ongoing questions of funding? Do you have any suggestions about how we deal with that?
Mr Roberts: Yes, I know this is an issue throughout government. I deal mainly with the federal government and I see it every week.
I would urge you, within the funding limits that you undoubtedly suffer from, to make sure the funding is provided in a timely fashion, even if it's small. What I'm experiencing from the federal government, and what this committee has experienced from the government in recent months, is that there have been delays in the funding. Delays in the funding are quite damaging, because timing is of the essence when you are in a competitive environment. Even in university research, particularly in this case where there are contracts involved, it is important to the companies that want to be associated with it.
To alleviate the fears that it is all government funding, I did notice in this particular funding program that it isn't all government funding. In fact, I noticed that we the committee -- or they the committee; even more accurate -- took tremendous interest in how much money was coming from the Kodaks of this world, the other companies, the Northern Telecoms, the Bell-Northern Research. At least 50%, maybe 60%, of the funding was coming from companies, not from government, into the universities. It's true that some of this was contributions in kind, but the research could not have proceeded without such contributions of equipment and so forth.
I want to re-emphasize that if you continue this policy -- and it's a very good policy; it's far better than the federal government's policy -- of demanding a link to industry, you could press up the amount of funding from industry to perhaps even 70%. The committee would back you in that, because the committee took very particular note of those applications and particular interest in those applications that had very heavy industry funding.
Mr Grandmaître: In your view, what are the main criteria for research proposals?
Mr Roberts: We are dealing with post-graduate research and the training of post-graduate students and the awarding of master's degrees and doctorates by universities that we hope are world-class, so I would say that obviously the quality of the research must be viewed as a gating point decision.
After that, because I'm from industry and have never been a full-time academic, I was very strongly interested to see again how much money the companies were providing towards the research, which was a test, in my view, of how serious they were about using it, about promoting it and about employing the students afterwards.
If you want prime criteria, those are the two I would use.
Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on the government's role in research?
Mr Roberts: I think it's extremely important. I don't want to enter a debate about industrial policy, but the fact is that I've worked in large companies, and sometimes you can't get projects started unless you can say, "We can get some funding from the government, some research money."
Actually, I think you can be a force for innovation and change. It may go against many peoples' political precepts, but the fact is that Northern Telecom, one of our most successful companies, would not have achieved leadership in the digital switch unless three people had been thrown out of a committee in Northern Telecom, gotten in a car, driven down the Queensway in Ottawa and gone to the National Research Council and got a $100,000 grant. So there's a $9-billion company whose success was entirely dependent on that small amount of funding from government. Those managers rebelled and got the funding from NRC.
I know many instances of that, much less dramatic, in my experience. I am now head of a funding program on behalf of the federal government. We expect to put out $17 million worth of R&D, and I can see the synergy that it produces because it requires, for example, two companies to get together before they have any sight of this money.
I have no strong political views; this comes from engineering experience. But I am a strong proponent of the outside agency -- let's call it the government -- being just that little oil to enable someone within those companies to get a start-work program off the ground, to get some dream of his going, to be an innovator even in the largest companies -- never mind, of course, the extreme importance of government funding to small companies, because there's so little seed capital available for funding small companies. Sometimes all there is is URI money, all the money from the Ontario government, to start small companies. It's that bad out there right now.
Mr Grandmaître: What should the government be doing to create better partnerships between the industry and research people, and what's the role of the government? How can this government build a stronger partnership?
Mr Roberts: You raise, of course, a central issue that is very important to me personally, because I head up a fund started by the federal government. It's a sector campaign, as they call it. They want microelectronics companies to grow from being a $300-million series of entities in Canada to a $1-billion series of entities by the year 2001.
The way they used to do that sort of thing was to have a whole lot of expertise in industry, science and technology: civil servants who had good knowledge of the microelectronics industry. They hoped that would be the basis of building up the industry and building up the relationship with government.
For various reasons, it appears that they've abandoned that plan and they now are funding entities like the one I head up at the present time. It's called a strategic microelectronics consortium, where the initiative comes largely from the industry to decide who's appointed president, to decide who's on the board of directors, and so forth. They give me access to a pot of money, and the industry members around the table of a board of directors and within my own staff decide what projects we're going to support.
So perhaps it is a new, successful model -- it has succeeded in other nations -- where there is a non-profit, consortium approach, an alliance approach, to produce the right results from government initiatives and government funding. Since I've taken the position of president in this organization, I of course endorse that approach, and we are busily trying to do those things. Ten years ago there were only perhaps 10 research consortiums. Now there are over 350 worldwide. It is at least a very dramatic trend. If it totally pays off, it will continue to grow. I hope it will. It seems to work. I've only been in existence, as an organization, for the last six months, but in that six months I can see synergies building, I can see relationships building and I can see the effect of the small amount of funds we've already put out.
Mr Grandmaître: Competitiveness has been on every politician's lips lately -- I shouldn't say lately; since the introduction of free trade. And yet the federal government -- you talked about the National Research Council in Ottawa -- is cutting back on grants, or the budget of the National Research Council. What are your thoughts? How can we be more competitive in this world when the federal government cut back on grants and programs and we're losing our people at an alarming rate to the United States? Can you figure that one out?
