INTENDED APPOINTMENTS LOUIS LENKINSKI
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS (CONTINUED) LYNN LIGHTFOOT
CONTENTS
Thursday 16 February 1995
Intended appointments
Louis Lenkinski, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Myron Humeniuk, Environmental Assessment Board
Michael Bay, Consent and Capacity Review Board
Farouk Muhammad, Ontario Film Development Corp
Diane Morrow, Board of Management for Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes_Parry Sound West
Joanne De Laurentiis, Ontario Casino Corp
Lynn Lightfoot, Gaming Control Commission
Subcommittee report
Ontario Human Rights Commission
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Crozier, Bruce (Essex South/-Sud L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Cleary
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Crozier
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Malkowski
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Ms Gigantes
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Witmer
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Ms Harrington
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Ms Carter
White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND) for Mr Frankford
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Yeager, Lewis, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS LOUIS LENKINSKI
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Louis Lenkinski, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. The first intended appointment which we are going to review this morning is Mr Louis Lenkinski. Welcome to the committee, Mr Lenkinski.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Good morning, sir. Welcome. Did you apply for this position or did somebody let you know it was available? Why did you make application? Have you been on the board before?
Mr Louis Lenkinski: I have been a member of the Human Rights Commission for a number of years, since 1987. I had been appointed by the previous government and I have been reappointed since. I didn't apply for the position; it was offered to me. I accepted to apply for it and here I am.
Mr McLean: I'm glad to know that you've been on it.
Can you tell you us, is the backlog of complaints coming down or is it going up?
Mr Lenkinski: First of all, we tend to call it "caseload" rather than "backlog" -- it sounds better -- but it's coming down. We have put in place some operational methods, mechanisms, that are helping us quite a bit in overcoming what has to be, as the chief commissioner calls it, a pathological problem that has faced the commission for some time.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the Cornish report, and do you agree with the recommendations that were made in it?
Mr Lenkinski: Yes, I do with some of them, but I don't think this is up to me or the commission. This is really a matter for the government to submit these recommendations. Some of the non-legislative recommendations have been implemented already, those that didn't require any kind of review or legislative action, and this is part of our operational mode in which we are operating at the moment.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Lenkinski, I know you're aware of the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been reviewed, I think at least three times, by this committee and perhaps one other standing committee of the Legislature. As part of that review, every time, the concern that's brought forward by the commission as well as people from outside of the commission is the tremendous backlog. I am wondering what your opinion is, since you've been on the commission for -- how long did you say?
Mr Lenkinski: Since 1987.
Mrs Marland: That's eight years then. Then you've experienced perhaps three different chief commissioners.
Mr Lenkinski: No, more. And five executive directors.
Mrs Marland: The fact that there would have been five executive directors and, whatever the number is, four or five chief commissioners -- each one is appointed and each one is given this huge task of backlog. I'm wondering how you feel about the protection of human rights in this province when it can take as long as it has for one of my constituents, seven years, for the case to be dealt with. Do you think that to take seven years is an infringement on our human rights?
Mr Lenkinski: Yes, it is, and we are doing our best to eliminate that kind of hindrance in our work. But there are two problems that we are facing constantly. We have open access to the procedures and processes of the Human Rights Commission and we do not have sufficient resources to cope with the caseload at any time. We have always been under-resourced, and that goes back for years.
It seems to me that the main important emphasis must be placed on the intake process and to see that some of those complaints and complainants who come before us have to use what's called, during wartime by medical staff in the field, triage; that is, complaints that have merit should be handled, resources put, and some that have less merit should be put into a different category. Then we have complaints that can be dealt with efficiently and in a much speedier manner by other pieces of legislation and other instruments that are provided for in order to give satisfaction or redress whatever problems complainants may face.
Mrs Marland: I'm wondering why that isn't being done now. The other question I have for you, which is a very serious question, as you have been on the commission as long as you have, is that I discovered through advocating on behalf of my constituent that your investigators have never been trained in learning disabilities. In the case of my constituent, who is dyslexic, his case was investigated by someone who didn't know anything about learning disabilities at all, let alone dyslexia. His case, which has taken seven years before the commission, has been decided without the benefit of being investigated by somebody who knew what his problem was in the first place.
I've learned that, as a result of his case, we are now training the investigators in learning disabilities, but there has not been a reconsideration of his case or 20 others with learning disabilities that exist on the files. I would like to ask you how you feel about the rights of those 20 individuals whose cases have been dealt with without special training by the investigators.
1010
Mr Lenkinski: I feel terrible about that, but there's very little we can do about it, other than train officers sufficiently, particularly those who are investigating these complaints, so that they develop a specific expertise and know how to deal with them.
Let me go back a bit, because when I came first on the commission, while the provisions safeguarding the handicapped or eliminating discrimination of people with handicaps, all handicaps, were enacted, they weren't proclaimed for a number of years. It was through efforts on my part and other commissioners that we finally told the then government, the minister: "Proclaim these amendments. Put them to work. Don't wait until you cross every t and dot every i by regulations. Provide us with the means of using precedent cases to establish some parameters where we can go and really find redress for people who are crying out for assistance in that field."
The process is not finished. We still have problems with it, the determination of whether a handicap is something that can be dealt with, how it can be dealt with, and also what would be the proper redress for it, short of what the language says, "undue hardship on the part of the respondent." I'm suggesting that's not an easy process, not an easy way of dealing with it, but we are doing the best we can to train our people, using experts so that they develop an expertise to deal with them. All of these, you must realize, are new -- not that the problems are new but that the way to deal with them has been new. I think it takes some time until we develop proper parameters, expertise, and even chairs of boards of inquiry have difficulties with that.
Mrs Marland: Mr Lenkinski, with respect, I want to say that I've been in politics 21 years. I have never had anything upset me as much as the fact that individuals with learning disabilities who have been discriminated against by their employer have lost their human rights -- lost them -- because the Ontario Human Rights Commission did not deal with their case knowledgeably. I appreciate the fact that you said you feel sorry and you feel badly for them, but my concern is that they only have one go-round to have their human rights established in this province. Once they've been discriminated against and the Human Rights Commission has not investigated their case fairly, with knowledge, would you think it would be fair to reinvestigate their case with trained, knowledgeable investigators?
Mr Lenkinski: As I say, I feel badly about that. I can tell you that we are doing everything we humanly possibly can in order to eliminate these kinds of anomalies, and we recognize that these are anomalies. I know that the problem is acute, I know that we can sit here and discuss these things in a kind of a philosophical, academic way, but we cannot forget that the individual who suffers needs some redress for his suffering. I have full sympathy with them. I'm not going to inquire about the details of the case --
Mrs Marland: And I'm not giving them.
Mr Lenkinski: -- because I may be in a position, some time in the future, to be called upon to make a decision and I don't want to declare a conflict, because I am interested in finding a way of really dealing with these things and also a proper redress to be found by the commission.
Mrs Marland: Do you think cases that have not been investigated by people qualified in the area of disability should be reinvestigated by the commission?
Mr Lenkinski: You see, the courts dealt with a very specific case, the Lily Cups case, where a complainant complained he was being discriminated against, claiming that he had been handicapped and all really he suffered from was influenza or a cold. The courts have told us that we have no real definition of what a handicap is.
