SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT COMMITTEE BUDGET
CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 June 1993
Subcommittee report; committee budget
Appointments review
Eric Sisèl
Donald Stockdale
Regent Gagnon
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
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)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Mammoliti
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1037 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT COMMITTEE BUDGET
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to order.
The first order of business this morning on your agenda, you will see, is the approval of the subcommittee report of Wednesday, June 2. There is a change to the subcommittee report. No, there isn't a change to the report, but there is a correction. If you see on your subcommittee report, you'll notice that as it -- I think one of the words we used was that a gremlin got into the last report. Mr Regent Gagnon was scheduled for June 9 and in the report that we approved last week he was scheduled for June 16. However, we're looking forward to seeing him today and we apologize for the scheduling error in terms of our computer. That's something I just wanted to draw to your attention. The rest of the committee report is in order as printed before you.
We would like two motions this morning, if we could, please, on the subcommittee report, so that we have a separate motion approving the budget and a separate motion approving the subcommittee report. Are there any questions or would somebody like to move the report and the budget?
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'd like to move the report and the budget.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I second that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any discussion? All in favour? That's carried. Are you also moving the budget as well?
Mr Hope: I move the budget also.
Mrs Witmer: I second that.
The Chair: All in favour? That's carried.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
The Chair: As you know, our first appointment this morning was to have been Wendy Priesnitz, who is an intended appointee as vice-chair of the Ontario Film Review Board. However, as the committee was notified yesterday by the clerk's office, Ms Priesnitz was unable to attend this morning, so that interview was actually cancelled.
Mrs Witmer: I certainly do regret the fact that Wendy Priesnitz was not able to appear before us today. It was a review that I was looking forward to and certainly needs to take place. I would anticipate that you would plan to reschedule her in August, after her return from vacation on July 14.
The Chair: It will be possible to reschedule her interview in the summer schedule. Initially, that decision has to be made by the subcommittee. The subcommittee will discuss rescheduling her interview at noon today and then the subcommittee will make a report back and the whole committee will make a decision. It is true that this committee meets during the summer to review appointments, so it's quite possible to have Ms Priesnitz rescheduled when she returns from her vacation instead of today's appointment.
ERIC SISÈL
The Chair: We would now move to our 10:30 appointment. I apologize to you, Dr Sisèl, for keeping you waiting. I'm sorry; we're running a little late. Would you like to come forward and take a seat before the committee. Just as you're doing that, our researcher has some notations that he wishes to make.
Mr David Pond: Briefly, there are a couple of points in the paper I prepared for you on this appointment which I'd like to correct or update, just so there's no misunderstanding. On the bottom of page 5 and at the top of page 6 I say that, "All positions on the board are part-time" and that the chair has to be a judge. My information is that the new chair of the board is not a judge and she will be serving full-time.
The other thing I should clear up, just so there's no misunderstanding, though it's probably a bit more technical, is in the first full paragraph on page 3. I give the impression that individuals who are found to be not criminally responsible or suffering from a mental disorder and not fit to stand trial are automatically sent to the review board for a hearing, and that's not the case. The court does retain considerable discretion about the disposition. These people are not automatically sent on to the review board for a hearing. That's it.
The Chair: All right. Thank you, Mr Pond.
Dr Sisèl, you're welcome to make some opening comments to the committee, if you wish. If not, we will just start in rotation with the committee members.
Dr Eric Sisèl: If I may, Madam Chairman, just very briefly, I would like to express to you and through you to the members of your committee my appreciation for your work and the effort that has gone into the selection process. It has certainly reinforced to me the excellence of the system and of the entire process, because your participation as our elected representatives gives me that assurance.
I also would like to express, through you to the staff of this committee and the various ministries who do the groundwork to bring the best possible selections to you, my thanks for their commitment.
The Chair: This is actually the beginning of the involvement of this committee. Prior to today, this committee has not been involved. The process has been that your name has been referred to this committee by the Premier's office and it's our understanding that, prior to that, your appointment was approved by the cabinet. That is the process. This is the first involvement of this committee, but thank you for your kind comments.
This appointment was selected for review by the third party, so, Ms Witmer, if you have some questions.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome, Dr Sisèl. We're really pleased that you are here today. Obviously, you're going to face quite a challenge on this board. There's been tremendous concern expressed throughout the province, throughout the country, about the safeguards for the public.
I guess my question to you would be: Do you think that the system that is presently in place does provide sufficient safeguards for the public at the present time?
Dr Sisèl: I feel it does. Certainly Bill C-30 has added -- and I consider it a step in the right direction -- to that security, to those safeguards. The board now makes deliberations, the way I understand it, in a far more decisive manner than before. Under the previous legislation, as you're well aware, the board's role was one of an advisory capacity only. The Lieutenant Governor really made the final decisions. That capacity was well served by a succession of lieutenant governors who did so much groundwork themselves. I understand Lincoln Alexander practically read every case himself, and, boy, that's really something.
In the present board, we have a heavy responsibility. I think your concern, which I share in my community as well as in the communities that I'm in touch with on a continuing basis -- I find there is this real fear that people are put back in the community without adequate rehabilitation. That has to be our first concern.
As I approach this new challenge on the board, it has to be paramount to assure our communities and our people in those communities that there are adequate safeguards in place. That has to be paramount and always will remain so. That has to be balanced, of course, with the needs of the individuals who are mentally ill and as a result may receive treatment if they so desire.
We are looking forward with great concern to substitute consent legislation. This will probably change the whole picture. But to maintain the safeguards and to balance them with the needs of the individual, that is a challenging task indeed.
Mrs Witmer: How do you think the consent legislation is going to change things?
Dr Sisèl: In Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, where I have been the chairman of the board for the last few years, I find a great concern among staff about what the new legislation will bring. We put a lot of emphasis, and rightly so, on the rights of the individual, but we find in the actual day-to-day operations, if individuals refuse treatment, the effect is to warehouse them. You still have to detain them to safeguard the community, but what do you do with them?
If an individual refuses treatment -- and that's a dilemma for the physician because the attending psychiatrist, in his ethical observance, feels this is something now that's best for the patient, but the patient refuses -- you still have to detain him or her. So what do you do? You warehouse them. You just put them as human storage. That is demoralizing to everybody concerned, including the person affected. That is a real concern for the future.