Mr Roberts: Yes. I'm sure that's a nice political statement. The reality of the situation, however, is just as bad as you intimate. I can hold meetings these days with as many as seven people, and it will turn out, quite often, that I am the only one of the seven engineers around the table who is employed. The skills and talents of those people are wasted. Only 20% of some of the engineering schools -- even the engineering schools -- find that their undergraduates are placed at the end of the studies, and very few summer jobs are available now for students who are in an intermediate phase.
1100
I find that the position of such people is very black, and of course they will go abroad, as you suggest, in order to get work. What else can they do? I think the position that we're in -- only for the good reason that you can't raise taxes any more -- is very critical, and we need a great number of new companies formed to take up the slack, take up the unemployment. One problem has been solved: There are plenty of good people, very good people.
I'm not sure we need a lot more government funding, but we certainly need a lot more access to seed capital to form companies. Perhaps that's the solution. We need to change the tax laws so that venture capital is taxed not as a business but as people who are trying to make capital gains. There is no real incentive for venture capitalists to put money into small companies these days.
Perhaps one suggestion I heard recently should be adopted. We should provide government grants to put skilled technical people inside the 35 or 40 venture capital companies that exist in Canada so they have more confidence towards making investments into small, high-technology companies. I thought that was a very positive thing. I'm sure if only $15,000 or $20,000 was provided to maybe the dozen venture capital companies, it would pick up such an idea. That would be quite enough.
Mr Grandmaître: I agree with you that it's not only government money. Again, going back to this partnership I alluded to --
The Chair: Thirty seconds.
Mr Grandmaître: Thirty seconds? I think a stronger partnership should be built between the government and your people and everybody else, because I think Canada is losing great scientists, great advantages, and we won't be able to maintain this competitiveness that we're all talking about if we keep losing our good people. Good luck to you.
Mr McLean: I'll be very brief. I have quite a cold this morning. The research and development that's being established in the town of Midland, the new research institute there -- I don't know whether my colleague Mr Waters had mentioned that or not -- are you aware of that?
Mr Roberts: I'm sorry, there was a bit of noise at the moment you mentioned it. Which institute?
Mr McLean: A new facility that has been announced for the town of Midland by the federal government. It's research and development for skills, high-tech. Are you aware of that?
Mr Roberts: No.
Mr Waters: Can I clarify?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Waters: It's called the Industrial Research and Development Institute. It's an institute for research and development on moulds and dies, the basis of industry.
Mr Roberts: Yes.
Mr Waters: The federal, provincial and municipal governments and private enterprise came together to create it. It's the first, I believe, of its type in Canada.
Mr Roberts: I know what you're talking about. I met the president briefly in one of the many meetings I go to.
Mr McLean: So you are aware of it?
Mr Roberts: Yes.
Mr McLean: All right. What input do you feel you would have to make that project be a success in order to set some examples of projects that you would like to see initiated across the province?
Mr Roberts: I believe it's to do with mechanical engineering, and as you appreciate, I'm an electronics engineer. In the brief exposure I had to a presentation from the president of the institute, I'm not sure that it's directly related to what I'm involved with, so it's very hard for me to relate our research to some industry that is essentially an improvement program for mechanical engineering industries.
We are going off at a rate of knots towards fibre optics telecommunications using gallium arsenide, and such things are highly specialized. Our biggest problem with the mechanical engineering industry is the cost of tooling things. It seems to cost $50,000 of tooling to produce the little cases and boxes. I can produce a printed circuit board or even, these days, an integrated circuit for $5,000. If they ever get their costs down I would be able to put out more product. That would be my interest, but I never got a chance to pursue that with this man. He was giving a public presentation.
Mr McLean: I'd like to know from your experience: Do you think Canada is falling behind in the research we're doing compared to Germany and other countries in the world, such as Japan?
Mr Roberts: Yes. You only have to look at the number of patents that are taken out, for example, in a major centre like the United States patent office. I don't know what the percentage is, but I wouldn't mind believing we're in the 1% category. The Japanese are in the 20%, the Germans are in the 15% sort of category and our contribution to the world's knowledge of practical technology, which I presume patents are a good measure of, is desperately low.
Mr McLean: At one time, we were probably 10%.
Mr Roberts: Oh, probably 5% and going down past 1%. I'm guessing the figures, but our R&D level is reflecting in our high technology trade balance. We went from having a $1-billion negative trade balance to a $15-billion negative trade balance today in high technology goods, as another measure.
Mr McLean: Do you figure it's going to continue that route?
Mr Roberts: It probably will. In my industry, we've got a $1.5-billion to $2-billion trading balance. We export $300 million, $400 million-worth of product. We import, I think the figure is as high as $2 billion during the boom years of microelectronic components, so it's very hard, because my industry is expanding so quickly. We'll be $100-billion industry worldwide by the middle of the decade and the Canadian industry is only $300 million. So the net effect of our industry is extremely small. That's why the central precept of my organization -- its first statement of what its objectives are is to build the industry from $300 million to $1 billion, and that still means we'll have a $2-billion trade deficit in microelectronics by the end of the decade even with that success, and that's a 20% growth rate that I'm talking about.
Mr McLean: So the overall trade deficit is going to increase.
Mr Roberts: That's right, and we need to cut down more trees to put it right, and wouldn't that be wonderful.
