CONTENTS
Wednesday 4 May 1994
Intended appointments
Sarah Maman, Fire Code Commission
Eleanor Paine, Province of Ontario Council for the Arts (Ontario Arts Council)
Alok Mukherjee, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services
Subcommittee report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud 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)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr McLean
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1012 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): We will start this meeting of the standing committee on government agencies to review intended appointments.
SARAH MAMAN
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Sarah Maman, intended appointee as vice-chair, Fire Code Commission.
The Chair: Welcome, Sarah Maman. You may make opening comments, or we will just start with questions.
Mrs Sarah Maman: All I wanted to say was thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the Fire Code Commission and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee. How did you find out about the opening on this particular commission?
Mrs Maman: At the present time I am a member of the Fire Code Commission and I am aware that the cycle for chairman and vice-chairman had expired. I know the staff at the fire marshal's office were aware that I was interested in applying for chairman or vice-chairman.
Mr Cleary: How often would you meet?
Mrs Maman: Generally the Fire Code Commission meets approximately once a month. They hear about two or three cases at a time.
Mr Cleary: Now that you will be in a new position, what do you expect to accomplish? You must have an agenda, being that you want to be vice-chairman.
Mrs Maman: I think one of the things that I'd like to see is more not advertising but more dissemination that this commission actually exists. This commission has been in existence for a number of years, and I think it's time we obtain some feedback from the people who use the commission as to how well the process is, whether some changes should be done in the process itself, how well we are notifying people that this commission in fact exists. Considering the number of orders that are issued by the fire officials, not many are appealed to the Fire Code Commission. It would be interesting to know why that is the case.
Mr Cleary: When you say "the people who use the commission," I think I know, but who all is that?
Mrs Maman: Who would use the commission? The Ontario Fire Code is enforced by local people who have been designated as chief fire officials or fire officials under the statute. Basically that would be people in the fire prevention departments of fire departments. They go out, make inspections, issue orders if they find something in contravention of the fire code. If it's not specifically addressed in the fire code and they find an unsafe situation, they can make an order that you cannot find directly in the fire code, because the fire code does not address every situation possible.
Now, the person who receives this order has the option of appealing that order. The order can be appealed directly to the fire marshal's office, in which case they would make an inspection and an assessment and make a ruling. If the applicant is still not satisfied with that decision, they can then appeal it to the Fire Code Commission, or the applicant can directly appeal the order to the Fire Code Commission without going though the fire marshal's office.
Mr Cleary: What I am led to believe by some who have contacted me over the years is that the training is a big issue.
Mrs Maman: Yes, I would say that. I would say enforcement in general is a big issue.
Mr Cleary: What are your plans to address the training part of it?
Mrs Maman: I don't believe it's the mandate of the Fire Code Commission to address training. That's a matter that's addressed directly by the fire marshal's office as to how they want to train the people who are going to be enforcing the code.
Mr Cleary: Do you have any thoughts on the quality and effectiveness of your service?
Mrs Maman: I think that the quality and effectiveness are quite high. The people who have been appointed in the past to this commission are technical people. This is a technical committee requiring a certain expertise. We don't look at the political aspects; we look at basics, life safety, because that's our goal. I believe that for every hearing we've held, life safety has been achieved. It's just that there are many ways of achieving life safety.
Mr Cleary: Are there any other reforms needed?
Mrs Maman: Other reforms in which respect? To the commission itself?
Mr Cleary: Yes.
Mrs Maman: No, I think the process is quite good. I think the problem is that not many people might be aware that there is this process in effect, that people have the right to appeal.
Mr Cleary: Have you been on the commission for two or three years?
Mrs Maman: Yes.
Mr Cleary: Three years?
Mrs Maman: I'm sorry, I don't remember; I think two years.
Mr Cleary: I understand it was formed in 1989. Is that correct?
Mrs Maman: It was formed when the fire code was first enacted, which would have been about 1985, so a little earlier than that.
1020
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier. It may have been explained to you, we have a problem that things have shifted around here. It's not out of any disrespect for you or the position, and I'm sorry if my question is repetitive as well.
How do you relate the fire code with the building code? The constant trouble that we have is that the representative looking at the fire code requires that the door be here and the guy with the building code says the door has to be there. Consequently, the person building the building or the owner is caught in a conundrum of who to follow and trying to get these two inspectors to match up and put the door in one place.
Mrs Maman: The fire code and the building code are distinct documents and they each come into play at certain periods of construction. If you talk about new construction, a major renovation or an addition to an existing building, it must conform to the current Ontario Building Code. Therefore it must be built to today's standards.
The Ontario Building Code only came into force in 1975. We have a situation where we have a whole stock of buildings that were built prior to 1975. These buildings may not and in many cases do not conform to the existing building codes, but once a building is built it now falls under the Ontario fire code. When we talk about retrofit or in the case of life safety, once a building is built and has been completed and is occupied, it falls under the fire code, in which case, if there's a question about life safety, then the chief fire official or the person who is administrating the fire code has a lot of latitude as to what they will permit.
That does not mean to say that if you are working under the Ontario Building Code and you want to make a change or you want to do something outside of what the building code states that you can't do it; you can apply to the Building Code Commission and if you can show equivalency to what is stated in the building code and the commission agreed with you, you would be permitted to change the location of that window.
Mr Sterling: Why can't the two be melded into one?
Mrs Maman: I don't know. They're under different jurisdictions. One is under the fire marshal and one is under Housing. It doesn't seem to have been a problem in the past.
Mr Sterling: It's not a problem for the two jurisdictions; it's a problem for the people who are dealing with the two jurisdictions. We represent the people who are dealing with the two jurisdictions, the other part.