Mrs Witmer: That's an important perspective, I think, to bring to that. We've talked about the threat to the community. Obviously there are always going to be people in the community who are going to feel very threatened.
You've talked a little bit about your experience at Penetanguishene. I guess I would like to ask you: What other talents, skills, experience do you bring to this position that would give you some experience in making this type of determination?
1050
Dr Sisèl: Generally speaking, I have always had in my life a commitment to people. As a pastor, as an Ontario human rights officer, I've always had a commitment to people and to serve them. As a pastor, especially in the communities up north that I serve, I have to deal with people on a daily basis. I have 27 years of ministry, of being a pastor and, as such, it has given me an insight into people's behaviour, into their needs, into their problems.
That has been added to by my experience in the mental health centre in Penetanguishene. I've gained in particular a view of our mental health system, how it operates today, its day-to-day problems on the front line. For instance, to give you an example, I know most of the people in Oak Ridge division who are maximum security patients. I know them on a first-name basis. Tomorrow, as we have our community picnic, the board members will be serving lunch to the patients. So you get to know them and you understand them more as human beings.
In addition to that, I've seen the mental health system province-wide. I've visited all 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals. I've seen their facilities. I believe that in my time on the board, to understand what facilities are available throughout the province in other institutions, in Brockville, in North Bay, in Thunder Bay, is going to be of vital importance to determine how an individual can be best rehabilitated, and lead to the eventual, if possible, reintegration into the community for that individual.
The greatest challenge that I see is to predict the future behaviour of an individual. I share that concern with the top psychiatrists in the hospital. With all your clinical knowledge, with all your human compassion, to predict future human behaviour, especially of someone who's mentally ill, is almost impossible. You can only make an educated guess.
Of course, with the new responsibility for the board, to know that if you speed up the reintegration of an individual based on a calculated risk -- and it is a risk nevertheless -- and the individual becomes recidivist, again commits some kind of -- we're dealing with very violent people. In the present contingent at Oak Ridge, there are very violent individuals with longitudinal histories of many acts of violence. If you release that person back into the community, even based on expert information, you're always having a risk.
That one is quite a responsibility. It hasn't happened yet because it's too short a time that we've been operating under the new legislation, but if a violent incident such as in Brockville recurs, we may all be liable. That's our dilemma.
Mrs Witmer: It certainly is difficult. Thank you very much, Dr Sisèl.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Good morning again. It's nice to see you down here. Something I never realized is that when the verdict comes down, the person does not necessarily and automatically go to a psychiatric hospital. The trial judge has three options, as I see it, at the disposition of the hearing: send the person to a hospital pending the first disposition; the status quo, ie, the accused remains subject to whatever order for custody was in existence at the time of the finding; or release. Do you think trial judges use all of that adequately or do you think they just automatically go the one route?
Dr Sisèl: I have little experience in courtrooms except as a newspaperman, where for years, for decades or more, I've watched court proceedings. Of course, I have sympathy for the position of judges. They have many pressures upon them. Every court has. There are so many pressures to look after the best interests of the individual, of the jurisprudence, of the system itself. Sometimes to find the right way of doing what is best for the community, doing what is best for the individual, requires the wisdom of Solomon, which we as human beings seldom can muster. But I think that in the majority of cases I have observed and heard about, the courts have tried to act wisely. It's always easier afterwards to recognize where the fault has been and hindsight is 20-20 vision.
Mr Waters: How true it is. I guess I have something that really I don't know how much background there is on, but because I've been involved in some local things over the last while with my federal counterpart from Simcoe North, I'm curious about your opinion on what is being talked about, of bringing in a number of sex offenders into Penetang from across the province, because now 13%, I think, in prisons are sex offenders. Doug Lewis has been talking to me, as well as his counterparts in the province, about bringing these people together into Penetang. As a politician, I see it as a good option, but as a person who works closely with the institution, I would appreciate your opinion on that.
Dr Sisèl: When we heard the announcement a day or so ago, it really gave a lot of us apprehension, because it's going to create problems. I appreciate your view that of course we have to save. Instead of building a new institution, we can make use of existing facilities. We have at the moment in Oak Ridge about 80 patients and it's not overcrowded, so certainly there wouldn't be any problem. But we foresee a number of problems arising in having, perhaps from a large part of Canada, patients come to Penetanguishene.
I would say, in balancing what I've just said, that I have such confidence in the staff and the administration of Penetanguishene hospital that I think we'll be able to handle it. I have unabashed admiration for the staff at Oak Ridge as well as the regional division of Penetanguishene. These are top people. They're committed to mental health care, and although we have concerns, especially in cutbacks -- you see, we're always going to need mental institutions for the seriously mentally ill.
The Graham report has pointed the way to the community, but a lot of people have misunderstood Graham. They thought that by pushing people off into the community it's going to be become cheaper, and that's not true. In our experience, we find that even though you rehabilitate people into the community, the provision of mental health services by the community is going to be expensive and time-consuming and costly for many years to come. Yet at the same time you must maintain the institutions for the seriously mentally ill who are not fit to go back into the community.
So you're facing a double-edged sword, and funds are vitally necessary for that operation, to give us good mental health services in this province. We who are on the front line in Penetanguishene and other hospitals have to bear that impact of federal political decisions such as were made yesterday, but we're going to make it work.
Mr Waters: I guess that's one of the reasons that at this point, and it is early on in the discussions, I'm supportive of it. It's because of the staff and because of the ability of that staff and the knowledge that has been built up there. We have a problem that is scattered throughout our country and no one really seems to be working on the issue, other than storing it. Hopefully, if we do move them into Penetang, with the knowledge and the skills that are there, indeed we'll be able to work on the problem.
1100
I find it interesting, your comment on moving people out to the community, because one of the things I found in Gravenhurst, where we had an institution for the mentally delayed that is being closed, we have a definite lack now of people like clinical psychologists and that. These people have been moved out of the institution, where they had all of the care, moved into the community, and some of their key care components aren't there with them because there aren't enough people in any given community for a person to service them. It's a concern that I have because in our region we do have the two facilities, and actually Penetang is more than just Oak Ridge, for instance, if you consider all aspects of Penetang.