Mrs Marland: I'm talking about a learning disability, not a cold.
Mr Lenkinski: I know, but it's part of the handicap treatment as well.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Thank you very much for coming this morning. I was going to ask what would make you a competent commissioner, and looking at your years of experience already serving on the commission, I guess I'll leave that one alone.
I notice that in 1988 there were about 60,000 inquiries, and it's now up to 111,000 inquiries being brought forward before the Human Rights. I also notice that, in the same breath, the caseload has dropped. Cases in process were 2,228 in 1988-89, and now it's down to 2,069 in process. Why are there being so many public inquiries now of Human Rights? Are there more people being educated on human rights issues, they're not afraid to speak up?
Mr Lenkinski: The way I explain these things is that once a case has been successfully concluded and a press release goes to the media and publicity around that case is really higher than usual, people get encouraged and either they inquire or place us into a formal complaint situation. That's understandable. If the commission hadn't been as successful in some of these cases and the success not publicized the way it is, obviously people would not know about that and would not look for that avenue. Hence, you have the increased number of inquiries.
Mr Hope: Dealing with the issue of finance, I was looking at the expenditures of the commission. I'm just curious about your opinion, because you talked about finances. What would a 20% reduction in the budget of the commission do?
Mr Lenkinski: Increase our workload. About 80% of the expenses we have deal with staff time and salaries, and I'm suggesting that a 20% deduction of resources would necessitate a 20% reduction of resources to deal with an increased load that we have to face.
Mr Hope: Currently there has been a process in place, and I'm wondering if you are familiar with the process, to try to manage the amount of cases still to be dealt with. I was trying to find the page; I went and lost it. Are you familiar with the government's intent to try to reduce the caseload, how they're trying to expedite cases, move them through the process?
Mr Lenkinski: I'm familiar to some degree. I'm not called upon, administering the commission. We are at a different level of decision-making there. But I'm familiar with it because I take a keen interest in it. I consider the commission to be a very important instrument to find some equality in society, and because of that, all of these things concern me.
A reduction means less not only in the amount of money we get or a reduction of the deficit the government has to face, but it also means a reduction in the means of us providing equality and fulfilling what is the preamble to the Human Rights Code that I always cite when I'm speaking in public, that this is a document that tells society what is and what is not behaviour that is going to be tolerated, compatible with the aims of society in Ontario. Because of that, I'm concerned with resources as well.
Let me add a personal note. I came to Canada after spending some years in a German concentration camp and a ghetto, and then after that I was under the Communist domination of Poland. I don't think that the lessons I gained there about the dignity of man should be wasted. In my opinion, the commission has that kind of importance, to make certain that the values of our democratic society are preserved and that people have equal access to almost everything.
1020
Going back for a moment to handicaps, that's an expertise that at the beginning of human rights work in Ontario was non-existent; I mean, in the sense that we didn't recognize that. We're still in a learning process with that. More and more people are coming to us with complaints related to discrimination on the basis of handicap. One of the most novel of them is the question of learning disabilities and it is something that we have to work together with the education system to somehow ameliorate whatever difficulties are there. But that's a different problem altogether. We have to do these things.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Lenkinski, just a few questions: One relates to the whole issue of training. I recall that Ms Brown came here in front of this committee and talked about training and I think she said that they had spent approximately 70 days of training. In your view, was that training good, bad, inadequate, still need to go on? What have you gleaned from those experiences?
Mr Lenkinski: We are now undergoing a phase at the commission for staff together with commissioners -- "together" meaning that we too participate in the training process -- in the area of race relations and the area of how to fight racism. This is a process that we now initiate. You cannot say whether it's good and bad. It's a constant, continuing process. If we find that we are facing a new development, then we ought to be able to come to terms with it and provide us with the tools to fight it if we find that that kind of event is detrimental to, as I say, the issues that the code has been designed to fight.
Mr Marchese: My opinion is that training can be good or bad and that some training is not very good, and unless we look at the culture of the workplace in terms of what we need to change, then the individual training on an individual issue won't go very far. Because if the problem is institutional and cultural, then --
Mr Lenkinski: We call it systemic.
Mr Marchese: Well, I was going to get to that as a separate question -- then we have a problem within the workplace itself -- in the Human Rights Commission I speak of, not in other places -- in terms of how we approach issues and people. So this is why I say that the training can be good or bad.
Mr Lenkinski: Yes. Well, you know, it's pretty difficult to assess training from the perspective of good or bad. It's not a system that you put a grade on somebody when somebody is being trained for that kind of work. But I'd say that in the majority of cases the staff seeks and gets the expertise they need in order to do that, and that's the best you can hope for.
Mr Marchese: I understand that. My only point is that when people recognize that they have to change, then the training has been good. If we don't recognize at times that something is wrong in terms of the way we approach things, then we have a problem and training is simply not very good.
However, moving on to another question about the way the system has been dealing with what Cornish recommends, one of the specific recommendations she makes is that we should move away from individual complaints systems to looking at how workplaces have systemic problems that need to be addressed. The Human Rights Commission doesn't address systemic problems; it addresses individual problems. Do you have a view on that in terms of how we deal with it?
Mr Lenkinski: I don't believe that you can eliminate successfully a complaint-triggered mechanism to get to where you want to be in removing systemic problems that are facing society. You have got to know whether a problem exists and you can't do that in the isolation of an office or a boardroom. You have to know how the thing plays outside and also how people react to all of them. You cannot do anything else except to look at the caseload, discern from it what really seems to be the reason for people not getting what they consider to be a fair treatment by the institution, and then try to remove it.
But you can't do that without having at least proper access to individuals who are suffering -- learning disability: As the previous questioner has asked me as well on that, how do you remove it if you don't have individual complaints? You cannot just sit and, to use a very colloquial phrase, pontificate. You've got to base it on facts, and the facts can only be supplied by people who have complaints.
Mr Marchese: What has been one of the major challenges you have faced in the last seven years at the Human Rights Commission?
Mr Lenkinski: An increase in two areas: one of them in the caseload related to handicap discrimination, discrimination of all kinds of handicaps, and the second is the question of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. I cannot overlook the fact that dissemination of hate propaganda is producing also a very sour field in race relations and all the other stuff, but that's a different thing altogether. Looking at the caseload, I have seen over the period that I was with the commission a tremendous increase in cases related to discrimination on the basis of handicap and, as I've said, on the basis of gender and harassment.
Mr Marchese: Thank you very much. Good luck.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for coming before the committee. You said you know of this job because you are a commissioner already. How did you get to know about this job?
Mr Lenkinski: I was a member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. In my previous incarnation I was a union official. I received a call and I was asked if I would like to switch, to go from the Ontario Labour Relations Board to the Human Rights Commission, by the appointment secretary of the previous Premier.
Mr Curling: That's 1987, yes. I'm talking about this position now.
Mr Lenkinski: This position now? I didn't ask for it. I didn't apply for it. I was told by Rosemary Brown, our chief commissioner, that she would like me to be the vice-chair and to help her whenever that is needed. So I suggested that yes, I would accept it.