Mr McLean: Thank you. I wish you well.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Roberts. You now have an opportunity for those closing remarks.
Mr Roberts: Obviously I've made such a lot of remarks that I feel embarrassed to make any more. I have very strong views. There are people I know -- you probably are aware of a man called Denny Doyle who makes many public remarks on this subject. I listened to him. It was, I think, yesterday that he was saying we had a desperate and evil problem and he was thinking of retiring and going to the Bahamas with his millions.
I am probably Terry Matthews's oldest acquaintance or friend and, do you know, he's one of the people who has made a $300-million industry grow from nothing -- perhaps it's a $700-million industry if you include Mitel -- and his view of the situation is quite simple: There's no hope, except for him, unless we create people like him: people who create companies. Unless we create new companies, we will absolutely end up -- well, Denny Doyle's presentation is called Technology or Poverty. Unless we develop the technology, the competitiveness, we will end up in extreme poverty. That stand of forest you want to preserve will definitely be gone and it will be poverty in every sense -- money, environment and maybe social disruption.
The Chair: I hope that message sinks in and I hope, in your role, you can reinforce it on frequent occasions. Thank you very much. Good luck.
1110
DOROTHY CHRISTIAN
The Chair: The next witness is Dorothy Christian. Ms Christian is here. Come forward, please. Ms Christian is the intended appointee as the chair of the Ontario Film Review Board. Would you like to have some opening comments, very briefly, or would you prefer to say something at the conclusion of your testimony?
Ms Dorothy Christian: I'd just like to say good morning, and thank you for having me here.
The Chair: Okay. Good morning, and thank you for being here. Your review was requested by the official opposition.
Mr Bradley: The first question I would like to deal with is I won't say the age-old question, but one which has occupied us for a long time and that is whether or not you see the film review board being a censor board or, in fact, a film review board, and do you perceive, with the direction that the new government would give in terms of general guidelines it provides for the film review board, a movement back to more censorship and less reviewing?
Ms Christian: I don't think that in this day and age, given all of the technology that's available to everyone, that censorship is the way to go. The board has moved towards more of a classification board in the last few years, during the time that I was a member, and I feel that will most likely be maintained. The board does still have the power, through the Theatres Act, to use its discretion, but the small percentage that is actually censored out of films is so small that it's hardly worth mentioning.
Mr Bradley: Because you have served on the board, have you had any indication that the direction to the board will be different? I have read certain statements of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who has responsibility in the House for answering for the board, which would indicate she has personal concerns or government concerns -- I'm not sure which; probably personal concerns in this case -- about various things you would find within films.
I had the impression -- and it could be a wrong impression, to be fair to Ms Churley -- that we may be seeing some censorship coming into play which would be contrary to what the intellectual pillars of the NDP used to present in this committee -- Jim Renwick and Pat Lawlor, who used to present to this committee. They used to make some excellent, compelling arguments in their day against the censor board, as it was then. Do you see, as a result of the minister's statements, which obviously you would follow with interest, a potential for moving to more censorship -- the scissors?
Ms Christian: I don't think so. I've had discussions with the minister about my assuming this position, and she hasn't, in any way, indicated to me a move in that direction. We have had discussions about the public-appointed board, the fact that we are representatives from various communities, that the members are representatives from various communities throughout the province and that the direction would come from them.
Mr Bradley: You have four basic categories, of family, parental guidance, adult accompaniment and restricted. I heard the minister or saw the minister saying now that perhaps they'll be labelling certain films as racist and some others as sexist. It's a very hard question, I guess, to get at. How would we define a racist or a sexist film?
Ms Christian: I think that was a very unfortunate misunderstanding or misquoting in terms of the discussions that we had with various members of the media, because what we were both talking about was raising of consciousness in terms of racism and sexism, not "censoring" racism and/or sexism. If that was the case, we'd be eliminating each film, in terms of sexism, anyway.
Mr Bradley: The board and the government and all of us are now receiving more representations from people who in the past were not heard on the issue of censorship. It must be difficult for some of them who, in the past, as I say, have been very much in favour of no censorship and only classification, who now have come to some conclusions that perhaps what is being shown in videos and theatres is having an influence on the way people behave in society. Does the board have some extensive studies which would indicate whether, for instance, violence and pornography and racism as portrayed in films in fact are having an influence on a significant segment of society?
Ms Christian: I know that during the time I was there as a member, various studies were given to us as members to apprise ourselves on so that we were aware of what was the latest in terms of the study of pornography and its effects.
Mr Bradley: Would the board be under your direction? I understand it's an entire board and it's unfair to say only the chair can make these decisions, but would you have plans to have further studies conducted on whether what people see in films and in videos is increasing crime or increasing unacceptable behaviour on the part of people? Would you plan to be doing that?
Ms Christian: I don't believe that's within the mandate of the board.
Mr Bradley: But I'm just saying you could recommend it. I'm wondering whether you'd be thinking of recommending such further studies.
Ms Christian: Of course. The more information that people have, the better, I believe, so that they can make informed judgements.
Mr Bradley: Thanks.
Mr Grandmaître: How much time? About five minutes?
The Chair: Four or five minutes.
Mr Grandmaître: Four or five minutes? I'm glad that you highlighted that you are a classification board. I'm glad of this because this has been a question on everybody's mind: Is it a censorship board or a classification board?