Dr Sisèl: A few days ago, to make a further comment to your observation, we had the annual CAB community advisory board, conference in Windsor. Ruth Grier, the minister, addressed us. She recalled, as an alderman in Etobicoke, the closing of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and how the people were, in a real sense, dumped on the community, partially to Queen Street and partially to other places.
I have seen other jurisdictions. I've been in San Francisco. They faced a few years ago the same problem. Cutting back on costs, they released to a great degree the people from the mental institutions on to the streets. Now you get to San Francisco and you see them lying by the hundreds on the sidewalks. You have created a social problem that would turn your heart, and yet who is helping those people if government agencies can no longer handle it? It's a very real dilemma.
Mr Waters: But in our own community, and without mentioning the names of some of the people within our community, if you were to ask the average persons on the street they are led to believe that indeed the person's lot is somewhat better in the group home system or back into the community. I agree with you. I don't see that necessarily for all of them. For some, yes, but for the entire population of some of these institutions I don't think we've done the best we can and I agree with you on that.
Dr Sisèl: You have to treat each one as an individual.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Waters. I'm sorry, Mr Marchese, your caucus is out of time. Mr Curling.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Doctor, I am very glad that you are here and that we are able to ask some questions. I almost find myself rather in a peculiar position in asking people who are coming before us to be reviewed for appointment. I got a funny feeling that people are already appointed and we are just going to go through the exercise to ask you. But this is a great responsibility which you have taken on or they have asked you to take on, whatever way one perceives it.
You have expressed also that you have an understanding of the board and its role, but has the ministry itself taken that time to take you in and give you a briefing about what's happening and what is expected of you and what is expected of the board? Has the minister done this?
Dr Sisèl: Not yet, and I think this would be premature because still the appointment has to be confirmed by this committee. I never considered this just a rubber-stamping process. I think you have a very vital part to play, and your concern is quite appreciated by myself. I would say to you, on my own, I have sat as an observer on the board. Its meetings are public, of course; not its deliberations but its meetings are. For the administration, at times I have attended the board. This was in the days when it only had an advisory capacity.
I also understand that in the next few months, probably after the appointment, if it is made and confirmed by you, I will receive an orientation by the board, which looks after that process on its own. That is what I have been told. I look forward to that learning experience to get a closer knowledge, and I would offer to you very gladly to come back to this committee after having been on the board for a considerable length of time to gain the experience; that I then report to you on my experiences and what adequate training and preparation has been received.
Mr Curling: I appreciate your coming. I can't recall us ever voting against someone; it's not been done. The rubber stamp is over there anyhow. They've been rubber-stamped already. Many people who have come here we have concerns about and have voted against. I have no concerns that you're not capable. Your biography states for itself. The way you articulate and express your understanding, you seem to have a grip of it. But when you use the word "you" -- I don't have a decision in this; I just have to make comments. I don't want to bring you into that.
You mentioned the safety, the balance between those who would be released and the controversial situation that goes on about releasing people who are either ex-psychiatric patients or who have been inmates in a prison and have been let out on society. The balance between the safety of the community against individual rights has been debated and has been quite a hot issue in the paper lately. I, for one, really can understand the concerns of the community.
But deep down, the individual's rights -- and I don't want to talk about the right to go out and to kill or the right to do all these things, but sometimes I regard it that individual rights are sort of slipping away a little bit, that the community is really irate about how government is handling it. There's a balance there.
How would you approach the situation of that individual who will be released on society and the judgement there? Does the board have people capable enough to make that kind of medical judgement, to say yes, that person has a right now to go back into the community without their name being given, without everyone targeting them and making their own medical and social judgements on them?
Dr Sisèl: You have touched on an underlying human issue which of course affects all of life. Can the board make an adequate decision? I have never been privy to any deliberations of the board. From what I have seen so far as an observer, and from what I've heard of the operations of the board, all possible background of the individual affected, primarily, is given and is brought to the hearing before the board. That includes the clinical psychiatric background, which of course is narrow. It includes the legal background, which is also narrow. It includes the personal history of the individual, almost all the way from birth; his or her present behaviour in the institution: Has he or she refused treatment? Are they willing actually to take on responsibility for their life? There are many factors that are all bearing on that subject, on the decision that you must eventually make.
As I mentioned before to your colleague, I think it's a decision over which we find ourselves in the agony to predict human behaviour in the future. The balance will always be a fine line. As individuals, we agonize over that decision, we bring all the information we possibly can to bear on it, but essentially, in your heart of hearts, you have to make the final decision, and you fall or stand with it. So as in all human things, we're limited, we're finite, but we try to do the best we can, with the Lord's help.
Mr Curling: I think there's a role that the board can play. Right now, I see the board playing the role that after the horse has gone through the barn gate, we close the gate and make a decision about the horse out there.
I'll try to describe that analogy in this sense: There are many people who are coming to us in our constituencies who are saying that their son or husband is schizophrenic and is showing signs of violent behaviour. The fact is, nothing can be really done unless the individual does a criminal act before the person can be arrested or put in an institution. I'm not saying that Big Brother must come in and put them in an institution, but by the time the person commits that act, they have gone to a boiling point. Then you are faced, on that board, with making a decision on whether the person goes to jail, or they prove that the person did it without any criminal intent but was mentally deranged at the time.
1110
Do you see the board playing a role in this, of making that kind of recommendation or addressing that concern? That concern is out there, and it's not being addressed. I don't know why, but it's just not being addressed. Do you see the board playing a role like that?
Dr Sisèl: It may not be possible for the board to play that role. It's limited by its jurisdiction. Legally, you cannot exceed the bounds of the act and when you're --
Mr Curling: Before you comment on that -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- I'm talking about making recommendations that those things be done. I'm not saying the board should go into the home and things, but make an observation that these things are coming into the board's lap to make a decision after the act, when the signals were being shown earlier on.
Dr Sisèl: In our deliberations and the deliberations of the board as they're already happening, I'm sure these circumstances are to be considered. If they are not, then certainly I would like them to be considered and I would think the board would have a role to play.
Mr Curling: I have no further questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. There being no further questions, I'd like to thank you very much, Dr Sisèl, for appearing before the committee this morning.
Dr Sisèl: Thank you.
DONALD STOCKDALE
The Chair: Our next appointee for review this morning is Mr Donald Stockdale. Welcome, Mr Stockdale. If you wish, you may use a few moments to address the committee with some opening comments. If you do not have any opening comments, we will start the rotation with the government members.