Mr Curling: You were in the right place at the right time and knew the right people.
Mr Lenkinski: I'm not sure that's the right time. Don't forget, I am retired. I should now enjoy the fruits of my labour, but I could not refuse a challenge such as this, particularly when I hold the instrument of the Human Rights Commission in our province and its role in Canada to be paramount.
Mr Curling: Yes. Tell me, then, when you were asked, and flattered by the fact that you were there and Ms Brown wanted you, your résumé is about 1984 old. Why didn't you update your résumé to reflect your present achievements?
Mr Lenkinski: What's the sense of bragging about me?
Mr Curling: Not bragging, just what you have done.
Mr Lenkinski: I think my work at the commission level as a commissioner probably persuaded people who were working with me --
Mr Curling: But I don't know, as an interviewer, a thing about you.
Interjections.
Mr Lenkinski: You have an opportunity to question me.
Mr Curling: I'll ask you, Mr Drummond White, when you should come before. You're not before us now.
Anyone applying for a job, I would have liked to have known their credentials and their achievement and, I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about you.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): You do so.
Mr Curling: Would you just shut up a bit so I can ask the gentleman --
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me. Please let's not have interjections. Mr Curling has the floor.
Mr Curling: It's just that as you spoke, I realized you have so much experience. I'd be way ahead asking you some other questions. But I just wondered why your résumé was 1984 and no mention of the human rights experience that you had. What do you feel, since you're there so long, of the poor morale in the Human Rights Commission among staff?
Mr Lenkinski: I know about the low morale. I know that steps are being taken to improve it. I was told even today that this commission has been subject to at least three reviews by legislative bodies. You don't review a commission on three occasions without really having some problems with it, problems that are well known and outside. I'm suggesting that this is the problem and we know what the problem is and we try to remedy and we try to remove whatever bad stuff there has been. That's the best I can tell you.
Mr Curling: Fine. Do you feel that the failure of the enforcement sector of the Human Rights Commission breeds things like employment equity bureaucracy?
Mr Lenkinski: You'll have to explain that. I can't grasp that. You'll have to explain what you mean by that.
Mr Curling: What I mean to say, employment equity is one not getting fair treatment in the workplace because they're being discriminated against. It's a fact that people, especially the designated groups that have been identified as being discriminated against in the workplace, are being discriminated against before they even get into the workplace. In other words, some of their human rights have been violated.
1030
If some of these things are being enforced properly and people are punished when this discrimination comes about, maybe we would not breed another bureaucracy with lots of the people there to see that employment equity is being enforced.
May I ask the question this way: Do you believe that employment equity, the sector -- because you do have an employment equity section in human rights -- do you feel that the resources could be expanded there instead of creating a new bureaucracy?
Mr Lenkinski: I am not going to venture an opinion. This is a matter of government policy rather than the policy of the commissioner. I'm suggesting that we have discovered that the workforce does not reflect the demographics of our society --
Mr Curling: We know that.
Mr Lenkinski: -- in a number of instances, and I think something needs to be done in order to remedy that problem too. Who is to do it is subject to the government's decision. That's a political decision and I can't venture into it. My personal view is that if there are overlaps, then these overlaps should be removed.
Some of the commissions that have been established, like the Cornish commission and others, have suggested some steps. One of them was that it should be an equality tribunal, which means that the final determination of complaints in a kind of administrative-judicial way has to be joined. In other words, all these issues have to be determined by people who are experts in areas of equality. That is something I consider to be important. There may be others. I think this is a matter of policy, it's a matter of government policy, and the government has to deal with that.
Mr Curling: Okay then, Mr Lenkinski. Are you telling me then that it is a government policy that works contrary to having an effective human rights policy being in place, or fairness? If you recognized something that is not fair or is not being effective, would you report this or make it known to the government or the commissioner that this system or this structure was not working?
Mr Lenkinski: Not as an individual commissioner, but we have constantly instructed the chief commissioner, when she talks to the minister, to draw the attention of the minister to it. There's a constant cooperation between the ministry and the commission. It's reflected in a memorandum of agreement in which the specific roles of all the elements are outlined. That document has been signed. I don't know if you've seen it but it's there. It determines what is really the role of the minister, the deputy minister, the chief commissioner, the executive director. Among all of them there is a constant consultation going on.
Mr Curling: In your eight years at the commission, how do you feel the Human Rights Commission has treated the disabled community? Is it because of the lack of resources that they have not been able to be treated in a very effective way? One of the highest complaints that we have is that the people in the disabled community have not been treated fairly, are not getting their cases going through. I'm not even talking about the horrendous backlog that continues to exist in the Human Rights Commission, but I want to ask you, with your eight years of experience, do you feel that more must -- not "could" be done -- must be done to address the disabled community and their concerns?
Mr Lenkinski: We do our best to persuade --
Mr Curling: I know you do your best. Do you think that the government could do more?
Mr Lenkinski: Oh yes, but we can do more only if resources are being provided to us.
Mr Curling: So there's a lack of resources there then.
Mr Lenkinski: I don't know if this is a lack only of monetary resources. It's a question of expertise too and it's also a question of how far society is prepared to go with us when we have an issue before us and we want to eliminate that kind of thing in order to satisfy complainants.
It's a question of access to workplaces for example, and I mean physical access; that is, ramps or wheelchairs, proper access to elevators for people who have to climb some stairs, all of that stuff. It wasn't easy for us to accomplish. We are doing it not always with the full cooperation of the people who are on the other side of the issue, the respondents, but we are doing our best in order to find redress for it, and I'm not satisfied.
You see, our job is probably constantly increasing. The more people now find some loopholes in procedures, the more they use them. For example, we were never really charged with legal costs assumed by respondents. Now there are cases that we have to pay around $40,000 to $100,000 in the case of some legal bills that respondents have assumed to defend themselves. Lawyers too are becoming more sophisticated and they are using whatever they can in order to satisfy their own clients. That's understandable. We don't know whether we do a good job other than the popularity of it and the number of complaints that any case we resolve is encouraging and bringing to our table.
Mr Curling: Isn't one of the things that the cost of the Human Rights Commission has been driven up because in many of those settlements they are settling many of these cases because of costs, having people taking some payoff -- I don't want to call it a payoff -- an early settlement without dealing with the real core of the violation of human rights? Aren't those things evident in human rights now? Are you concerned about that as they exist?
Mr Lenkinski: Yes, I am. I am concerned about all of the phases and facets of enforcement and of finding ways to remove all of the discriminatory practices that exist.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Could I get a point of clarification from the ministry people?
The Chair: Mr Yeager is our researcher.
Mr Callahan: Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by calling you ministry staff, Mr Yeager. The question I want to ask is going to be helpful in terms of how I vote on this particular issue. That's why I need the information.
Mr Curling: It won't make a difference how you vote.
Mr Callahan: As I understand it, this gentleman is from Toronto. Rosemary Brown is originally from Vancouver. I understand she flies back and forth, but my friend tells me she now lives in Toronto.
The Chair: She lives in Vancouver.
Mr Callahan: She lives in Vancouver, so she flies back and forth.