Mrs Maman: If you built a building to the building code, the fire code has no jurisdiction over that building. If you're taking specifically, for example, retrofit, retrofit applies to all buildings that were built prior to 1975, not to buildings built after 1975.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): First of all, how many people are on this commission?
Mrs Maman: I don't have the exact numbers but there are about 15.
Ms Harrington: And you're responsible for the whole province, so do you do a lot of travelling in this responsibility?
Mrs Maman: There is some travelling. We try to go to where the hearing or most of the people are located. For example, if the building under discussion happens to be in another area of the province, we will attempt to travel to that area and hold the commission there.
Ms Harrington: What would your background be that would qualify you -- I understand you've been there for a few years -- for this job?
Mrs Maman: I graduated from University of Toronto in chemical engineering and I've specialized in fire protection engineering since I graduated from university, which is about 20 years ago, and I've learned my trade from the various jobs that I've worked at.
I've worked in the insurance industry, where I was a fire prevention officer, and we looked at all types of commercial and industrial types of building. I then worked at the Canadian Wood Council, which is a trade association, non-profit, and we represented the wood industry on codes and standards, specifically the building codes and the fire codes and all Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada standards on building products.
I did work for two years at the fire marshal's office, where I was involved in preparing legislation. I did fire investigations and I did prepare the reports that are submitted to the Fire Code Commission for review. Now I'm with a large insurance company and I head up the loss prevention department.
Ms Harrington: It sounds like a very interesting background. It's mainly the insurance industry that you came from originally?
Mrs Maman: Insurance industry is a very good training ground for fire protection engineers. Obviously they have a vested interest in fire prevention and loss prevention because they are interested in reducing the size of losses and the possibility of losses. It makes them more profitable; it keeps the rates down.
Ms Harrington: They get involved in a lot of good things in order to save money, actually.
Mrs Maman: Yes, they do. Sometimes it's not widely publicized, but they do get involved. They're very interested in loss prevention, and as a result maybe their interests are more geared towards property protection, but if you try to look at property protection, it also reflects on people protection.
Ms Harrington: Right. I understand recently there have been changes to the Fire Code Commission's responsibilities with regard to the effect of fire on the environment and public safety. What do you anticipate this will mean? I guess they're just coming into effect now. Will this mean more extensive hearings for you or more costly hearings?
Mrs Maman: The results of these environmental changes, because of the Hagersville fire -- I don't know. I'm kind of sceptical it'll make much of a dent. I think that, due to resources of the fire marshal's office and perhaps the enforcement of the fire code -- you know that in effect there are many parts of this province where the fire code is not being enforced at all because there's no legislation on the books for municipalities to have a fire department and many of our fire departments are volunteer, so we don't have fire prevention officers across the province to enforce the fire code.
If you're talking about if we have a major storage of hazardous materials out in the middle of nowhere, who's going to find out? Who would know? Who would enforce the code?
Ms Harrington: Do you feel that it's your responsibility as the commission to do something about that?
Mrs Maman: The problems are not unknown to the fire marshal's office; it's a matter of funding.
Ms Harrington: You think it's his responsibility?
Mrs Maman: Let's put it this way. Having worked there, I can give you a little insight. They know what the problems are. They know the shortcomings of the problems. For example, if the fire marshal's office wanted to provide legislation to change the fire code, there does not seem to be much of a political motivation to look at the fire code.
It seems that viewing this from, let's say, outside the government and looking at it as an outsider, this office is more of a reactionary. If we have a problem, we're going to fix it by legislation. If we have another problem, we're going to fix it by legislation. We all know that there are problems out there. A lot of this stuff could be, let's do something before something happens, not after something happens.
Ms Harrington: What you're saying is that the whole structure and way of approaching this through legislation should be changed?
Mrs Maman: There are a lot of problems, as I said, let's say enforcing. In Ontario, you must have a building department, you must have a police force, there's no need for a fire department, so the building department is not going to enforce the fire code. Only the fire department can do that or somebody designated by the fire marshal's office as a chief fire official.
1030
Ms Harrington: Do you feel, and other people may want to pick up on the last comments, that there is any impetus to go in the direction of having appeals dealt with without a formal hearing; more of a mediation?
Mrs Maman: I believe that the appeal process the way we've developed it or it's been developed over time is not necessarily an adversarial type of situation. It is more trying to find out some way to -- as I said, life safety of an existing building can be achieved in many ways. There's not one way of doing it. It's not a prescriptive. It can't be prescriptive because we're talking about a situation in existence.
Therefore when we try to make a decision and we try to take into account the existing situation, while we're talking to the people during the appeal or the hearing, we try to basically make a mediation, and I think many times we've been quite successful.
Unfortunately, many people who appeal to us want to avoid the entire cost of making any sort of upgrading. It's very difficult to try to make that person happy with the decision. Obviously in many instances something has to be done, and whatever you're going to do or recommend or decide is going to cost money.
Ms Harrington: So you think going in that direction is a good way?
Mrs Maman: Definitely. I think when we do the hearings, as I said, we don't have lawyers there. It's run formally and then we make it wide open, very informal, everybody can talk, that type of thing. So we get a lot of give and take.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I think you've partly answered my question. I understand the occurrence of fires has been reduced over the years. Do you think the Fire Code Commission can help to further reduce that occurrence? Do you have ideas on that?
Mrs Maman: I don't think the Fire Code Commission by itself can do that. As I said, if you're getting three appeals a month over 12 months, that doesn't seem to be a lot.
Ms Carter: But it keeps you busy.