Mr Donald Stockdale: My only opening comment would be that it is a pleasure for me to be here with you this morning. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stockdale. Dr Frankford.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Good morning. Looking at your résumé, you really have quite a lot of experience in this general field of addictions and substance abuse.
Mr Stockdale: Yes, the firsthand experience I've had -- yes, that's true. I guess it started -- I spent 25 years working for the Goodyear tire and rubber company out in Lakeshore in New Toronto. Part of my duties there, as a union member, was to assist our sisters and brothers, members, who had problems with substance abuse. So I've had an opportunity from early in the mid-1950s up until when I left there in 1982 to be working in the field with people with substance abuse problems.
Mr Frankford: I guess you've looked at what the Addiction Research Foundation does.
Mr Stockdale: Very much so. I've worked with the ARF on many occasions.
Mr Frankford: I think it's fair to say it has a treatment, a clinical role, and it has a research role. In the research document we've got here, there's reference to the work it's done on assessing the extent of problems with alcohol and other types of abuse. The comment I would make, and perhaps you'd like to respond to it, is that it seems a lot of work is done on alcohol; there are figures there on cannabis and other illegal drugs. It seems to me there's perhaps another area, and perhaps you could comment on what you've seen in your work experience: prescribed drugs. I would say there's a lot of misuse or dependence on prescription drugs. I'm not sure if this has ever been much of a mandate of the ARF, but would you comment?
Mr Stockdale: Yes, I hope I'm able. I would comment in this particular way, and then you can question me further if I'm not hitting it where exactly you wanted to be.
I've had some concerns. It is changing and it has been changing for the last couple of years. It seems that the newspapers and the radio and the TV want to focus on, for want of a better word, the sexy problems we have in society. For a while there you could hardly turn on the TV or pick up the newspaper without seeing police knocking down the doors of some crack house and arresting a bunch of people. That's well and fine, but the fact is, and the research with the Addiction Research Foundation points it out, the main problem we have in this province and in this country, and probably the world as a whole, is plain old-fashioned alcohol, and that's where the main focus has to be. Not to be saying that we don't have to be concerned with these other drugs, either legal or illegal drugs, because certainly we do; the main focus has to be, in my opinion, around the whole area of alcoholism. That's where the main focus has to be.
In terms of the mandate at the Addiction Research Foundation, I think it's always a balancing act for those folks in terms of whether their emphasis is on research or whether it's on treatment and education. As I come from the field of education, of course those will be some of the things I'll want to work with the board around: How do we expand their education programs around these substance abuse problems? Particularly for me, I think I can pull links from the trade union movement and the wider community to work with ARF and help solve some of these problems we have.
Mr Frankford: I was interested in your comment on the media bias and, as you say, the sexy problems. Have you by chance read a book called Peaceful Measures, by Bruce Alexander?
Mr Stockdale: I'm afraid I missed that one.
Mr Frankford: I think it's worth reading. It's a critique of the war on drugs, and it really recommends a rather different approach. We are actually having a lot of debates in the world at large about legal versus illegal drugs, which seems to have been highlighted by the political convention in Ottawa, where perhaps the use of drugs seems to be accepted or perhaps seen as a piece of wayward youthful behaviour.
Do you have any thoughts about how you would like to direct the ARF into other areas? You mentioned education. Do you think they should be doing more in the way of treatment? As a provincial body, how can it spread out and make sure that treatment is available all across the province?
Mr Stockdale: In terms of treatment, I think there has been a change there in the last few years. A lot of us got caught up in the issue of trying to stop people with substance abuse problems going to the United States and trying to save the OHIP system some tax dollars. I think we got caught up in that, and I know that the emphasis now has shifted, because we put some roadblocks up there so there's not that drain on the OHIP system now that there was.
In one of the briefs I wrote on it, my thoughts were that it didn't seem to make a lot of sense that, at the time we were closing hospital beds around the province of Ontario, going on at the same time was the fact that we were shipping people across the border for treatment. So my suggestion in the brief was that what we should be doing is setting up models similar to what was happening in the Humber Memorial Hospital here in Metropolitan Toronto, where there were wings devoted to the treatment of substance abuse. Basically, I think there is a change there and I think that more people are looking at that.
But in terms of the treatment end of it, that's not really an area of expertise for me, that I'm aware of what is out there and what isn't out there. I think more people can be treated without being hospitalized. If you look at the record of AA in terms of a support system, I think it's the finest thing we have out there. Quite frankly, self-help as a phenomenon is growing faster than anything else there is in this country today, and I think we need more of that: support groups that can be working in the community in conjunction with the Addiction Research Foundation and the district health councils. I think those are the two groups that can pull that together.
The Chair: Dr Frankford, two more of your colleagues wish to speak and we are down to our last three minutes.
1120
Mr Hope: Donald, I was impressed with your CV that I have here because a lot of it is familiar to my own. I guess just in a quicker number of years I moved through the system.
I heard you bring forward the issue about the labour movement and its work. I come from the CAW. You know the videotape that we did with MuchMusic and trying to get across to our younger viewing audience the issue of substance abuse in our workplaces; it affects productivity.
One of the issues -- and it was amazing. It was private members' time when one of the Conservative members mentioned something that I support, you know, the trafficking and all this stuff. I guess those who speak without knowing never know nothing, so I only raise that comment.
But I was interested, and where I would like to focus my attention is with the organization you're moving with, the Addiction Research Foundation. Is the emphasis around prevention and awareness? Do you see your bringing in more awareness? There's a way of solving substance abuse. Whether it be through drugs and alcohol or whether it be through prescriptions, it's proper communication, I know, working with Ronnie Davis and Len Harrison from the CAW around seniors with substance abuse of prescription drugs. I'm just wondering, where do you see your expertise around what you've been doing, what you've been talking about, carrying that forward as far as a preventive medicine, which is much cheaper than to pay for treatment in the US?
Mr Stockdale: For sure. I think what's been missing is that I think unfortunately the Addiction Research Foundation has been sitting over there with all their experience and we've been sitting over here trying to do our things over here from the trade union movement and, quite frankly, although I've had a long history of working with them, we haven't come to the point where we're really doing a whole lot of things together.