If we look at page 9 of the research that was done for us --
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair --
Mr Callahan: Just a second.
Mr Marchese: Is this a question to the person who is before us?
Mr Callahan: This is a question to our researcher of some importance.
The Chair: It's a point of clarification to the researcher. The questioning is based on the work of the researcher also.
Mr Callahan: Right. At the bottom of page 9, it says: "Under part III of the code the Human Rights Commission is composed of at least seven persons appointed by...(the cabinet)." The cabinet "designates one person as chair and one as vice-chair. The commissioners are chosen to reflect the geographic...diversity of Ontario." If I'm going to vote on this, I'd like to know how, if both of them are from Toronto, they reflect the geographic diversity of Ontario --
Mr Marchese: What has that to do with research?
The Chair: Mr Marchese --
Mr Marchese: They had 10 minutes to ask questions --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Marchese --
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, listen to the point. They had 10 minutes to ask questions. Their questions are over and now he's asking a totally separate point having nothing to do with research necessarily except that he wants to make a point.
Mr Callahan: No, no, I'm not trying to make a point.
The Chair: Excuse me. They are not going to have any more time to ask questions, Mr Marchese. Mr Callahan does have a right to ask the researcher a question about the research.
Mr Marchese: He can't answer that question.
The Chair: Mr Yeager may be able to find an answer to that question by the time we vote, which will be at the end of this afternoon. I would simply request that, if it's possible for Mr Yeager to have that answer by the end of the day for the committee, he provide the committee with that information.
Mr Marchese: Can I hear his question again?
Mr Callahan: I'm trying to finish. May I finish?
The Chair: Excuse me. I will repeat the question so there won't be any argument about how much longer Mr Callahan speaks.
Mr Marchese: That's a good point.
The Chair: Mr Callahan is asking for the geographical makeup of the current commission members. It's a fair question, and I think Mr Yeager won't have too much difficulty if he calls the commission at lunchtime to find that out.
Thank you, Mr Curling. That's the end of the questions for you, Mr Lenkinski, and thank you for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Mr Lenkinski: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present my view.
1040
MYRON HUMENIUK
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Myron Humeniuk, intended appointment as member, Environmental Assessment Board.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment this morning is Mr Myron Humeniuk. Would you like to come forward, Mr Humeniuk, and make yourself comfortable.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Thank you very much for showing up, Mr Humeniuk. I note from your résumé, which is in fact a very impressive one, that you obviously have a great deal of experience not only in this area but across Ontario and around the world. I notice that your earliest experience and training was in fisheries and wildlife habitat management. I want to ask you a question in regard to environmental assessment: What kinds of precautions would you like to see occur in regard to construction of a residential development nearby to a wetland?
Mr Myron Humeniuk: With regard to that particular type of development, I would focus on a multifaceted analysis: whether the land itself is suitable for that type of development, the precautions that would be taken with regard to the water system, the structure of the road system to ensure that there wouldn't be any type of adverse runoff from, say, oil or lawn chemicals or salt that would impact upon the wetland. I would ensure that there was a survey done, that archaeological or heritage concerns were addressed, that vegetation was taken into consideration with regard to the buffering capacity that it could provide for the wetland. It would be a multifaceted type of investigation.
Mr White: Thank you very much. I'll pass on to my colleague Mr Waters.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Good morning and thank you for coming before us. I'm going to get something out of the way before my colleagues across the table do: Do you now or have you ever belonged to or been active in any political party?
Mr Callahan: That's the first time you've ever asked that question. He must be a Conservative or a Liberal.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, Mr Waters has asked that question previously.
Mr Humeniuk: Yes, I have.
Mr Waters: Could you elaborate, if possible, on that?
Mr Humeniuk: I have been a member of and active in the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
Mr Marchese: Every party.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: That's a home run. That's all the bases covered.
Mr Marchese: Where's the Reform Party in all this?
Mr Callahan: Haven't you joined the Reform Party yet?
Mr Waters: Going on, I'd like to talk a bit about central Ontario. I believe that you have some knowledge or have a piece of property probably in Mr McLean's riding.
Mr Humeniuk: That's right.
Mr Waters: Mr McLean and I have had the honour -- I wouldn't call it an honour or privilege, I guess, but we've had site 41 going on for far too long, and indeed there's another ruling and the people wish to go on and try to pursue it again. What is your feeling on EAs and how long should this process be? This has gone on since I believe 1987 or 1988. It's had two rulings now. Cabinet interfered in 1989 or early 1990, the previous government, and set it back. What is your feeling on EAs and how long they should proceed?
Mr Humeniuk: I think that EAs in some cases, if we can take site 41 as an example, have gone on far too long. I was involved in that particular issue between 1983 and 1985.
Mr Waters: So it goes back even longer.
Mr Humeniuk: Even further, yes. My perception is that the reason it has gone on so long was because there was a certain amount of distrust that was built up among the stakeholders originally: the fact that the site was not secure, that trucks were coming in the middle of the night and dumping industrial waste and only a halfhearted effort was made to contain this particular site.
Mr Waters: That would be the Pauzé site, I believe, wasn't it?
Mr Humeniuk: That's right: the one on the 10th concession of Tiny. So this thing has evolved over a number of years, and with the current site, with which I am not very familiar, but having been familiar with this process in the beginning, you have a population of people who mistrust the entire site selection process to begin with. You have regional factions that have grown up around the NIMBY syndrome and you have what I consider to be, at certain times, disjointed efforts. I was most impressed in the beginning when the environmental mediation process began because there was a ratcheting down of animosity and a certain amount of trust that built up among all the stakeholders, but I think the whole process has gone on far too long.
Mr Waters: I guess that leads into the next question: How do we give credibility and confidence to the people who deal with the EA process in the future? How do we change it so it doesn't happen again? Because the cost and the outcome -- the outcome this time was the same as the outcome in the 1980s.
Mr Humeniuk: If we're considering this particular example, I don't think we live in that same kind of a world any more. I think the public and all the other stakeholders have evolved since that time. We realize that the important thing is to get people involved in what we call alternative dispute resolution very early on so that you don't have this buildup of mistrust and animosity and this sort of factionalization that occurs on a regional basis.
Mr Hope: Just a point of clarification: Did you say what political party you belong to currently?
Interjection: All three.
Mr Hope: You did say that you've been involved with all three, but I would ask, which one are you currently involved with?
Mr Humeniuk: Currently, none.
Mr Hope: None?
Mr Humeniuk: That's right.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): He's read the polls, Randy.
1050
Mr Hope: I only have two minutes. I find your CV very impressive. You've done a lot of work. Do you feel the work you've done in the past may have conflicts in the future in this role?
Mr Humeniuk: This is something I've given a great deal of thought to. I have conferred with a number of colleagues, as well as Grace Patterson, the chair of the EAB, the Environmental Assessment Board, and it is possible that there could be conflicts. However, I have made it known that I will discuss each and every individual project that comes along before I make any commitment to those projects to ensure that there is absolutely no conflict of interest.
Mr Hope: With your impressive CV, what would your perception be of the layperson who is making presentations, whether it be before the consolidated hearing board or any other board? How would your perception be to listening to them, considering the knowledge base you have? Let's face it, you're much more knowledgeable on environmental things than most laypersons. I wonder about your perception of or reaction to individuals without a technical basis, which you have.