Mrs Maman: Sure, it keeps us busy, but we're not a full-time commission; we're part-time. We meet once a month. There are three people on the commission, so you can imagine that unless you're chairman or vice-chairman, you don't hear that many appeals.
In general, I think it is quite healthy to have a technical body away from government that somebody can go to and say: "Listen, I want to appeal this. I feel uncomfortable with the decision that has been made. Could you tell me whether perhaps we could find another solution? Is this proper, yes or no?" I'd rather have a technical committee looking at something like that than have perhaps a lawyer or a judge looking at this type of thing, without taking into account the technical background of the decision.
Ms Carter: But can you use that as a vehicle for having an influence on the general situation?
Mrs Maman: I think in the matter of writing our decisions, if necessary, we can say, "This area should be looked at in more detail," or "It requires more study and should be addressed."
Ms Carter: What do you hope to accomplish during your tenure? Would that be an object you would have?
Mrs Maman: Oh, definitely. If the opportunity arose, I would definitely take advantage of something like that.
Ms Carter: Would you have other objectives?
Mrs Maman: As I said, my basic objective at this time would be to take a study to see how well we've been doing in the past, with the people who have been using it and who would be using it in the future, to see how well we are -- do people know that we in fact exist? The public who have been given orders, that they don't have to take it and say, "Government is telling me I have to do it and I must do it." They have the right to go to a body and say: "Have we been treated fairly? Have all the options been reviewed?"
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Your comments about there have to be building departments but not necessarily fire departments: I just wondered whether that related to Mr Sterling's observation about should there be some sort of unification of codes. I confess my ignorance in this area, but it just struck me that, would this be some way of ensuring that there was some sort of standardization?
Mrs Maman: Well, you see, the point is that the assumption has been made that the only thing in the fire code is construction requirements, and that's not the case. There are requirements or issues in the fire code that address occupancy, flammable liquids, spray-painting operations, things like that, that really are not within the scope and mandate of the building department. They're responsible for a shell of a building. Here's a building, a shell, and now it's occupied.
It would create, I would say, a lot of havoc in the enforcement of these two documents if they try to amalgamate the two together, because the only way one is aware that there is a problem is if one makes an inspection and then sees that this building in fact is a problem. Who makes the inspections? It's the fire prevention officers who do the inspections.
If you decided to amalgamate the two documents, you're still going to have problems with enforcement, because even under the building code there is no requirement on the part of municipalities to make inspections of what they've approved. The onus is on the engineer or the architect who submitted the drawings that conform to the building code. Many municipalities just don't have the manpower to do inspections. I mean, in big municipalities like Toronto and places like that you're going to have this type of inspection, but in rural areas there's one person who's the chief building official, he's the administration of the town, he's everything, and he hasn't got time to go out and do inspections. So I don't think we're going to be in any way getting better enforcement if we decide to amalgamate the two documents.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning, Mrs Maman.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: The clerk is asking that we approve the report of the subcommittee, which you have in front of you. It's the report of the subcommittee dated Wednesday, April 27.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Mr Waters. Any discussion on that subcommittee report? All in favour? That's carried.
ELEANOR PAINE
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Eleanor Paine, intended appointee as member, Province of Ontario Council for the Arts (Ontario Arts Council).
The Chair: I would like to welcome Ms Eleanor Paine to the committee. Good morning, Ms Paine.
Good morning. If you wish, you may make a brief opening statement. Otherwise we will just start with questions from the committee members.
Ms Eleanor Paine: I'd prefer to go straight to the questions.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee, Ms Paine. Are you a member of the Windsor arts council?
Ms Paine: I'm not currently a member of the Windsor arts council. I was on the board up until one year ago.
Mr McLean: Have some of the board members left the organization?
Ms Paine: Yes, a few have, and that was a result of the project which was the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre. That was a project of the Windsor arts council. Several people left the board to manage that project and there's a separate incorporation there now.
Mr McLean: Do you remember Georgina Falls?
Ms Paine: I do know her.
Mr McLean: Is she on the council?
Ms Paine: She wasn't when I was.
Mr McLean: Has the casino had anything to do with the involvement of the Windsor arts council? Did they take over the building, or were they promised to change their facility? I was curious what happened there.
Ms Paine: I think you may be referring to the shift with the Art Gallery of Windsor, as opposed to the council.
Mr McLean: Right.
Ms Paine: The temporary casino has moved into the art gallery premises on a temporary basis.
1040
Mr McLean: Why did you apply for this position? Any particular reason?
Ms Paine: I was asked, actually, rather than applied, but my involvement with the arts in the last number of years in Windsor has brought me to a place where I think I have a lot to offer this particular committee.
Mr McLean: Who asked you to be a candidate?
Ms Paine: It was through the minister's office.
Mr McLean: Through the minister's office, great. So you must have a lot of background with regard to the position?
Ms Paine: Yes.
Mr McLean: The Ontario Arts Council administers an endowment fund. Are you aware of that endowment fund and how it operates?
Ms Paine: I'm minimally aware. Because I'm not currently a member of the board, there is certainly a lot of information that I don't have. But I have certainly done some reading and do know of its existence.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I noticed here that you were past president of the Windsor Feminist Theatre and also a founding member. Can you just give me some information as to what that involved?
Ms Paine: This happened in the early 1980s. As you know, the feminist movement was in full flower at that time. One of the vehicles that some of us felt would be very effective as a way of passing on the message was through theatre, as a very acceptable way to be heard. So we formed the theatre company. It was a community group and is still in existence and is the longest-lasting feminist theatre company in Canada, as far as I know.