I have been a guest lecturer with the Addiction Research Foundation in terms of training of addiction counsellors, but that gives me about an hour or something twice a year to sit down with a bunch of people who are going to go out in the field. I'd like to be able to touch a whole lot more people than that.
What I am looking at, and I had an opportunity to sit down and talk to Karen Goldenberg, one of the vice-presidents of the Addiction Research Foundation, for a short time and what we talked about is that, for example, we have over 60,000 members coming into the Ontario Federation of Labour convention in the city of Toronto and the Addiction Research Foundation doesn't have a display. They're not there to tell their story. We have CUPE conventions coming in with 20,000 to 30,000 people. The Addiction Research Foundation doesn't have a display. I can go on and on and on.
What I think has to happen is that -- I have some respectability in the trade union movement. I hope to be able to bring the Gord Wilsons of the day together and the Linda Torneys of the day together and the heads of all of these unions to sit down and say: "Look. We're missing a wonderful opportunity. Yes, we have education programs. Yes, they're good programs, but we need to have a first-line offence here and I think that we can do it better by working on the inside with ARF rather than standing on the outside."
That would be my thing, to set up educational displays and then have a travelling roadshow that goes around and visits in all the communities. ARF does have satellite offices around the country; allow them to hook up. Up to this point in time, most of the focus has just been on the EAP programs, and I think that at times you get entrenched in terms of the working of the program itself and you're not looking at the bigger picture of prevention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: Oh, come on, Margaret. Just be nice to me for one second.
The Chair: It's 10 and a half minutes and it's --
Mr Hope: I had another question.
The Chair: I'm only taking direction from the committee. They did want us to proceed in this matter. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: When you were interviewed by -- what are they called? -- the subcommittee, who are our preliminary interviewers, did you get a preliminary interview before you came into this committee about the job?
Mr Stockdale: No, I never had an opportunity. I've been away, out of town on business with the United Way-Centraide in Prince Edward Island for the last --
Mr Curling: Again, I think that it's an extremely important board that you will be serving on. Of course, you will be, because they will approve it.
Drugs in all forms have been quite an enemy to human life in the way they destroy life. How would you feel if you found out that marijuana was killing about 7,000 people a year? Would you immediately ban it because it is killing all these people and have nothing to do with it because it's killing 7,000 people in Ontario per year? Would you agree that it continue to be banned?
Mr Stockdale: I guess it's kind of hard to answer that kind of hypothetical question, but I'll do my best. I think no matter what kind of substance it is, whether it is marijuana or whether it is saccharin that you put in your tea or coffee, the fact of the matter immediately is that if it has that kind of toll on human life and misery, something would have to be done about it. Certainly, banning the substance would be one of the things that one would have to look at. Hopefully, in my limited knowledge, I wouldn't have to make that decision all by myself.
Mr Curling: Alcohol does that. It kills about 7,000 people in Ontario, or related deaths, and we don't really ban it. As a matter of fact, the government promotes it. The government has its liquor stores where it sells this.
Interjection: Oh.
Mr Curling: Whether you want to "Oh" or not, that's a fact and we don't face it.
Mr Hope: Let's put Prohibition back in place.
Mr Curling: The whole thing is either we arrest it or do something about it in itself, because alcohol may have created more costs to society, I would presume, than any other drug.
I know that what I am saying you're quite aware of too. It's how we deal with that. This leads me to the question, while we understand all that, while we know the liquor control board is run by the government and while we know all governments make an enormous amount of tax revenue from alcohol, do you believe then that we should have beer and wine in the corner stores to be sold?
Mr Stockdale: No, I don't particularly believe we should have beer and wine in corner stores. That's a personal opinion of mine.
Mr Curling: Would you be advocating, coming from this board, that beer and wine in the corner stores should not be sold?
Mr Stockdale: That's a personal opinion of mine, yes.
Mr Curling: Would you believe, then, that we should close the liquor control board down, stop selling liquor, ban liquor?
Mr Stockdale: No, I don't believe that. I think the people have the freedom to choose.
Mr Curling: Do you find that contradictory?
Mr Stockdale: No.
Mr Curling: You don't?
Let's look at tobacco now. It is stated that maybe what they should be doing is raising the minimum age of people purchasing tobacco, maybe to 19. Do you think in that way it would restrict people from buying -- minors, they call them. A minor would be another age. We have so many different ages for minors in this province, it's baffling, with some at 15, some at 16, some at 17, 18, 19. Moving that age to 19, do you think it would assist and help in any way for the purchasing of tobacco, people using tobacco, because the minor age would have been moved to 19 and that would be helpful?
Mr Stockdale: I'm not sure it would. I think that in the world we live in today illegal drugs are so easily available, they would just circumvent what we were trying to do. I come from a position where I feel that, as adults, we need the freedom of choice, but I think that has to be balanced with the education programs that allow individuals who take up the substance -- ie, tobacco or alcohol, whatever it is -- to have all the facts.
I've been quite happy to work with CUPE 1000 and Ontario Hydro, where we developed a program in the nuclear division of Ontario Hydro called Making Choices. Making Choices is a three-hour educational program that talks about the gateway drugs -- ie, tobacco -- the legal drugs, illegal drugs. We give them three hours of information and focus on the point now, as an educated adult, what these drugs may be doing to you and that you have an opportunity to make a choice. Hopefully, if you educate people in the proper way, they'll make the choice that this is something to be avoided.
We've done that program with Ontario Hydro. We're going into our third year now. The program was slated to cover 7,000 people in the nuclear energy department. We've had over 4,000 people in that program from all the nuclear stations in the province of Ontario. I think education's the cornerstone. That's where it's at.
1130
Mr Curling: We have a law right now that says we cannot sell tobacco to minors; however, minors can smoke tobacco. Would you think there should be a law in place wherein if someone offers a minor a cigarette, tobacco, a person could be charged?
Mr Stockdale: One of the things is that we can pass lots of laws, but how are we going to enforce them? I think before we pass them, we have to make sure that the laws are enforceable, and I don't think you'd ever be able to enforce that.
Your question about the sale of beer and wine in local grocery stores: I don't think that should happen, simply because of the fact that I think the store owners, in most cases -- I'm drawing from my personal experience -- are powerless to enforce the laws, as they would be in terms of not selling to minors. I go into my local store, and quite frankly, he gets four or five young people in there and he's intimidated by them. I just don't think that is enforceable. I think it's the same thing with the law of somebody giving a cigarette to a minor. I just don't know how you would go about enforcing that.