Mr Humeniuk: I think that one of my specialties is the coordination of public information centres. You may be aware of this particular phase of an environmental assessment where the stakeholders all get together. The proponents, the ministries that are involved with the approval process will get together in what we call an open house type of situation. I find that this is far more appealing than a structured meeting, simply because it gives a chance for people to discuss their individual concerns one on one.
You find that laypersons will not be as intimidated by this type of process, that they're more relaxed, that they can communicate easier. These people will leave the meeting more satisfied than if it had been a structured meeting because they feel that their concerns are being addressed. I've dealt with many different groups, all levels of sophistication, and I think I can deal with them on a one-on-one or on a group basis without any problem.
Mr Hope: What would be your --
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr Hope: Can I just ask one -- I've been very quiet this morning. Just one very quick question. Do you see yourself reporting back in a more timely fashion than currently --
The Chair: Mr Hope, I'm sorry. Mr Curling.
Mr Callahan: You've established a dangerous precedent, Madam Chair.
Interjections.
The Chair: And I'm not doing it.
Mr Hope: She's not allowing one more simple question.
The Chair: No, I'm not allowing the question and we're moving to Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Madam Chair, before you press that, though, the time is for Mr Daigeler to take the question.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr Daigeler.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): If I understand right, you are currently a consultant in this general field of environmental protection and you plan to continue being a consultant?
Mr Humeniuk: That's correct.
Mr Daigeler: I think Mr Hope did raise that question. That is obviously a very important one of potential conflict of interest, and I appreciate your willingness to make that distinction. But you know, in real life, of course, it may be very, very difficult. This is the first time I've ever sat at this committee, but is there anyone who can answer for the secretariat, who has made that proposal, how they see one can avoid this kind of conflict? Obviously if they make that recommendation they feel that Mr Humeniuk can function without conflict of interest. I just would like to know from whoever speaks for the government on this how they see that.
The Chair: Mr Daigeler, at this point during the committee meeting, the questions that you are asking are only to the person who is being appointed. If this other matter is something that you wish the subcommittee to discuss, it is certainly a matter that can be dealt with later on by the subcommittee and then the full committee report.
Mr Daigeler: So there's nobody here who can --
The Chair: No, because the purpose --
Mr Daigeler: Okay, thank you. My other question then is, as Mr Hope said, I think you obviously have a lot of expertise in this general field. Beyond the technical expertise, and you described it a little bit, what would be sort of the general values that you would bring to the decisions of the Environmental Assessment Board? Because in the end, it always boils down to weighing the various factors and the various considerations. I just would like to hear a little bit from you what your main priorities are and how you would approach the decisions that you will be facing.
Mr Humeniuk: Generally, each project receives consideration with regard to cost-benefit analysis. What we do here is we weigh the costs and the benefits against each other for all the various areas that are involved in the particular undertaking. These would involve aspects of engineering, of natural environment components, the aquatic environment, the socioeconomic environment, whether there are residential areas that might be affected in any way, transportation, water and sewage, archaeological and heritage concerns. My focus is basically coordinating all the various aspects of environmental impact assessment to ensure that everything receives proper consideration.
Mr Callahan: I was just going to inquire, Mr Humeniuk, with reference to this question of conflicts, I might suggest that you might want to put in an application for chair of the Human Rights Commission. I see you like to travel, and that seems to be part of the job, I guess.
More seriously, I've looked at some of the things you've done, and I'm wondering, having consulted on those particular issues and having rendered consultant reports, if these might not cause some difficulty in terms of you sitting as a member of the board in that those reports and your decisions that you made there -- and obviously it's like any other consultant; when you're hired by someone you look for a report that will benefit their point of view. You'd agree with that?
Mr Humeniuk: No, I don't agree with that.
Mr Callahan: You don't agree with that. They're not like lawyers, where when a lawyer is retained by a client they usually try to advocate for the best face for their client? I always assumed that consultants did the same. I may be mistaken. I've used consultants professionally and always assumed that they were looking at the best side of our case. But you say that's not the case with consultants on the environment?
Mr Humeniuk: No, what I'm saying is that in my particular experience and background I do not take point X, which is the end, and decide how I'm going to arrive at that. What I do is I consider everything with regard to a particular project, I balance the pros and the cons and then I come to my conclusion. In some cases a client hasn't been happy with what I have recommended, but I am not somebody who is biased in that respect.
Mr Callahan: The net result of what you're saying is that any of these numerous reports you've done could be held up as reflective of the decision you might make on a case of parallel or a similar type of application. With the numerous numbers of consultations you've done, I would believe that if you're sitting on the board you would have to come up with, on a fairly regular basis, cases that would be analogous or similar in vein to what you've consulted on before.
That concerns me in this respect: The old adage -- when you're sitting on a board; this is a quasi-judicial board -- that justice must not only be done but appear to be done, one might point the finger and say, "You have to get off," and I would suppose that you probably would adhere to that. So it would mean that possibly your ability to sit on that board would be jeopardized to a large degree as a result. You may want to comment on that. I see that as a real problem. I don't say that in a disparaging way. I think your qualifications are excellent. If we can get around that, I think it would be excellent to have you as a member. But do you see a problem with that?
Mr Humeniuk: No, I don't see a problem with it in that I take an objective stance to every project I work on; that I have the capacity ahead of time, before I become involved in any hearing that the board will be sitting on, to discuss with a certain number of parties whether there is or there could possibly be a perceived conflict of interest, and I will abide by the counsel I get from the people I speak with.
1100
Mr Callahan: Well, if you don't see a problem with that.
Your experience seems to go all over the map in terms of different types of environmental consultation you've done in your particular line of work. I realize this is only a part-time position, but do you have the time to be available to sit on this board?
Mr Humeniuk: Let me put it this way: I'm making the time, because I consider it to be an honour to serve on this board.
Mr Callahan: What amount of time do you envisage you'd be sitting as a member of this board?
Mr Humeniuk: At this time I'm not aware of what kind of time will be involved.
Mr Curling: May I ask you one quick question? Do you believe you will be appointed to the board?
Mr Humeniuk: I hope I will be.
Mr Curling: What is your understanding of the process of coming before the committee here? Is it to approve your appointment on the board?
Mr Humeniuk: I assume it's, first of all, to clarify any questions that members of the committee here might have, and then to make a decision, yes.
Mr Curling: Then who to make a decision? Then we to make a decision to appoint you?
Mr Humeniuk: From my understanding, yes.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Mr Humeniuk. I see by your résumé that there's not much need to ask whether you're qualified. We all know you're well qualified. But I have a couple of questions.
Waste management master planning: I see you've been involved in that in Marathon. What would that job entail?
Mr Humeniuk: That was a particularly difficult project, because the original consultant had been relieved of their participation because of cost overruns and a lack of progress. I picked up the file and started going through it, and it was an extremely difficult project to deal with, simply because of the number of cost overruns that had occurred.