Mrs Witmer: I notice that much of your experience has been related to the women's movement. I'm just wondering what type of influence you would bring to the arts council. What would your priorities be, based on your background? Are there things happening now that you disagree with? Is there another direction that you believe the council should take?
Ms Paine: No. In the reading I've done and the information that I've received in these last several years, actually, I feel that the OAC is a well-founded organization with thoughtful directions. I think probably the influence that would come to bear would be more from my business background than my involvement in the women's movement, actually.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. What do you personally believe you can accomplish during your tenure on the council? Obviously, you were asked to participate in the process and you accepted. You seem to have a good knowledge of what's been happening in the past. What would you hope that you can contribute and do in the future? Organizations always need to change and reflect changing, differing needs.
Ms Paine: One of the objectives that has been put forth for I believe the next three-year plan for OAC is to support the initiative for artists to achieve a living wage. That's an area that interests me. I think it's important that we find a way for not only government but business to support the arts and artists in our communities. I have been working in that area through the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre in Windsor to achieve that. That's one of the things that is very important to me.
Mrs Witmer: I'm interested in that. You talk about a living wage. Is there a dollar amount being discussed? How would that be achieved? Who would subsidize that? Would it come through the council?
Ms Paine: At this point in time, I would not have that information. I know it's an objective. I'm not even certain that it has been worked through. What that means is it would be rather more supportive and encouraging and for the council to act as an advocate; not only an advocate for the arts but that the participants be paid.
Mrs Witmer: Okay. What is your understanding today of the Ontario Arts Council vis-à-vis the government? What type of relationship are you aware of that exists at the present time, and is that an appropriate relationship or should that change somewhat?
Ms Paine: I do believe that it is an appropriate relationship and I understand that it is an arm's-length body from the government and that the OAC reports back to the Legislature through the minister.
Ms Harrington: You mentioned the Windsor Feminist Theatre. I just wanted to mention that I had met a woman here -- and I forget her last name; it's Betty -- and she worked in Toronto and she was originally from Windsor. You may know her from years ago.
Ms Paine: Betty Walmsley, yes.
Ms Harrington: Yes.
First of all, you are going to be making decisions with regard to who gets government funding through the arts council, which is a very important responsibility, as you said, to our cultural community, to the whole of Ontario, for promoting various experiences and culture, and I'll get into that a little bit further later. What background do you have with regard to management and business that you could bring to bear on this particular job?
Ms Paine: I've been sole proprietor of two businesses, actually, and currently have a management company and have been involved in various aspects of business all my adult life, from holding a real estate licence through managing staff and creating a manufacturing business. My experience has brought me to a place of fiscal responsibility, and that's been best demonstrated through my involvement with the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre.
Ms Harrington: You said you held a real estate licence, so you were self-employed, but did you work for other businesses as well?
Ms Paine: I have worked both in business and with social agencies. I was employed with Hiatus House, which is a women's shelter in Windsor. I ran a manufacturing company; it was called Walker's Candies and it was a handmade candy and chocolate business. I have had a fairly wide variety of experience in a lot of realms.
Ms Harrington: With regard to Windsor and the casino coming there, obviously you're going to get a huge influx of people to the city, probably from the US. Do you feel that this will encourage other cultural pursuits in that area and can you get some of those people, those visitors, to stay longer in the region?
Ms Paine: I think that our cultural activity is certainly strongly linked with tourism, and the desire and the need have certainly surfaced in Windsor at this time. If people come to the casino, how do we encourage them to stay? One of the ways to encourage them to stay are the cultural activities that we have available: the quality of our art gallery, the quality of the artist-run galleries, the theatre that's available, dance and other performances. One of the things that is going on in our city right now is the linkages; we're looking for the linkages that can occur, so that we can strengthen them.
That's for tourists. On the other hand, there's a concern going on that we take care of and nurture our own community as well and not have it all outwardly bound and oriented to the tourists, but to take care of our own needs and our own opportunities to nurture our own community as well.
Ms Harrington: Do you feel that the impact of a casino will help or hurt the cultural aspect of the region?
Ms Paine: I think it will help it enormously, first of all, by creating a larger potential audience and by the improvement in the local economy. If our community doesn't have any disposable dollars, then it's not able to attend the cultural events, so I think that's one of the ways that it will improve it.
1050
Ms Carter: Welcome. I'm intrigued by this knotty problem of how you decide what has artistic merit. I guess that's when the council runs into trouble, when the public says you've given money to something and they can't see why it was deserving. We've certainly had an example in my own home town of Peterborough where there was a picture put in a storefront window. It was part of women's day celebrations and it was a picture that was meant to celebrate being a woman, if you like. It was a female nude in a very revealing position, but it wasn't realistic; it wasn't sort of biological and yet it created a storm of opposition.
The upshot has been that the group that put it there decided it's no longer going to accept funding from the local council, which in fact forced it to withdraw this picture from the window. So there obviously is a cultural divide out there as to what is acceptable and what isn't. I just wonder how you deal with that.
Ms Paine: I think the structure of the Ontario Arts Council deals with it very well in terms of using the peer assessment as one way of determining artistic merit. I think that always, as we move forward, as a society moves forward, there's a resistance to change and resistance to new ideas. I think the structure that's within OAC is an excellent one to work through and then the board becomes a final word rather than the judge of artistic merit.
Ms Carter: So the responsibility is spread, as it were.
Ms Paine: Yes.
Ms Carter: I remember reading recently in my local newspaper a list of who earns what, with doctors at the top and accountants and dentists and what have you, and people working in arts fields were absolutely at the bottom, below every other kind of worker. It seems that with things as they are, they do have to be subsidized and yet they are necessary to society. I think we'd all miss them very badly if they couldn't function. I'm just wondering if you have any ideas as to what we could do so that these people could earn a decent living.