Going back to your responsibility for classification of these films, the board is required to refer to community standards and yet the Theatres Act doesn't offer any guidance on community standards. What are your thoughts on community standards? Where and how do you define them? You know what I mean.
Ms Christian: Good question. The Supreme Court of Canada can't give a good definition on community standards. The way I would perceive it or refer to it, I guess, is that I would have to have faith in the board members who are on the board and feel that they will be representing their various communities, and in the discussions that happen with each film when they are classified, that those community standards would be reflected.
Mr Grandmaître: But when you say people on the board, don't forget there are only, what, five? Is it five people?
Mr Bradley: Five permanent.
Mr Grandmaître: Five permanent, I'm sorry. The more the merrier. I agree with you, but again, if we can't find a definition or an explanation for community standards, does that mean the 25 or 30 people on the board are speaking for Ontario?
Ms Christian: I think in that sense we would have to rely on the people of Ontario. If they don't like what they see is happening, they would have to step forward and voice their concerns to the board and to the ministry and to the government generally.
Mr Grandmaître: But aren't you responsible for reviewing these films before they are shown?
Ms Christian: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: So it would be too late if you were to get the response from the public.
Ms Christian: I would hope that the people of Ontario, through the members who are appointed to the board, would voice their concerns to the various people in the regions, and I would encourage people to find out who the members are.
1120
Mr Grandmaître: There's a very interesting statistic here. In 1990-1991 the board reviewed close to 2,000 motion pictures or videos; 5% received a family classification, 35% parental guidance, 25% adult classification, and 32% restricted classification. What's happening to the family classification? I shouldn't say the "family classification." What's happening with the industry for not providing a larger category or a larger number of family films? You're going to tell me, "Well, they're not popular." Is that why?
Ms Christian: They don't make money.
Mr Grandmaître: What I'm getting at is --
The Chair: A brief response to that, because the time is up. Can we have a brief response to that question, please? Is that it, they don't make money?
Ms Christian: That's the bottom line, isn't it? It's the industry, and the industry is obviously geared to profit. If family pictures don't make dollars for them, they aren't going to produce them.
Mr Grandmaître: So we are going to see more restricted films, explicit sex, because there's money in it.
Mr McLean: I wanted to start out by getting a clarification with regard to your work history. From 1991 to September 1992 you were in British Columbia, is that right?
Ms Christian: No.
Mr McLean: That's not right?
Ms Christian: No.
Mr McLean: Okay. That was the information provided.
Ms Christian: It said that I have been reporting to that centre in British Columbia. I've been working with them, but I've been located here in Ontario.
Mr McLean: What years have you been on the board?
Ms Christian: From 1987 to April 1992.
Mr McLean: The part that bothers me a bit is with regard to the review of the films. Many years ago we had a committee that went to the review board and I had occasion to look at some of the films there. It was shocking, I thought, in a lot of cases. You indicated, when you were interviewed in September by the Toronto Sun, that you want the 17-member review board to watch for racist content and warn viewers of what may offend some people. How do you determine what is a racist content?
Ms Christian: First of all, let me say that this interview was not written in the way that I had the discussion with the young woman. What I said was that there was an information piece, "May offend some," which could be a blanket information piece which would cover any racist content that may offend people. I wasn't implying that this should be a separate information piece. In terms of defining racism, when you are a person of colour and you're sitting there and your stomach turns, that's usually a pretty good indication that there's racist content in the film.
Mr McLean: You indicate that you're no Mary Brown. I understand you were not too pleased with the way Robert Payne operated. You thought that he was a little liberal in his ways. Are you going to try and be in between those two?
Ms Christian: I don't know where you got the information that I wasn't pleased with the way Robert worked, because that's absolutely untrue. I was a member during the time that Robert was chair. I supported him and will continue to in the work that he did because I feel that we did a good job while I was a member and while he was chair.
Mr McLean: So you will continue along much the same lines as in the past. Regarding the structure of the board, and you'll be chair of the board now, do you feel that the board is made up of enough different people from the communities that it is an overall perspective of the population that's represented?
Ms Christian: No. I've actually had discussions with the minister's office about this and have made a request that more men be appointed.
Mr McLean: What is the makeup of the board now? Is it female --
Ms Christian: I'm not entirely sure. I know that there are 21 and when I left in April, the composition was changing, so I don't know what it is right now. I haven't gone into the office or anything. I didn't feel that I should do that until I actually went through this process.
Mr McLean: I'm not sure who said it, whether it was the minister or who it was, who said there should be labels on some of these film tapes. Do you agree with that?
Ms Christian: I think that there was a misunderstanding in that. What we were both talking about were information pieces and those already exist. The term was just referred to differently in the media. They were information pieces that already exist.
Mr McLean: Are the police still making seizures now?
Ms Christian: I don't know that. I haven't been in the board since April, so I would have to wait until I get there.
Mr McLean: I think that's all I have, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Cooper and then Ms Carter.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Just one brief question. Right now there seems to be a bit of a jurisdictional problem. I'm sure you're aware of Project P, which is a joint venture by the OPP and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force anti-pornography squad. It seems that the board's been okaying some films and then the police are going into the video stores and raiding them. Whose jurisdiction do you think it should be ultimately, the review board or the police's, to try to enforce community standards?