The initial site that had been picked was found to be unsuitable upon further investigation, which meant that a new site would have to be chosen. The second site that was chosen became contentious because of its proximity to an airport and also to the water resources of the Pic Mobert First Nation. There were also a number of studies which had not been completed with regard to hydrogeology which would have to be done in order to satisfy the certificate of approval.
I think one of the greatest problems was that the municipality decided to go ahead with the hydrogeological work in the wintertime, which added far more costs than originally envisaged. It was a particularly hard winter, there was a great deal of snow, and machinery kept breaking down. It wound up being a very difficult exercise.
Mr McLean: That leads me into the Pauzé landfill site. You've done some studies on that from 1983 to 1985. Is the plume still going into Georgian Bay or has that stopped, that you're aware of?
Mr Humeniuk: I'm not aware at this time.
Mr McLean: Of whether it's continuing. Back in 1989, the Environmental Assessment Board brought in a recommendation turning down site 41. Do you agree with that recommendation?
Mr Humeniuk: I haven't read the ruling, so I can't comment on that particular decision.
Mr McLean: In 1990, then cabinet minister Ken Black went up and made an announcement that the cabinet was going to overrule that and ordered another investigation. Since that time, I believe a few weeks ago, the Environmental Assessment Board came down with a ruling that the site is now approved. Do you agree with that ruling?
Mr Humeniuk: I haven't read the ruling, so I really can't comment on it. I'm sorry. I've been away from that particular topic for a while.
Mr McLean: Do you believe that the need for further landfill sites in that area of the province is necessary?
Mr Humeniuk: I don't think we can ever get away from landfill. I don't think it's realistic. No matter how much we intensify the blue box and composting and any other types of technology or techniques that come up, inevitably there is going to be a certain amount of our waste that the only way to deal with will be a landfill site. I don't think it's possible to get away from it. The scale may be reduced, and if we intensify our efforts we can probably do that, but I don't think we can ever eliminate them.
Mr McLean: The reason I'm asking you some of these questions is that I know you're a professional in the field and we don't very often get people who have had the background experience you have had here to try and pick their brains to find out where we're coming from with regard to landfills, waste management.
The three landfill sites they want to create around Metro: In your professional opinion, do you think three sites are necessary, or would one do the job?
Mr Humeniuk: Honestly, I don't know, and no matter which decision is made, whether it would be three sites or one site, it's still going to be very contentious.
Mr McLean: In your opinion, do you think energy from waste should be part of the overall waste management system?
Mr Humeniuk: It's a technology I'm not very familiar with. I did do some reading with regard to the facility in London that the hospital is using, but it was more or less an introduction and there was no conclusive evidence as to whether there was a severe environmental impact or even a negligible one; it was more or less descriptive.
Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the one in Peel?
Mr Humeniuk: No, I'm not.
Mr McLean: The Ogden Martin organization is expanding its waste management facilities substantially in the States. Incineration is part of their overall plan. Are you aware of the Ogden Martin program they claim is zero pollution? Are you familiar with any of those large plants involved in waste management?
Mr Humeniuk: No, I'm not.
Mr McLean: I would think that's about the only thing you have missed in your studies.
Some other questions with regard to the Environmental Assessment Board, the limitation of the act of the public sector: Do you feel there are limitations in the act with regard to public sector participation?
Mr Humeniuk: With regard to public participation?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Humeniuk: No, I don't think there is. Speaking from personal experience, I think we can be proud of many of the techniques that have developed in Ontario simply because we can get all stakeholders together, we can discuss matters one on one instead of this presentation arena, which in many cases degrades itself to grandstanding and a shouting match. I feel we accomplish much more in the area of the public open house.
1110
Mr McLean: What is your perception of the board, and do you think the board is performing effectively?
Mr Humeniuk: I've had limited exposure to the board up until quite recently, but I've met most of the people. I've attended a couple of sessions with regard to waste reduction and some other topics. I find the people interact well, they're well informed, they're more than willing to assist me. I find the office is very well organized. I've even tried to stump them by going in and saying, "I'd like to see this ruling" or "this piece of legislation," and that kind of material is at people's fingertips. It's presented to me right away.
Mr McLean: Do you really think it's free from political interference?
Mr Humeniuk: I don't think I've had enough exposure or experience to comment on that, truthfully.
Mr McLean: The write-ups in the paper in the last while indicated that when the cabinet overruled the decision of the board, the last chair of the Environmental Assessment Board felt his hands were pretty well tied by the guidelines that cabinet put on with regard to another new assessment; thereby they came in approving that site 41, from what I read in the paper, based on the regulations and rules laid down by cabinet.
That's why I asked you, do you think they're really far enough, when the Environmental Assessment Board the first time turns down the site, the cabinet appeals the ruling, and then they do another assessment -- another three years, another few million dollars -- and say the site is fine. It's still the same site. That's the reason for my question. Do you think they're free from cabinet at the environmental assessment?
Mr Humeniuk: I guess the only way I'll be able to answer that question is once I get involved in the process itself, because at the present time I don't have any knowledge of that particular situation. Nobody has mentioned it to me within or outside the board. I guess only time will tell.
Mr McLean: The bottom line now is that it will be interesting to see whether the present government appeals that decision.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Humeniuk, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
MICHAEL BAY
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Michael Bay, intended appointee as chair, Consent and Capacity Review Board.
The Chair: Our next intended appointment this morning is Mr Michael Bay. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Waters: Yesterday seemed the date for some of our supporters to come forward. Looking through your résumé, I determine that you probably, at least in the past, have been a supporter of another party.
Mr Michael Bay: I think it's fair to say I've played footsie with just about every party and a few you've never heard of in a few other countries where I've lived. I'm the politicians' nightmare. I don't have very much loyalty to any party and never really had.
Mr Waters: Indeed, at one point you were an executive assistant to a previous Minister of Health, that being Elinor Caplan.
Mr Bay: That's right.
Mr Waters: And you have worked with the Liberals. We just didn't want them over there to have to go through all of this. We'll say it for them, get it out on the record so that my Liberal colleagues won't have to go through the exercise.
Because there has been a lot of discussion about the Psychiatric Review Board and the Criminal Code and all of that, can you tell us the differences between the review boards for psychiatric facilities, the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board and the Ontario Board of Parole, sort of set that out for us?
Mr Bay: I can certainly try to do that for you. The Ontario parole board is part of the parole structure established federally, actually. To start with the federal parole board, it is responsible to deal with parole issues dealing with offenders who have been given sentences of two years and a day or more. The Ontario parole board is limited in its jurisdiction to dealing with parole issues, parole hearings, dealing with offenders in provincial institutions; that is, inmates who are serving sentences of less than two years.
The Criminal Code Review Board also has a fairly limited jurisdiction. They deal in two areas. They deal with individuals known as "accuseds" under the Criminal Code, and that board is established under the Criminal Code of Canada, though appointed by the provincial government. The only issues they deal with are individuals who have been found not criminally responsible -- that's the old "not guilty by reason of insanity" -- and individuals who have been not competent to stand trial. They're responsible for reviewing those individuals, setting the restrictions or loosening the restrictions on the way they can be held and generally conducting those periodic reviews.