Ms Paine: I wish I had a specific solution to the problem of how we pay our artists. There are different models around the world and certainly in some countries in Europe there's a much higher subsidy and encouragement of the individual artist. I think it's always a step-by-step process and the opportunity exists, in this next while and in this place that we are in Canada and in Ontario particularly, to begin the process of advocacy, through the OAC to become a strong advocate of the arts.
We're a young country. We bring those young attitudes, and I think one of the roles of OAC is, as an advocate of the arts, to talk about how important a part of our culture it is. Whether we talk about it in economic terms or in terms of enjoyment or whatever framework we choose, we need to advocate the role that the artists play. Then I think there will be more support forthcoming, not only from government but from business as well.
Mr Waters: It's nice to see you again.
Ms Paine: Thank you.
Mr Waters: I guess what I wanted to know was your feelings on whether the arts council can do something about the problem that I see within the arts community, where we have world-renowned people like Murray Schafer in the province. They come from Ontario and we don't know them. They're stars everywhere in the world but here in our own province and indeed our own country. Do you think there's a role or something that can be done through the arts council and its affiliates to indeed make these people part of maybe a household name? People come from the US, and they're coming here because of the theatre that we have to offer, yet we don't recognize it as having value, let alone that it's Canadian theatre a lot of times that they're coming to. I'd like your opinion.
Ms Paine: I think that has partly to do with our reticence as Canadians. We don't, as Canadians, frequently stand up and blow our own horn, so to speak. That's something that has to develop. Again, I think through advocacy you create respect for the talent you have in your own country, and also through the opportunities to either show their work or for the music to be heard or the dance to be seen. I think the industry as such has grown hugely in Ontario in these last years and people will become better known.
In Windsor, we have a particular problem and that is the huge influence of American media, so much so that frequently the identification can be totally there. Even though we may not have the star system in the same manner, if it weren't for the culture and arts, we would feel totally Americanized, totally swallowed by the giant that's there.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee, Ms Paine. One thing that hasn't come up here: How many members are on your board?
Ms Paine: On the OAC board now, 12.
Mr Cleary: I guess everything always gets back to dollars. Do you figure that you have a sufficient operating budget?
Ms Paine: I don't suppose anybody ever figures they have a sufficient operating budget. There would always be need to advocate for more money in that realm.
Mr Cleary: Getting to the budget, what would your budget be used for? I know there are per diems and there's office space and everything. What else would it be used for?
Ms Paine: The primary purpose of the council is to provide grants and services to the arts industry in Ontario, so the majority of the budget goes towards the granting system.
Mr Cleary: So there would be that and there would be office space and I'm sure there's some paid staff and the board members.
Ms Paine: Yes. It's my understanding that the board members are not paid.
Mr Cleary: Oh, okay.
One other thing that I know Ms Witmer touched on a bit: I'm sure with your experience, I'd just like you to go over your list of priorities that you would like to accomplish in the next two or three years, whichever your appointment is.
Ms Paine: The priorities that have been put forth by the council itself for the next three years are around -- one of them is a reorganization of its internal office space and the delivery of the services. Another is a balancing between the granting and the services that are provided and the way it is distributed. Others are to look at even greater involvement of communities, servicing a greater number of communities than it already does, which I understand is somewhere over 200 at this point in time; to be an advocate of the arts and the value of artists; and also once again to assist and look at the ways that our artists can earn a living wage. Those are the goals that are set out by the council.
Mr Cleary: So they're your priorities too.
Ms Paine: If I am part of that board, I would certainly accept those as my priorities, yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Paine, for appearing before the committee this morning.
1100
ALOK MUKHERJEE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Alok Mukherjee, intended appointee as member, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.
The Chair: Our next intended appointee is Mr Mukherjee. We welcome you to the committee this morning. If you wish, you may make a brief opening comment. Otherwise, we will just start with questions from the committee members.
Mr Alok Mukherjee: I just have some very brief comments to make. Madam Chair, members of the committee, it was a little over two years ago that I had occasion to appear before your committee as an intended appointee to another position. The questions that were put to me then gave me a valuable insight into the issues and concerns you considered with respect to that agency, namely, the Human Rights Commission.
I look forward to the questions you may have this time in the area of policing and may I say I look forward to the same degree of support this time that you extended to me last time.
Policing is one of the most important institutions of our society. In communities across the province, there is significant concern about security and safety. Citizens, regardless of their race, colour, gender, age, sexual orientation and so on, want their neighbourhoods, their streets, their property and their families to be safe. They want their police to be responsive and sensitive to these needs. They want those responsible for administering the police forces to be accountable to the taxpayer for their actions and decisions through civilian control. Finally, they want the police forces to be reflective of the communities served.
I believe that on the whole these expectations are shared by the police forces themselves. Their belief in the principles of community policing, equitable practices and civilian oversight are on record. I have a feeling that they would like to see these principles realized without either sacrificing the quality of police services or jeopardizing the safety of individual officers.
I think these are fair and reasonable expectations, as are those of the citizens, and I think that the two are not mutually exclusive. The challenge for all concerned is to figure out ways of working to build safe communities while ensuring the highest standards of professionalism, and this must be done bearing in mind the fact that resources are limited and will remain so in the years to come.
These challenges make the work of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services very, very important. The various powers and responsibilities given to it under the Police Services Act must be used in a fair but tough-minded way to ensure that all Ontarians receive the police services they deserve.