Mr Curling: I'm not trying to put you on the spot in the sense that you are the one who is going to make the laws, but to say the hypocrisy that exists in the society in this respect. They have laws that talk about minors who should not be sold tobacco, and then in the meantime, minors can smoke it. What we see outside a store is that those who are of that age or over the minor age can go in and buy it and then distribute it to all the young people out there, having the same effect. The only difference is that the individual who is buying it is of legal age, but again, it reaches the individual whom they do not want it to reach.
My feeling is, that's hypocrisy. I hope when we start looking at this hypocrisy in the law, I think we can start addressing the real cause and getting down to the danger that tobacco and substance abuse cause.
Do you have any comment about prescription drugs that have really been abused? What is your feeling about that? The first thing is the tremendous cost to the government to begin with, to any government, or to the system more than the government, because it is the people who pay for all of this. Do you have any views on this, how we could go about controlling this constant abuse of prescription drugs that actually people are addicted to in many ways?
Mr Stockdale: I think I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, because I keep going back to the same thing. Yes, I agree with you, cross-addiction is a big problem. It is now hitting areas that it didn't normally hit, say, 10 or 15 years ago in terms of, for example, a housewife who goes to the doctor and gets a prescription for tranquillizers or whatever. I think there's a terrible need there for education simply because of the fact that we're treated differently.
I, as a Canadian male of mid-age, if I go to my doctor and say to him, "Look, my boss is a real jerk and I'm having a terrible time with my teenaged children and my wife really doesn't understand me any more," 9 times out of 10 what my family doctor does is say: "Look, Don, what you really need to do is get a little bit of time away for yourself. You should go out and play more golf or go and get in a little fishing."
If my wife goes to the doctor and gives exactly the same story, "My husband is a jerk," and so on and so forth, the first thing too many times -- not every doctor; I don't want to paint all doctors as the culprit here -- it's the doctor who writes a prescription for a drug.
Most people, not being aware of what drugs do to their body, they're not sure of the lifetime of a drug in their system. A tranquillizer in the morning and a glass of wine at supper time may seem very harmless, but they don't seem to understand that the lifetime of those two drugs is going to interact. We have a problem. So education in the community, not only for the doctors but education for all of us, I think is where we have to put our focus.
Mrs Witmer: My questions are going to relate to the provincial government's decision not to continue to pay the full cost of Ontario patients accessing a United States facility for treatment. The new rate is about $200 a day, a rate that you know is certainly too low for most United States private sector hospitals.
I have within my own community, and I know there are many people across this province who have teenagers who are suffering from alcohol and drug addiction, and they are not able to access treatment because we simply don't have the treatment facilities in this province. The government seems to be totally uncommitted or unwilling to make that treatment available. I say that to you because I know it is the absolute truth.
What are you prepared to do in your role in making sure that young people, particularly teenagers, in this province do have access to the programs now, not when they're 30 or 40, because by that time, they're probably at a point in their lives where they've been wandering aimlessly and been supported by the government. What are you prepared to do? That is an area that is so totally neglected by this government.
Mr Stockdale: What I would be willing to do is to make my voice heard around the board of the Addiction Research Foundation. I share with you some of your concern, but where we may part company is that I don't think the answer is to be sending our children out of the province to the United States of America. Anything that they can do, we can do just as well if not better. I think we need an auxiliary program to serve our teenagers in this particular country, and in the meantime, for us to get up and running with those programs, I think we need to establish more self-help groups so that these teenagers can come together and support one another in this particular area.
Mrs Witmer: Well, I'll tell you that's not enough. I don't want to see our young people go to the United States for treatment either, and I don't believe that should be necessary, but I can tell you that I have had many people in my office and I have received many phone calls, I guess because I originally got involved in a case with a young man in trying to find treatment facilities for him. I'm talking about young people who have to be removed from their environment and go through a much more lengthy program than anything we have available in this province at the present time.
I guess what I'm hearing from you is that you're not aware of the fact that there is a serious problem among our teenagers. I guess that's part of the problem that we're seeing in this province: Nobody wants to recognize it.
Mr Stockdale: In my defence, I can tell you this: I'm a father of seven and I brought those children up in the 1960s and 1970s, and quite frankly, I can tell you the firsthand experience in the upper middle class neighbourhood that I live in, in Brampton, with the experience of drugs. I can tell you about a terrible shooting in our high school where my children were students at the particular time, with one daughter trapped on the second floor. I know a lot about the firsthand experiences. That's not the area I work in, but I know of personal experiences.
I can tell you this: I always made my home open, for neighbourhood teenagers to be part of a structure where there was a loving family. Quite frankly, I think that's where it has to start. All of us have to be a living example to our children and to our teenagers, and if we're not, then we're going to have problems. It seems to me that if we can be the kind of example that says, "Here's the kind of lifestyle that I'm living and you can see that it's a happy, loving relationship that we have in this home," then other people will follow that.
In the area I lived in, there were several boys who were fathers at that time who spent many times coming to our house and talking to me because, as a father figure -- they saw the relationship between me and my sons and that's what they were missing in their lives.
I think that too often we kind of think that's some kind of a fairy tale thing we talk about that doesn't happen. I can tell you that in real life experience it does happen. For a lot of these young teenagers who get into a problem, the first thing -- not the last thing -- they need is someone to put their hands around to say they care about them. That's what they need.
1140
Mrs Witmer: I can appreciate that. Certainly, the ideal situation for all children to have is two loving parents and to live in a wonderful community and get the support. I guess the reality is that even for those kids living in a two-parent home in that type of environment, it isn't always enough.
When I talk about young people who are in need of treatment, I talk from my personal experience. I was a secondary school teacher and I was a trustee on a school board. I can tell you I've spent my summer holidays and I've spent my weekends on the phone with parents, because I talk about students and kids that have addiction problems because of sexual abuse that they've suffered in their childhood. Not only do they have the addiction problems; they're suicidal. These are complex problems.
I guess what I'm saying to you is that we do not appear to have in this province at the present time the appropriate facilities to deal with those young people. I would hope you will investigate this problem further, and I would encourage you to do whatever you can to help those young people now.
Mr Stockdale: Thank you. I appreciate the direction.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stockdale, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Mr Stockdale: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure for me to be here.