The authority of the Psychiatric Review Board overlaps to some extent with the Criminal Code Review Board; that is, we see the same population. In fact, all three boards see the same population, because we know the corrections system and the mental health system unfortunately often deal with the same people.
The Psychiatric Review Board deals with a number of matters. One is civil committal; that is, a physician who has committed someone to a psychiatric hospital. These are individuals who have committed no crime. We're concerned with future dangerousness and problems, not past things they may have done. The Psychiatric Review Board also deals with issues such as the competency of a person in a psychiatric hospital to manage their finances, the competency of a person in a psychiatric hospital to consent to their psychiatric treatment, and other related issues.
Our only overlap is that if someone is in a psychiatric hospital on a warrant under the Criminal Code, we deal with their issues like we deal with any other patient; that is, we will deal with their financial issues and their treatment issues etc, but it's not our department to decide whether they stay in the institution or whether they go. That's a Criminal Code issue and belongs to the Criminal Code Review Board.
Mr Waters: Going along with that, I guess, were two of the new acts, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Advocacy Act. How will the Consent and Capacity Review Board interact with those pieces of legislation?
Mr Bay: How do we interact with the Advocacy Commission etc? First of all, the Consent and Capacity Review Board has really two jobs. One is that we take over the job of the Psychiatric Review Board. That board is abolished, and all of its responsibility now moves to the new tribunal. In addition to that, we have the responsibility under the Consent to Treatment Act. We also have a tiny, little corner of responsibility under the Advocacy Act where an advocate can refuse to show a client the record and can ask us permission not to show the client the record. I expect to see one hearing like that every three or four years. It's a tiny little jurisdiction.
Most of our interaction will be that when someone wants to apply to our review board, they will have the right to see a rights adviser, supplied by the Advocacy Commission, who will help them fill out the paperwork etc. That's a function now provided by the legal aid plan and by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office operated by the Ministry of Health. Those responsibilities are moving over to the Advocacy Commission, so their advocates will come out and see the patients, help them fill out the forms to come before us, but we'll never see the advocates or the rights advisers because they're involved in the process at an earlier stage.
1120
Mr Waters: I'll ask one more question. What, in your view, are the main challenges facing you as chair when it comes to building relationships? Indeed, you're new, and you've been working with this group ever since its inception -- or conception -- so what would you see as your job and how would you go about building these relationships with the regional vice-chairs and all of those people?
Mr Bay: There are a number of challenges here. I have the advantage because we're picking up the culture developed by the psychiatric review boards. They've developed a good working relationship with the communities and the facilities that they work with. They'll continue their work. My challenge, should the committee recommend my appointment, is going to be to set up mechanisms to provide for quality assurance and consistency, to be sure that if you appear before the review board in Kapuskasing or Kenora you're going to get the same level of service, the same type of service that you get in Toronto or Hamilton or Kingston.
We're also going to have to do more outreach and education to be sure that all of the various sectors that deal with us will be able to predict the sorts of decisions that we're going to make so that they don't have to come before the review board.
As well, there's going to be a lot of work in outreach and education to the various stakeholder groups -- to the medical community, to the other health care provider communities, to the consumers, to the family groups, to the bar, to the bench, to some extent, to the public guardian and trustee's office, and to the Advocacy Commission -- to maintain open communications with those groups, to be a catalyst for education and outreach, to be sure that the debate that takes place in this area is as informed as we can make it and that the various players understand the law and how to work with it so that we can minimize difficulties as we move into the implementation of the new legislation.
Mr White: Thank you very much for joining us today, Mr Bay. I'm certainly very impressed with your résumé. Unlike other parties, we of course have no difficulty in appointing someone who has had associations with another government.
The question I have is a fairly simple one, and that is, how do we ensure that someone who may be incapable of forming a good, solid, stable decision, of being able to direct treatment or their resources, but still is involved in that decision-making process, still is informed, still has their consent respected, how are we going to be sure that with this new law in place that while that person may not be capable, they are still involved and still respected?
Mr Bay: An important question. I'll try to answer it as shortly as I can. I have a disadvantage. Being a lawyer, I'm not sure I can answer anything too shortly, but I'll try. There are a couple of tools that we have. It's an essential issue, of course, with an aging population particularly, that we deal with that. One is the issue of preplanning. The Substitute Decisions Act has mechanisms: powers of attorney, advance directives etc. I recommend to people as well that they use good old-fashioned self-help techniques: See your banker, see your accountant, have family powwows as you move towards inevitable changes in your life. In other words, we have to encourage people to take care of problems themselves.
On the other hand, when people are in the system who are already incapable or have difficulty in managing issues, it's very important that all the way through the professionals and other people involved with them pay attention to what people want, involve them, treat people with courtesy and respect, and never forget that the individuals we're dealing with are people.
We have to stop seeing individuals as a diagnosis or as a problem. We have to, in my view, start recognizing ourselves, in the words of David Lepofsky, a Ministry of the Attorney General lawyer who just won the Order of Canada for his work with the disabled -- David refers to people like me as the temporarily abled. I think it's important that we all remember that this is who we are and what we are and that we have to treat everybody with the appropriate respect and actively involve people in decision-making. Then I think we'll be further down the road. I guess the answer is that the legislation will help somewhat, but it's an attitudinal issue for all of us.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming before the committee. I'm quite impressed with your résumé; rather intimidating. When I read it, I said those achievements that you've done are just remarkable. Could you tell me, before you came before this committee, what was your expectation of the role of this committee?
Mr Bay: Something like being called down to the principal's office, I guess. I had assumed that it was the role of the committee to review my proposed appointment so that it can make a recommendation to the Legislature that in effect will govern my future for the next couple of years.
Mr Curling: I see. It was kind of my understanding too. Thanks for that.
Just one other quick question: The composition of the board is three members, I understand. In regard to their professional relevance and qualifications, I know that has been changed now. It was once, as you said, done by the Psychiatric Review Board under the Mental Health Act. Now it has changed. Are the professional qualifications of the people sitting on the board almost consistent in what the Psychiatric Review Board had? In other words, what are those qualifications in regard to the people they're assessing?
Mr Bay: Thank you for the question. Depending on what the board is doing, because we now have 13 different kinds of hearings we can conduct under three different pieces of legislation, the required composition of the board will change depending on the kind of hearing we're doing. If we're doing involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act, which will continue, we believe, to be about 80% of what the board will be doing, the board will continue to consist of at least one psychiatrist, at least one lawyer and at least one community person.
When the board is dealing with capacity -- that's under the Consent to Treatment Act -- the board is required to have at least one member who has expertise in the evaluation of capacity. One of my first responsibilities, should I pass muster, will be to further define what we mean by that and select appropriate people at the beginning, because time lines are very short. We'll be using psychiatrists for that capacity. It's everyone's expectation, including the consumer and provider community's, that we'll move away, out into other sorts of professionals. In some hearings there's no requirement; it can be any three members. That's the law.
In practice, I suspect we'll continue with the professional members at the beginning, that is, with the psychiatrist and the lawyer on the board, and move fairly gingerly towards a wider representation, which is a good idea but we want to be sure that we're not losing any stability or acting irresponsibly. So we'll start like we are now and move slowly away from that over the course of about two years.