I am honoured to have been recommended for appointment to the OCCPS. I like to believe that the knowledge, experience and expertise I shall bring to the task from my activities at the Human Rights Commission, a consultant in organizational change and a community activist will help me to make a meaningful contribution to the work of this civilian commission.
I shall do my best to answer any questions members of your committee may have.
Mrs Witmer: Welcome. I just would appreciate from you some information as to how you came to apply for this position. Were you asked to apply for this position? What skills do you believe that you have that would allow you to perform your job?
Mr Mukherjee: A few months ago I expressed a desire to people in the Premier's office that I would be interested in exploring possibilities other than being the vice-chair of the Human Rights Commission. I felt that I had spent two years there which had been quite productive and meaningful and that it was time to look for a new challenge and try out my skills in a different area.
In the discussions that I had with people in the public appointments office, the possibility of appointment to OCCPS came up. I thought that was a very interesting appointment for me to think about, given that there has been some work I have done on the area of police services.
In 1991 I was responsible for writing a fairly major report for the Solicitor General's ministry on effective models of community policing. More recently, I was part of a team that wrote a report for the commission on racism in the criminal justice system on human resources issues: How do we make sure that our criminal justice system represents and reflects the society that it serves? So it's not an area that is unknown to me. It's an area in which I've done some good work, I think.
In terms of what I shall bring to the position, some of the same skills, I believe, which I brought to the Human Rights Commission two years ago when there was a need to look at the commission as an organization and explore ways of providing services in an effective manner within decreasing resources.
My skills are in the area of organizational development and organizational effectiveness and I think that given the mandate of the OCCPS, that's something I would be able to contribute to improve the effectiveness of what OCCPS does. So in a sense there's a combination of work I have done directly on police issues, particularly community policing, and there are skills I bring as a professional in organizational effectiveness that I will be able to contribute.
Mrs Witmer: Do you support the government's employment equity policy for the police force?
Mr Mukherjee: I do.
Mrs Witmer: Do you have any concerns in that it maybe prohibits and prevents some individuals from becoming involved in policing who have a strong desire to do so? I guess I refer particularly to white males, who throughout the province feel a little bit alienated by the process in that they don't have the same opportunities.
Mr Mukherjee: I believe that as we open up the recruitment process to more and more people, certainly people from the various designated groups who have been excluded in the past, for conscious or unconscious reasons, there will be a tougher competition for everybody involved. Certain people who have had relatively easier access may not have that easy an access as a result of employment equity, or they may perceive that they don't have it. They have to compete against a larger pool.
But I do believe that employment equity is not a strategy that sacrifices quality, and as long as we make sure that an employment equity program is implemented with realistic goals in a reasonable manner, without sacrificing the basic requirement that one must be a good police officer, I don't think that the harder competition will lead to an unreasonable exclusion of people.
Mrs Witmer: I would agree with you; I think it needs to be reasonable. Unfortunately, the government has given a message at times when they've had ads in the paper, "White males need not apply," that have given a different message, and I think that's the concern in the wider community. People do support equal opportunity, but it's the manner in which it's handled. It needs to be sensitive.
Stephen Lewis indicated in his report in 1992 that since 1989 there had been little progress made in improving relations between the police and the minority groups in Ontario. Would you agree? Have you seen any change? What comments do you have?
Mr Mukherjee: Based on the work I have done, I would say that police services have made a considerable effort. We documented in our report to the government a wide range of police-community committees that are in place across police services throughout the province.
1110
One of the issues we raised was about the effectiveness of those committees, and from whose point of view those committees were doing important work. I think there's a need to bridge the gap. There may be different expectations from the police services and from the community. There may be different expectations of accountability, of control and so on.
When I look at the picture, my impression is that tremendous effort has been made. There is not a lack of will. There is a need to look at how well those models are serving us, and there is a need to sit down and say, "Okay, what else can be done to deal with some of the concerns that still exist?" I do think people, regardless of what their race or ethnicity may be, do want participation, do want to have a say in how their communities are policed. Whether or not the current models are serving that is a question that I think needs to be looked at.
Do I believe no progress has been made? Absolutely not. I think where we are today is way ahead of where we were 20 years ago. But there's room to grow.
Mrs Witmer: I do appreciate your very thoughtful responses. Thank you very much.
Mr Frankford: Good morning. I'd like to explore some questions around reporting of trends in policing and crime, particularly around statistics. Do you have any broad thoughts about what statistics are needed and where we should be going with them?
Mr Mukherjee: It's a thorny question, as you no doubt know. In fact, just a few weeks ago I was in a debate with somebody from another jurisdiction, namely, the school system, at a public forum on the zero tolerance policy of Scarborough board and we got into the discussion of collecting statistics about who is behaving in what manner, and it concurred both ways. Of course, we have to pay attention to the limitations imposed by the Human Rights Code, what information we may gather and how, but the broader question is, for what purpose? Unless that is resolved, I'd be very, very hesitant to say, "Yes, let's go ahead and collect the statistics."
Number two: Unless there are very clear guidelines in place that say, "You shall only use statistics for these purposes -- namely, better policing, not to prove some fake genetic or scientific issue," unless we have those guidelines, I would say, "Let's not collect the statistics," and I haven't yet seen anybody propose guidelines that would ensure that statistics are not misused to blame or blemish a community without foundation and so on. So I have concerns and I'm of two minds on the issue.
Mr Frankford: Well, I guess I just said statistics. I was not particularly asking about particular communities. It seems to me I would tend to argue in favour of very comprehensive statistics which would include other things like education, age, socioeconomic status, employment or unemployment, a whole lot of things. I think, if one has the comprehensive picture, it could be very useful.
Mr Mukherjee: The fear still remains.