Ms Christian: It would have to be the police because we don't have the manpower or person power to enforce --
Mr Cooper: That's what I'm wondering. If you're reviewing the films and saying they're okay according to community standards and the police are going in and raiding these video store owners who think they're okay to rent out the videos, what do you think the solution is: a better rating system or ultimately let the courts decide?
Ms Christian: I think there needs to be a system or a process put in place in terms of the actual availability or accessibility to the videos that are available to people. I also feel that people in their own homes need to exercise some responsibility in terms of what their children see and not see.
Mr Cooper: So basically you're saying, once it's reviewed and okayed it should be okay for the community and the police shouldn't be coming in and basically censoring.
Ms Christian: The police also have their role to play. If there is contraband material out there, yes, I believe they should seize that.
Mr Cooper: But you feel if it's okayed by the Film Review Board, the police shouldn't be stepping in.
Ms Christian: I'm not going to take Bill McCormack on, that's for sure. They have their job to do and we have ours to do.
Mr Cooper: I just understand there's some apprehension out there with the video store owners on this issue and I was trying to find if there was a compromise or a solution that you might have.
Ms Carter: Following up from that point, I think the issue as between the board and the police is that the board has been tending to allow more sexually explicit material, feeling that's in line with community standards as they change, and the police are not quite at the same point in interpreting that, so that they are in fact seizing videos and so on which have been passed by the board, not just ones which are in fact illegal.
Ms Christian: I would have to update myself on what's happened there. I'm not completely aware of all of the details, but the last that I heard actually was that much of the material that the police were seizing was contraband material. During this flurry of activity that I had with the press when my nomination was made, I also had one of the press people tell me that one of the police seizures was actually set up by a video owner himself just for the attention, and his business went up.
Ms Carter: I see. Maybe you know more about that than we do, but what I really wanted to ask was, of course, the sexually explicit stuff on the one hand -- there's violence and it seems to me we haven't really discussed that issue. I think a lot of us would probably agree that although we have in the past been more sensitive to sexual explicitness, we're coming more and more to feel that the violence is maybe the real problem, especially when sex and violence go together. What is your feeling about that? Do you see violence in film as a problem, and what do you think can be done about that?
1130
Ms Christian: Yes, I see violence in films as a problem. It's a difficult question to answer because all we can do, I think, as the board is to continue to provide information to the public, to give them information that allows them to choose whether they want to see the films or whether they will allow their children to see the films. We don't have a lot of control over the industry.
Ms Carter: Of course, if you're based on community standards, what happens if community standards become very tolerant towards violence? Do you see that as a possible scenario?
Ms Christian: No, I don't. We have to rely on the people in the judicial system in terms of how they determine what violence in film is and community standards, because what the Supreme Court has stated or determined what community standards are in terms of obscenity guides how the judgements are made.
Mr Waters: I have a couple of questions. One has to do with video rental outlets and machines. How do you think we should address the problem with children having access to restricted movies or adult sex films, whatever, with these machines? Do you see any way of dealing with that problem, or in the video outlet stores?
Ms Christian: The machines are difficult, but I know that some of the video outlets already have a process in place where they actually require a parent's signature for children and ask for their ages. But I believe that's where it's got to be. The video outlets have got to have a process in place, working together with parents.
Mr Waters: As a reformed smoker, I guess I have a problem with parents' signatures. You know, the neighbour next door, the kid who's two years older than you, signs, and how does the person at the video store know what the age is?
Mr Bradley: Are you saying you did this?
Mr Waters: I'm no different than you, Mr Bradley.
Mr Bradley: I'm obviously different in that way. I never had anything to do with those things.
Mr Waters: I think kids are very creative. So you don't see any way that we could set up a screening system where indeed you can just say that no children under 15 or 16, or whatever age, an arbitrary age, would be allowed to purchase or rent one of these movies for any reason? You're not in favour of that type of thing? You don't see the possibility of setting up something that would be more stringent, I guess?
Ms Christian: I'd have to look at the information more thoroughly, and talk to the board about it as well, before I'd make any recommendations like that.
Mr Waters: Okay. I think we all recognize that the board is constantly evolving and reacting to society and I think we all support very much that the board has to be that way. It cannot be a stagnant board; it has to evolve as society wishes. I guess my final question would be, do you feel that the board is a reflection of the majority of the people of Ontario and their wishes in the review process or categorization of films or how they deal with it?
Ms Christian: When I was there, I felt it was a good reflection of Ontario. That was one of the things I actually enjoyed, being able to interact with people from all different walks of life and different areas. My understanding is that there is a whole new board now since I left in April and that there has been a concerted effort to get representation from all communities as well as regional locations.
Mr Waters: If you could do one thing to put your stamp on the board, what would it be, if you had only one?
Ms Christian: One thing?
Mr Waters: Just out of curiosity.
The Chair: Time's up.
Mr Waters: That's a tough question. I'll remember never to ask that question again.
Mr Bradley: You have to ask it they way you ask ministers a question: You give them the question first.
Mr Waters: It's okay. I just wondered if there was any particular thing you wanted to deal with, that was all.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Waters. Ms Christian, that concludes the interview. I can still give you an extra 30 seconds if you want to respond to Mr Waters's question. In any event, you've got a challenging and interesting appointment and, I'm sure, some intriguing times ahead. We wish you well. Thank you for appearing here.