The Chair: Before we invite Mr Gagnon to come forward, members of the committee, I would like some direction from the committee. We were late starting this morning because we were waiting for a quorum, as you know. We have an anomaly this morning with the fact that we are dealing with private members' business in the House and there may or may not be a recorded vote which would require you to attend the House.
We have 15 minutes left right now. We could invite Mr Gagnon and divide the time, five minutes a caucus, or you may wish to come back after the vote. I'm looking for direction from the committee.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would recommend that we do five minutes each.
Mrs Witmer: I would be agreeable.
Mr Curling: I would be agreeable.
The Chair: You're agreeable. All right. Thank you.
REGENT GAGNON
The Chair: Mr Gagnon, we invite you to come before the committee. In view of what I've just said, unless you feel very strongly about making some opening comments to the committee members, you may wish just to use whatever you were going to say in response to some of the questions.
Mr Regent P. Gagnon: Thank you for letting me be here.
The Chair: All right, and feel very welcome.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming before the committee. Mr Gagnon, you were interviewed by the selection committee of the chair and some other members of the Assessment Review Board.
Mr Gagnon: That's correct.
Mr Curling: After the interview, did they give you an orientation of what the Assessment Review Board is all about?
Mr Gagnon: During the interview, they mentioned some of the aspects of what the Assessment Review Board members do. This was basically part of the interview. Part of the selection process, if you want, was a case to resolve, which was presented to me in writing and which I had to respond to in writing.
Mr Curling: Because of our short time, I'm just going to move on to questions without elaborating too much on it. Are you quite familiar with market value assessment and how it works?
Mr Gagnon: Generally, yes.
Mr Curling: And you're quite familiar, of course, as maybe a taxpayer or a home owner or a tenant, whichever you are, at the impact -- it has some impact on you too?
Mr Gagnon: Yes.
Mr Curling: Where do you live, Mr Gagnon?
Mr Gagnon: I live in Clarence township.
Mr Curling: If you had lived in Scarborough, where I live, in Scarborough North -- the northern part of Scarborough -- too, you'd have the kind of impact of what all this market value assessment is doing to people. Do you think it's a fair assessment, what they're doing with assessment today, how they collect assessments from people who are owners?
Mr Gagnon: Let me answer you this way, because your question is very complex: I think that the assessments that are made at the present time, under the current law that exists, have to be fair. Now, if there are mistakes, of course it is not fair. But if everyone is assessed using the same yardstick, it should be fair.
Mr Curling: It's unfair to you to ask you this question with only five minutes for us to go back and forth, because I strongly believe that the process in place is extremely unfair to some people. I don't want to put you on the spot in that way and I just want you to know it's an unfair system, what is going on at the moment.
Mr Gagnon: It reminds me of a question based on my reading of some articles in the Globe and Mail from time to time, and I know that people in Scarborough are not very happy with the current situation. However, the proposal that has been put in place may appear to make the current system unfair, I don't know. I don't know enough about it to be able to judge it at this moment. However, as I understand it, my limited understanding of assessment is that -- and maybe it's based on where I reside. We have market value, 1988 market value. I consider that to be fair, in my situation anyway.
Mr Curling: I presume what is fair for some people is unfair for others. Mayor Joyce Trimmer, the mayor of Scarborough, has advised all the people who are uncomfortable with or feel that the system is unfair to appeal their assessment. What this is going to do to your system and to your case load is just put an unbearable amount of people to be assessed. Do you have any idea of how they should be dealing with that? Are you familiar with what's happening over in Scarborough?
Mr Gagnon: I heard about what the mayor of Scarborough has urged people to do. I don't know if it was done in fact. Certainly, it would put a tremendous workload on the Assessment Review Board and how it should be resolved -- I would trust that the chair of the board, as well as the experienced members of the board, would devise a way of disposing of it in a fair manner without clogging up the system. But I don't know what the answer is.
Mr Curling: I just have one more question. I don't know how my time is --
The Chair: Yes, half a minute.
Mr Curling: Good. This government has been considered as a backlog government, sometimes not for its own fault, but because of maybe people who want to address wrongs in the justice system. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is backlogged; the Workers' Compensation Board is backlogged; the tribunal of human rights is backlogged. One thousand cases in Scarborough used to be the average that people appealed their assessment roll. That's only a comment; you don't have to comment on this afterwards. In fact, 30,000 people have appealed now to the Assessment Review Board.
I can see you're walking into a board. There's going to be a backlog as far as ever and I just want to wish you well on this. You will be appointed, of course -- one, two, three, four, five over there; you will be appointed. But I'm going to say to you that the task you have ahead of you is tremendous and that's only Scarborough alone.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to take a look at your curriculum vitae. Unfortunately, it was in French and there wasn't a translation provided and I'd really appreciate knowing what background experience you have and what skills you have that make you feel you would have the needed expertise to contribute to this position.
Mr Gagnon: Okay, fair question. The reason I sent my curriculum vitae in French is because the ad that I saw appearing last June mentioned something about francophones and bilingualism being asked for, so I said, "Okay, fine, I'll send it in French and then I don't have to say that I write French."
However, the ad specified primarily qualifications as opposed to experience and it referred to "sound judgement, tact and diplomacy; superior analytical ability; strong organizational, administrative and problem-solving skills; highly developed written and oral communication and interpersonal skills; ability to work independently and impartially in highly sensitive situations."
1150
What I've done, in my letter in reply to the advertisement, I refer to these where I have developed some of these skills and also I have stated that clients, because I'm a management consultant, and former colleagues can certainly attest to the fact that I do possess those skills.
Mrs Witmer: Please don't misinterpret. I'm pleased that you submitted your curriculum vitae. However, I was surprised and I guess I anticipated that we might have had a translation. I don't know if this committee normally does that or not.
Mr Gagnon: Do you want me to give you --
Mrs Witmer: No, I just wondered if there was anything in here regarding your experience that we should be aware of that certainly would make you better qualified for this position.
Mr Gagnon: I have no direct experience in assessment matters, except my own.
Mrs Witmer: And your personal interest.
Mr Gagnon: But I have experience in dealing with quasi-judicial bodies, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I have dealt with the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have prepared cases to appear on those either as a witness or as a respondent. I don't know what else. These are the primary ones. I have dealt with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is a different body than a tribunal, of course.