Mr Frankford: Okay. Another approach I think is not on criminal statistics but on victim statistics.
Mr Mukherjee: You know, statistics are always interesting. Collection of statistics is perhaps the relatively easy part. It is what we do with the statistics.
I used to work for a board of education, and we collected statistics on student outcomes. We collected them by socioeconomic status, gender, race, ethnicity, language etc, but precisely to develop programs to deal with or address any lacks that there may have been in the educational system.
If statistics are connected to a commitment to doing something with them, like improving services or diminishing crime, whatever, then they are valid. But if they are collected for academic or abstract purposes, then it's an exercise not worth undertaking.
Mr Frankford: I would say that one can look at trends. One can look at the declining number of murders in the last couple of years in Toronto, which I think is a very helpful statistic. It is very useful in deciding how to allocate resources and it's very useful in addressing people who misguidedly think that the sky is falling. The fact that there is a declining number of murders shocks people because it's not something which they read that clearly. One spectacular case can counteract the whole trend, which may be positive; it may also be negative, but I think we all need that objectivity.
Mr Mukherjee: You raise an interesting issue because some of those statistics the police already have. They may not be broken down by group etc, but the number of murders committed, they already know that. The issue that you raise on using those statistics to calm community concerns: I think that's a question worth pursuing. Do police services currently use the information they already have in an effective way to calm people's nerves rather than to exacerbate them? My concern sometimes is that it has worked in the opposite direction. The issue that you raise is worth pursuing: How do we use what we already know in order to present an accurate picture of the crime situation in our community?
Mr Frankford: In this committee we've quite often interviewed appointees to police boards, from very big areas in the province to very small towns. It seems to me that there's not been a consistent reporting of the problems in the various areas, although sometimes there has, and it's often been quite interesting to get a breakdown of what is actually happening in bigger or smaller communities. In many smaller communities it's remarkably unspectacular what goes on and mischief is in reality the major problem.
Mr Mukherjee: Yes.
Ms Carter: Sometimes problems arise between local police service boards and town councils about policing budgets. I think this can be exacerbated by the fact that the province tends to lay down the rules whereas the local authorities are often coming up with the money. Do you have any ideas on how such a dispute can be resolved without going into a hearing process? That is to say, what alternative reconciliation measure could there be for that kind of difficulty?
Mr Mukherjee: I know that from what little research I have done, that's an issue for the OCCPS. I would think that it would be good if there were mechanisms available that allowed for the resolution of those disputes before they become a formal hearing. I was exploring the idea in my mind of, for instance, using a mechanism that businesses are using these days, which is a form of voluntary but binding third-party mediation. I don't know if it is feasible but it's worth looking at: whether the two sides, the town council and the local police services board, cannot agree to some third-party mediation of that kind, which takes place at the local level, and both parties agree to abide by the solution proposed by this third party without resorting to a public hearing.
If that does not work, then they of course always have the right to come to a public hearing, but it's a voluntary mechanism that they invoke themselves and use to resolve their own difficulties with each other. That's one possible model that I can propose offhand that's worth pursuing.
There's a need to recognize that there are different interests involved here and they may not always be reconcilable. Sometimes there may not be an alternative to the formal process, but my belief is that if there are informal mechanisms like a third-party mediation available, then people will have less incentive to invoke the formal process all the time.
1120
Ms Carter: Do you think the system we have now whereby police are accountable to their local police services board sufficiently fosters police accountability to the public? Do you think this is a satisfactory system?
Mr Mukherjee: I believe it does. A side of me says that you can never have too much accountability when taxpayers' dollars are involved and where services that are so essential are involved. I also go back to the old comment by Sir Robert Peel that police are the public and public are the police. We have gotten away from that concept over time.
I think the police services board provides one mechanism to get back to that notion of the relationship between police and the public and the accountability that must exist. There's always room for improvement, but I think the mechanism itself is a sound one.
Ms Carter: Of course, one particular issue these days is police race relations. What do you feel the role of the Ontario commission on policing services could be in that area?
Mr Mukherjee: It could have a significant role. I would not like to leave the impression, since I don't know enough about what it has done in the past, that it has done nothing, but given that the mandate of the commission includes looking at the conduct of the police services board and the police chief, implementation of the sections of the Police Services Act, all those provide a tremendous opportunity for this commission to look at race relations as an integral part of good quality police services, whether it's in the area of community policing, which is the mandate of the chief, or employment equity, or what have you.
I think race relations, as an issue, can be looked at in relation to all those parts of the commission's mandate, and I think it should be. It should be integral to the way the police function.
Mr Cleary: Welcome to the committee. I'm going to wish you good luck because I know you're going to need it there.
Mr Mukherjee: Thank you, sir.
Mr Cleary: Having been a municipal person for some 15 years and in contact with many municipally elected people, I share their concerns, and their concerns are that the best-qualified person may not be filling the position with the quota system in place. I would just like your comments on that.
Mr Mukherjee: You can never have a situation where the best-qualified person does not get the job. How one defines "best-qualified" may be another question.
I think there is a problem in respect of how employment equity programs have been communicated through public education etc, and how they are perceived. I think it is incumbent upon people who are in the position of hiring other people to give very clear information about what employment equity is intended to be and what it is not.
I think there are some misconceptions about the goals and targets, whether they are a quota or not, that need to be addressed, and they haven't been addressed effectively enough, in my view. So there's no question of not having the best-qualified person, and there is a need to communicate as effectively as employers can, including police services, what the true intent of employment equity programs is.
Mr Cleary: We have a program at our local college where I come from that's getting phased out, training young security and police officers. I know that many come into my constituency office -- young, white males; good, young, clever people -- and they're discouraged from taking the course because they know at the end of the day they won't have a job.