TERRENCE GLEN MURPHY
The Chair: The final witness this morning is Terrence Murphy, an intended appointee as the vice-chair of the Assessment Review Board. Mr Murphy, welcome and good morning. Do you have anything you'd like to say before we begin the review process?
Mr Terrence Glen Murphy: No, I do not.
The Chair: All right. I'll look to Mr Grandmaître to begin the questioning.
Mr Grandmaître: Let's talk about market value assessment. Market value, as you know, was a dream of not this government, but back in 1971, if I'm not mistaken, a dream of Darcy McKeough. At that time, within the next five to seven years, every municipality in Ontario was supposed to be under market value assessment.
I can recall that when I was the Minister of Revenue, close to 650 municipalities had some kind of market value assessment. But now it seems that the rest of the municipalities are very reluctant to introduce market value assessment. By being reluctant, it means that the number of appeals are for ever increasing, and that keeps you people and everybody else very busy.
Do you think that it's time we should review section 63 or section 70 of the Assessment Act?
Mr Murphy: I don't really think I can answer that directly. As you're aware, section 70 is at full market value, which allows for tax shifts on most classes of properties. Section 63 is a reassessment program, but it's within certain classes of property and there's no tax shift, the intent being to equalize the taxes among the various classes of property.
Mr Grandmaître: But it's creating -- I'll give you an example: I don't have to remind you of what Metro is going through at the present time with market value assessment, and also the Ottawa-Carleton area. But now that these printouts are out in the open and it's a public document and I know exactly what I'm paying and can also find out what my neighbour is paying, don't you think that by releasing these printouts publicly we're creating or asking for more appeals?
Mr Murphy: As a result of releasing the information, the board would anticipate that it will be receiving more appeals on that basis. But, once again, I believe it's really up to the elected representatives of the municipality whether they wish to proceed or not.
1140
Mr Grandmaître: I realize that. I realize that the ministry needs some kind of resolution, a commitment on behalf of the municipality, before market value assessment or a review is done. But given the fact that it's not costing municipal government one penny to have these reviews done and that they become public documents and people find out that they've been paying more than their fair share of municipal or school taxes, don't you think we're asking for trouble?
Mr Murphy: I can't really speak to that from the board's point of view.
Mr Grandmaître: No, I'm not asking you to give Mr Rae or the Minister of Revenue -- I'm asking for your views, your thoughts, because when I look at your background, God, with your experience, you can offer this government and every mayor in Ontario some valuable experience. I'm not asking you to downgrade the government or the minister or the ministry; I'm asking for your views, because I'm concerned that market value assessment will never be a success in this province.
Mr Murphy: I can't speak to that either.
Mr Grandmaître: God, what can you speak to?
Mr Murphy: You're asking me to design government policy, and I'm sure I'm not in a position to do that. My concern is from the board's point of view; it is my prime concern. The legislation is there; the municipalities have the choice of either going or not going. They can also go region-wide, as is probably occurring in your area, as I understand.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Murphy: We anticipate a great number of complaints from that area as well. But I can't speak to the policy of whether reassessment should be there. Municipal taxation, as everybody's well aware, has been a subject of many discussions and many reviews over the years, and we're still existing underneath the same system that's been in operation.
Mr Grandmaître: That's what I'm getting at: We're still operating under 63 and 70, and it's not acceptable. Maybe it was acceptable in 1971, but not in 1992, and this is why I'm asking you if you think it's time for this government, or the next government, to change those sections.
Mr Murphy: I'll be quite frank. I've never really thought about that too much. We've been too busy dealing with the present ones to worry about what should be.
Mr Grandmaître: You're too busy with appeals.
Mr Murphy: Yes, that's right.
Mr Grandmaître: That's because the system isn't working.
Mr Murphy: That's maybe only one part of it. I'm sure economic times have something to do with the matters of appeals coming before us and the increases in taxation across the province, but I really can't speak to that.
Mr Grandmaître: God, I'm looking for a question that you can give me an answer to. Do you think the number of appeals has increased in the last three years?
Mr Murphy: Yes, they have increased.
Mr Grandmaître: Why?
Mr Murphy: You have to remember that underneath the market value system, and specifically sections 63 and 70, there is a four-year cycle going on. What transpires is that normally in the year of return there's a high volume of complaints, because the valuation shown on a notice sent out to the individual can cause some concern because he is not really aware of how much it's going to cost him in tax dollars. Therefore, they will file that complaint in the first instance. Normally, after the first year of that, it starts to drop back to its normal procedure. Of course, some people are chronic complainers who file every year.
Mr Grandmaître: With the Fair Tax Commission that's in place now, they're looking at school taxes and municipal taxes and just about every tax: 63 of them. They might be introducing 63 new taxes. Let's hope not. But I still say you people should have an input in this Fair Tax Commission. You should have an input for the simple reason that 45% or 40% of municipal taxes are in place because you people are saying, "You qualify for this much," and you put a stamp on that, on municipal and school taxes. I think the system should be changed and you're telling me, "I'm not in a position to change it." I'm saying you should have input in those changes.