Mrs Witmer: Yes. Right.
Mr Gagnon: As well as the Ontario human rights at one time and the Ontario employment standards at one time as well. So I have some familiarity with those kinds of proceedings.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. What about the report of the Property Tax Working Group of the Fair Tax Commission? Are you familiar with that report that was released in December 1992?
Mr Gagnon: I have heard of it, but I have not had a chance to read it. I'm sorry.
Mrs Witmer: Part of that report that was released in December 1992 indicated that taxpayers are unclear about their rights of appeal and how to bring an appeal before the Assessment Review Board, and there were some recommendations made. Do you have any comments on that at all?
Mr Gagnon: I don't have it in front of me, but it seems that the assessment notice I received mentioned something that if I was not happy with the assessment, I could appeal to the Assessment Review Board and there was a form that's part of it and there is an address. So I would assume that if people want to appeal, at least they are -- well, if people read their assessment notice and are not happy, they will read the complete thing and see where they can appeal it. Whether better information or education is required for the general public I don't know. That could be true. I don't know.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you.
The Acting Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Mr Marchese, I think you were next.
Mr Marchese: I think Mrs Carter was on the list first.
The Acting Chair: Or Mrs Carter first.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm sorry. I did put my hand up. I thought Mrs Marland --
The Acting Chair: I was going by what I see here. If you take Mr Marchese's position, it's fine.
Ms Carter: Anyhow, thank you very much. Mr Gagnon, you certainly seem to have the relevant practical skills. Now, taxes is something that's been very much discussed lately, partly because of the whole market value assessment thing, and also the Fair Tax Commission has been out there finding out what people think. I was just wondering, what do you think the objective of a property tax system is? What are we trying to achieve there?
Mr Gagnon: It seems to me this is the only tax base available to municipalities, so what we're trying to achieve is the property owners -- let's put it this way; I know there are other groups, but primarily property owners -- pay a fair share of what their real estate holdings are as opposed to --
Ms Carter: The thing is, under the income tax system that is progressive. We know that people pay according to what they're able to pay, but of course you can have hard-up people living in big houses and rich people living in small houses and so on.
Mr Gagnon: That's correct.
Ms Carter: There isn't the same kind of intrinsic fairness here. So what is it really that people are paying for, if you like?
Mr Gagnon: Based on my own experience, what I'm paying for primarily is the education system and municipal services, like clearing the snow and picking up my garbage and all these good things that we take for granted. Now, I agree with your comment that some rich people live in small properties that are of low value and some people, for whatever reason, who are of low income live in large properties, and I know this could be a plight for some people. I realize that.
Ms Carter: Then, of course, when you look at market value assessment, I believe it was going to tip the balance as between the downtown areas and suburban areas. You could argue that suburban areas cost more because there's more road frontage and so on for each unit. Do you feel that would have been unfair?
Mr Gagnon: Maybe or maybe not, because I know that, again based on my experience where I reside, people who want to put in a residential development have to provide the roads and the sewer system to the municipality. The municipality does not pay anything for that kind of infrastructure. Whether it was always like this or it has been something that's fairly recent, I'm not too sure.
I remember last year in Ottawa there were a lot of people, residents as well as businesses, upset in the market area because their assessment went sky-high compared to what it used to be and there was a sigh of relief in some of the well-established suburban areas. They were saying: "I've been paying too much tax for the last 10 years. Can I get reimbursed for it?" There you go.
The Acting Chair: Dr Frankford has about one minute.
Mr Frankford: I was going to refer to the dispute between the city of Scarborough and the city of Toronto. As you know, each has encouraged an assessment. I think this could well be a challenge to your diplomatic skills, but perhaps I would just make note of something. In our research it says, "A three-member panel of the board began a hearing which will determine the legitimacy of the mass assessment appeals....The board has the power to dismiss the appeals if it determines they're frivolous." Maybe this is not going to require your diplomatic skills.
Mr Gagnon: Hopefully, I will not be one of those members.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gagnon, for coming before us with your presentation. I will pass the chair over to the real Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gagnon, for appearing before the committee.
Would you like to move a motion to approve the appointments this morning, either individually or collectively? What is the direction of the committee, please? Maybe we'll just go through them individually. It seems to be easier.
Mr Hope, are you moving the appointment of Dr Sisèl?
Mr Hope: Absolutely.
The Chair: All in favour of the appointment of Dr Sisèl? Opposed, if any?
The opposition parties, you may either vote in favour or opposed. If you do not wish to vote, you have to leave your desk. This is in the standing orders.
Mr Curling: Is this a new one now, Madam Chair?
The Chair: No, it's not new. It's in the standing orders.
Mr Hope: It's just somebody finally read the rules.
The Chair: We would ask that if you wish to abstain, you have to leave your seat.
Mr Hope: This is your chance to play a role in government.
The Chair: We're in the middle of the vote and we have taken the vote in favour of Dr Sisèl. I'm now taking the vote opposed to Dr Sisèl's appointment to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board.
Mr Marchese: They were in support.
The Chair: Are you abstaining from voting?
Mr Curling: Abstaining. Should I leave the floor? I have to leave the --
The Chair: You have to leave the table, just while we finish the vote then, if you're abstaining. The next vote is on the appointment of Mr Donald Stockdale to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation.
Mr Hope: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Hope. Those in favour of this appointment? Those opposed? Not seeing any --
Finally, there is the appointment of Mr Regent Gagnon as a member of the Assessment Review Board.
Mr Hope: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Hope. Those in favour of this appointment? Those opposed? Not seeing any, that motion is carried.
Mr Hope: I should sit on this committee more, Margaret. I enjoyed this.
The Chair: The subcommittee was to meet this morning. Unfortunately, one member of the subcommittee is not available at this time. I would respectfully suggest to the other two members who are here that if it is possible for your schedule, we would like to reschedule it to 3:30 this afternoon or immediately following routine proceedings. Is that possible for Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: How long would it be? Just about 10 minutes?
The Chair: I think it will only be 5 or 10 minutes at the most. Room 111 is Mr Forsyth's old office on the main floor. Is that all right, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: Immediately after question period? I have a 3:30.
The Chair: You just go right to room 111 immediately after question period. That would be great. I appreciate the cooperation. This meeting stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1200.