Mr Mukherjee: I think that's where Mr Frankford's suggestion about using statistics to clarify -- you are talking about the area of crime but also the area of employment -- what is the true picture, who is getting jobs and who is not getting jobs, are people really being denied jobs because they happen to be white males.
I think workforce statistics can be used to dispel some of those notions that people may have, which then run the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, so that people don't apply. I think there is a need to inform using numbers, using facts, "Look, people are not being denied jobs because they happen to be white males; in fact, this is the composition of our force," in order to dispel the myth that may exist there.
Mr Cleary: Are you a member of any political party?
Mr Mukherjee: Yes, sir, I am.
Mr Cleary: May I ask which one?
Mr Mukherjee: I would like to hope that's information that I could keep to myself.
Mr Cleary: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your appearance before the committee, Mr Mukherjee.
The Chair: Maybe what we should do next is move a motion to approve these appointments. Do you wish to approve them individually or do you wish one motion to approve all of them?
Mr Waters: Madam Chair, I move that we approve all three appointments.
The Chair: All right. So the motion would be to approve Sarah Maman as vice-chair of the Fire Code Commission; Eleanor Paine as a member of the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts; and Mr Alok Mukherjee as a member of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. Is there any discussion on that motion?
All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any?
Ms Witmer and Mr Cleary, you have to vote either for or against, or you may absent yourself from the desk.
Mr Cleary: I'll vote against.
Mrs Witmer: I would vote against too.
The Chair: All right, thank you.
Mrs Witmer: I would just like to explain why I'm voting against. I personally believe that anyone in this room is wasting their time and also taxpayer money. I mean, the whole thing is a charade, Madam Chairperson, personally. We come in here; obviously it's been predetermined that these people will be successful. I think we're not using our time to serve our constituents in the best manner possible, so I have trouble supporting the process that we're involved in.
The Chair: Your comments will be part of a discussion that we are going to be having today. The subcommittee has two jobs to do. One is to make selections for the next appointment review, but also today the subcommittee is going to be discussing the future work of the committee because originally the work of the committee was to review in depth agencies of the provincial government. Since we have something like 800 government agencies, boards and commissions, that gives a tremendous scope of work for this committee.
In the last three years, I guess it is, the work of the committee changed to where it would review these government appointments to ABCs and do the in-depth reviews of agencies only when the House was recessed. However, I have been receiving comments from members of the committee that they would like to possibly get back to doing in-depth work at reviewing agencies because there's always the possibility that this committee may decide some agencies are not needed any more. If they're not reviewed, as representatives of the people of this province, you don't really know what the work is that they're doing or if you want to make recommendations to improve what is being done or even to disband that organization completely.
I don't want to get into the discussion now but you have raised a point that as a member of the subcommittee you may make, and if you're not on the subcommittee today, whatever the subcommittee decides today will be the discussion for the whole committee. I think at the next meeting we're scheduled to deal with the report of today's subcommittee.
Mr Cleary: I would just like to say I'm on the subcommittee for today, and I think Ms Witmer said it well. I think we could've been using our time more wisely in the House this morning because there are some things happening in the House. As far as I'm concerned, it was another wasted morning.
The Chair: Of course, today is an unusual day, because we should explain for the record that this committee meets Wednesday mornings and normally private members' business is always Thursday mornings, and there isn't normally a conflict. We have private members' business going on concurrently this morning because tomorrow is the budget, and Thursday's schedule of business has been changed to accommodate that.
Mr Waters: On the issue of what the committee does, as has been raised, originally I think the intent was that what you would do is you would have a list of people, and if indeed there was someone that you wanted to question their skills and ability on that job, you could do it. But what it evolved into, very quickly it seemed, was that we had to fill a schedule every week of reviewing people and we lost the other half.
We've been talking about it for some years, for the last three years from this side, about getting back to a balance between reviewing the appointees and reviewing the agencies, boards and commissions.
We've been in support of this for a couple of years, in fact actually initiated a number of discussions on it. I hope that this time we actually do create that balance, because to review people just for the sake of reviewing them is inconvenient to them and, I agree, it's a waste of our time.
If indeed there is a concern, then I believe this committee should be reviewing those people where there are concerns and taking a very close look at their qualifications, skills, abilities, but just to review for the sake of reviewing is a waste of our time. So I would concur and hope that we rapidly move into this new era of this committee.
The Chair: I respect the fact, Dr Frankford, that you wish to speak, but I just want to suggest that the discussion should now be taking place by the subcommittee.
Mr Frankford: Very briefly, I recognize the historic role of this committee in reviewing agencies, and I think that is very valuable. In defence of what we encountered this morning, I think that there is considerable value in using this opportunity to talk to appointees, to specialized committees, to get some idea of their philosophy and for them to identify what the committee does and what they think it should do.
I think there are ways in which this can be a useful way of representing the public interest. Certainly, for instance, the first one this morning, a very technical field, but I think that it's of considerable value that we have the opportunity of speaking with them.
The Chair: We appreciate the opinions of the committee members on this matter. When we come back to the whole committee to discuss this, one thing we have to bear in mind is that it's very important, if we are going to go back to in-depth reviews of agencies, boards and commissions, that has to be done in a very formalized way with a time schedule because there's a lot of work and preparation, not only by our researcher, which indeed is a lot of work, but also by the agencies, boards and commissions themselves. So we can't say that we'll do an ABC because we don't have enough people that we need to have in. It has to be formalized and planned.
Anyway, I think that is the business of the committee today, so we will proceed with our subcommittee meeting and the committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1135.