Mr Murphy: Yes, I agree. We probably should have some input into the Fair Tax Commission, with regard to property taxation, in any event.
Mr Grandmaître: God, you're a tough one, you know. Do you believe in market value assessment?
Mr Murphy: That's a nice, dicey question.
Mr Marchese: Rephrase your question.
Mr Murphy: Would you like to define what you mean by fair?
Mr Grandmaître: Well, you're the assessment review people. You're the judges, the ones to say, "This is fair," and "This is not fair," and now you're asking me to be the judge. You sit on the board.
Mr Murphy: But you asked me about market value. All I said was, what's your definition of fair market value? Everybody has a different interpretation. As you know, market value as it was intended at one time was full market value, I believe under Mr McKeough. However, that would result in tax shifts among the different classes of properties, and that's the reason he introduced what is now referred to as section 63, at least in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, which is reassessment within classes of property and no tax shift. If I'm to believe the Metro media coverage, there's a great discrepancy in the various municipalities in Metro Toronto, but my knowledge is only as to what I read in the newspaper.
The Chair: We'll have to move on.
Mr Grandmaître: Good luck to you.
Mr McLean: How many years ago is it since you lived in Kenora?
Mr Murphy: Quite a while, back in the late 1950s.
Mr McLean: Were you born and raised in Kenora?
Mr Murphy: Yes, I was.
Mr McLean: So you know the north pretty well. I spent a fair bit of time as municipal clerk-administrator, and you've been involved in politics for many years.
Mr Murphy: Politics? Well --
Mr McLean: Well, it shows today. What's your definition of fair market value?
Mr Grandmaître: He said he didn't know.
Mr Murphy: I'll stick with the safe answer: It's what a willing buyer will give a willing seller, market value.
Mr McLean: I had a couple of questions, but they're slow coming around to me today. The people who get a rebate are getting their taxes lowered because of market value. Do you get many appeals from them?
Mr Murphy: From people who do get a rebate, you mean? No, usually the matter, once it's before the board and finally resolved -- as you know, there is another higher tribunal, the Ontario Municipal Board, which gives a final decision which is binding -- and if there's no change in circumstances, then that assessment, by either our board or by the Ontario Municipal Board, remains until there's a change in circumstances.
Mr McLean: It's always intrigued me that people getting their taxes raised are always very upset and the ones who are getting them lowered never say a word, yet it's the ones getting them lowered who should be upset because they've been paying the freight for the others.
Mr Murphy: That would appear to be the situation, yes.
Mr McLean: You'd agree with that statement?
Mr Murphy: Yes. I'd probably expand upon it, if you want to talk about Metro Toronto reassessment, in that with the media coverage that has gone out on the fact that any property owner can go to the regional assessment office, to the municipality or his elected representative of the municipality and obtain the market value, it would create a problem for this board in the sense that if they do not proceed with market value assessment, we would anticipate that the people who are entitled to a decrease under market value assessment will then subsequently file an appeal to the board.
1150
Mr McLean: Are you going to get paid for sitting on this board?
Mr Murphy: I'm classified as a civil servant, yes.
Mr McLean: So your pay will go on regardless of whether you're acting on the board or where you are, right?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Mr McLean: You don't get any extra?
Mr Murphy: No. Just normal civil service procedure.
Mr McLean: When do you plan on retiring?
Mr Murphy: If you want an honest answer, the day after Metro goes market value, maybe.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Mr Marchese: Some quick questions. I understand that it says under section 5 of the act that a quorum is one member.
Mr Murphy: That's correct.
Mr Marchese: And there are 60 members.
Mr Murphy: Approximately, yes.
Mr Marchese: It's an unusual quorum rule. I've never seen any quorum that says one is enough to have a meeting. Isn't that unusual?
Mr Murphy: Not necessarily. We've operated under the act since its inception, some 20 years.
Mr Marchese: Yes, but what it means is that you could have a meeting of five people, because one is sufficient for a quorum, and you have a meeting of potentially only a fifth of the people who are there.
Mr Murphy: No, the intention of the quorum is that it only takes one member of the board to hear a matter. The parties to the actual hearing are identified in the legislation and include the regional assessment commissioner.
Mr Marchese: I see, that's clear now. I misunderstood the intent of what quorum meant in relation to what.
One of the problems we've noticed in our community, in the riding of Fort York, is that a lot of people complain about the fact that they do renovations to their homes, which makes their home a better place, and they put money into the economy by spending, and then the potential for reassessment comes along which says, "For beautifying your home and for contributing to the economy, we're going to increase your taxes on the home." A lot of home owners find that a very bizarre thing. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr Murphy: Not an opinion. It's a fact that it is considered to increase the market value of your property by improving it, and I believe the legislation -- there is usually no alteration in the assessed value unless you were to improve the property where it increased the value by at least $5,000 or more.
Mr Marchese: But you see the difficulty. People are saying, "Why should I spend money if my taxes are going to go up?" It almost eliminates the incentive for people to improve it, to let it run down, because if I improve it I will be taxed at a higher rate.
Mr Murphy: That's true, but unfortunately, that's a part of the system. The same thing could be said -- you could be living beside somebody who lets his house run down, but his value will not change either.
Mr Marchese: Let me ask you another question about taxation. The present market value assessment scheme that has been done for Metropolitan Toronto is based on 1988 values. One of the complaints that raises is that it was done at the peak of market value, in Toronto in particular and I suspect Metropolitan Toronto. Market value of homes has dropped considerably. Does that create a problem in terms of what they're doing in basing it on 1988 versus the present value of homes? Does that shifting create problems in terms of taxation of homes?
Mr Murphy: Not from my point of view; it would not, no.
Mr Marchese: Could you expand a little bit?
Mr Murphy: Whatever the base year is, the idea is that all properties be assessed equitably; therefore, if everybody is assessed on the base year 1988, it's all relative. If you based it on 1990 it would be relative, so long as they're assessed in the same manner. What the base year is would not matter because all properties would lose value equivalently.
Mr Marchese: Or increase in value?
Mr Murphy: In other words, what your house would be worth in 1988 is what it's worth in 1992. Everybody else's house is in the same situation. So the basis of assessment would be the same, except that the figure shown on a piece of paper would be different.
Mr Marchese: You were commenting on the media saying something and you were expressing a contrary view. I couldn't quite understand. What is the media saying that you think is wrong?
Mr Murphy: Oh no, not what's wrong. What I'm saying is that due to the media coverage of reassessment in Metro Toronto, it will probably create a problem for the board in the sense that more people will be filing an appeal if you don't go to market value in Metro, because everybody has access to that information. For people who are entitled to a reduction under market value, if Metro fails to proceed with market value, it will probably result in those people filing appeals with us.
Mr Marchese: But if they file an appeal and they have a good case --
Mr Murphy: Oh no, we don't consider that a problem. What we consider the problem is that -- I forget what the figure is -- 60% or something of properties are supposed to go down, I believe.
Mr Marchese: It varies in different ridings, of course.
Mr Murphy: Yes. We would anticipate that all those people will probably come before us, or try to come before us, because of the high percentage, especially the residential area anyway.
Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I have only a couple of questions. If market value assessment is going to be passed, then for those who are going to be paying more, is there an alternative for them to get the assessment review for any reason at all?
Mr Murphy: I really can't say on that. They would have to come before the board and put forth their argument as to why.
Mr Rizzo: If, instead, the new law is not going to be passed and people who are now being assessed, for example, $2,000 against $3,000 that they were assessed previously come in front of your board, will you reduce the assessment to $2,000?
Mr Murphy: No, not necessarily. I really can't say yes, no or maybe. It would depend entirely on the argument put forth and the evidence by all the parties to the matter.
Mr Rizzo: One case, my personal case: I have been assessed at $7,000 under the old assessment. Now I'll be assessed at $4,500. This would mean a saving. If market value assessment is not going to be passed, do I have any recourse to you? Can I say, "Listen, under this new assessment now, even if it has not been passed, I am entitled to a refund or to a reduced assessment"?
Mr Murphy: No. You would have to prove to the board that you are assessed inequitably with similar properties within your own vicinity.
Mr Rizzo: So the old way of assessing would be used and whatever style that's been done from 1988 wouldn't count at all?
Mr Murphy: Not really. It's on a basis of what the assessment is at the time that you're appealing it, and the board would have to have --
Mr Rizzo: Why, then, do you expect a lot of appeals if market value assessment is going to be passed?
Mr Murphy: I would anticipate it on a basis that as you have just explained to me, your assessment would go from $7,000 to $4,500, if I remember correctly. In that case, you would be more likely to appeal than not to appeal, even if you're not successful, because the average taxpayer out there would certainly like to have his day before the board and argue the fact that his assessment is still where it is.
Mr Marchese: The problem is case load. Is what you're saying.
Mr Murphy: Yes, it's case load.
Mr Rizzo: Why would I appeal if I get a reduction in assessment?
Mr Murphy: No. I say if you don't get the reduction in assessment.
Mr Rizzo: If I don't get it. Oh, I see.
Mr Waters: I have a couple of quick ones. Because I already have market value assessment I'm not really concerned about it; it's "Welcome aboard" the rest of the province. I'd like to know, in the reorganization of the board, and I understand that this position came out of that reorganization, what your responsibilities will be?
Mr Murphy: Primarily in training and development. The board in the past has been fortunate in the sense that the backbone of the board is really the part-time members. The majority of the members are and have been with us for a number of years and usually have a background in assessment or evaluation of properties, such as appraisers, real estate people, insurance people, who have that background.
In those days the appointments were at pleasure. The board has been faced in the last few years with the understanding that the appointment is a three-year term, with one renewable, to the best of our knowledge, which means that the best we can get out of a member is approximately six years. That means the board now has to establish a training program to bring these people on, and we have to keep in line with the government policy on employment equity and make sure that the board is representative of the people across the province.
Therefore, the skills we would normally look for in the area of assessment, evaluation, are not as required now and we are reaching out into other areas where people have other skills but do not have assessment-related skills for the evaluation of property. What we're developing is a training program that will give them that information.
Mr Waters: Good. And --
The Chair: I'm sorry. We're well over. Mr Murphy, thank you very much for your appearance here today. I wish you well.
Mr Murphy: Thank you.
The Chair: The final matter on our agenda is the determination of whether or not the committee concurs. We can deal with them all in one motion, and I suspect we will.
Mr Waters: I would move that.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Waters. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1202.