Mr Callahan: Mr Bay, I want to get into an issue and I have limited time, so I hope you'll keep your answers, if you can, short. I'm concerned about schizophrenics in this province and have been since 1985, when for some reason the Mental Health Act was enacted in such a way that these people are involved in a revolving-door scenario. You're familiar with that.
Mr Bay: Absolutely.
Mr Callahan: They're picked up on the street because they're a danger to themselves or the public, they're taken into the institution, they're medicated; then they appeal to a committee that now sees that there are rights, so they can't be medicated any further and they're back out the door on the streets to do this whole thing all over again.
With the exception of the Substitute Decisions Act, which would allow a parent of a schizophrenic, while the person is medicated, to take a substitute decision, we have not gotten any better with the consent to treatment, I suggest. In fact, what we've now done, as I read our research from our research people, is considered a situation where persons are found to be incapacitated, ie, picked up on the street in the fashion I've just suggested, they come into the institution, they can't even medicate them without calling a rights adviser who will advise them that they have the right to refuse or whatever, that they have a right of appeal and so on.
What is your position? You seem to have a good degree of involvement in dealing with the mentally handicapped, particularly in this area. I'm a criminal lawyer by profession and I've had a lot of schizophrenic clients before the courts where the judges have said: "We don't want them here. They're health problems. They should not be before us." The alternatives you've got are, you either plead them guilty or you have a defence of insanity, in which case I've seen crown attorneys who've actually tried to bring a section 16 application under the Criminal Code and have them sent to Penetang at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor for ludicrous acts like perhaps taking their clothes off in public.
1130
What do you have to say about this? Do you agree with me that the acts as presently phrased, other than the Substitute Decisions Act, haven't moved us one step closer to helping those poor people, who are probably the majority of our street people in major cities?
Mr Bay: I don't want to diminish the seriousness of the problem. It's a very serious problem. Over the last 18 months I have spoken to most of the chapters of Friends of Schizophrenics in the province, you may have noted in the résumé. I do that really more so that they'll educate me than so that I can educate them. But I'd ask that you also understand the pickle that I'm in. I have to be very careful to maintain a neutral stance. I've always said that I don't want to either praise or damn legislation; I have to work with it. It's kind of a judicial capacity and I have to be very careful.
There are some tools that hold out some hope in the new legislation. How well they'll work, I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. We have the Ulysses contracts, which will allow the person of varying, vacillating competency to give advance directives. We have the capacity for guardianship orders which may allow families the right to have the relative admitted to hospital. Whether that's going to be a wonderful tool or cumbersome and unworkable, I don't know. We'll have to see.
One of the main things is, first of all, to understand that the way we treat the psychiatric patient isn't changing very much. The rules have been moved from one piece of legislation to another but they're not really changing. One of the big roadblocks over the years has been that we haven't educated our health professionals. We've given them a lot of responsibility and some complicated legislation. We haven't given them enough education and background in the legislation so that they can work with the tools such as they are in the legislation.
Mr Callahan: I think they're frightened silly out there.
Mr Bay: A lot of them are. I spend, again, a lot of my time doing grand rounds speaking to hospitals. I hope to commit, I think it's fair to say, a majority of my time -- again, should I receive the recommendation of the committee -- to speaking to the various groups, with an emphasis on the health providers, to help them with these issues.
Mr Callahan: I don't mean to interrupt you but I'm running out of time. I've heard things from dentists saying that if a young child is brought in and told that they have to have Novocaine and the kid says, "No way, José," they have to stop everything and get a rights adviser to come in and advise. I'll ask you to comment on that in a second.
Finally, would you not agree with me that schizophrenics -- I remember when these Mental Health Act amendments were made. David Reville of the NDP was a very strong mover behind that, and David was concerned about the question of electric shock treatment and so on. I agree with him that those are things that should not be made available. But to deny a schizophrenic a drug that will make them well is kind of like telling a diabetic, "Don't take your insulin." It just strikes me as totally, absolutely idiotic.
What I'd like to find out is, would you not agree that schizophrenics, being a very special group of people who have mental incapacity and who can be cured or at least put on an even keel, should not be specifically defined within the Mental Health Act or the Consent to Treatment Act in order to allow them to be medicated without all of this mumbo-jumbo of having rights groups and advocates and all the rest of it come forward? If we don't do that, and I guess maybe I'm making a speech now I've seen families with kids out there on the street roaming the streets, they have no idea where they are, and the only time they find them is when they pull a knife on somebody or they do something outrageous because they're out of control.
My question is, and you're probably not going to have time to answer it, from your experience, should there not be a specific definition of "schizophrenia" in the act, in whatever act, and special rules, if you don't have a substitute decision-maker, that in fact this person can be medicated and perhaps can even be required to take medication so that they can carry on in a normal fashion in society?
Mr Bay: Let me try to answer that in a few sentences. First of all, with regard to the young child, as I understand it, as a result of those concerns, before the Consent to Treatment Act went to third reading it was amended so that those under the age of 14 are not given rights advice. If they're found incompetent, one simply goes to parents, gets the permission and proceeds. That's my understanding. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert in it.
As far as the issue of schizophrenics in particular, I must admit, and I again mean no offence to those who are in the business of passing legislation, I felt for many years that the real key here is not legislative but administrative. I would love to see at some point this province look at case management models to deal with the schizophrenic population. Washington state is a good example -- again, not an issue of legislation; an issue of not letting people fall between the cracks, having case managers acting as, if you will, advocates, not in the Ontario sense, assisting people through the system. To my mind, that's about as close to perfection as we can get, and these are people with great difficulties. We can't get very close to perfection with them.
Mr Jackson: Mr Bay, Mr Callahan has referenced the changes to the Mental Health Act, which were brought in by the Liberal government in a minority government situation, as you'll recall. I sat on that panel and worked on the legislation, but I recall very clearly and vividly that we failed to come up with a legal definition of "competency" -- capacity is a different issue, but of competency.
I note from your résumé that you ascended to a position within the minister's office in 1988 and I wonder why we've been unable, during at least your period, to resolve that issue. I know you can't say why the government didn't do it, but you are a pre-eminent lawyer in the field and it's a valid question to ask you why we were unable to craft legislation, legal wording to resolve this issue.
Mr Bay: I don't know the legislative history. In my very brief period working on the inside of government, I must admit to having no connection with mental health issues at all, quite frankly, so I can't help you --
Mr Jackson: You're familiar with the Mental Health Act?
Mr Bay: I'm familiar with the act.
Mr Jackson: You're familiar with the deficiency which I brought to your attention, the Weisstub report and others.
Mr Bay: Absolutely. I don't have any great difficulty, in fact, with the definition of "competency" to consent to treatment that's found in the Mental Health Act. What the courts have done is to craft a definition -- it's very awkward in the Mental Health Act itself -- of "competency" out of the Mental Health Act which pretty well reflects what the various academics in Europe and North America have been saying: a three-part definition of an ability to appreciate what your problem is, an ability to appreciate what it is the doctor wants to do for you, and an ability to understand the ups and downs of doing it and not doing it. Why that wasn't --
Mr Jackson: But that is a court's definition.
Mr Bay: The courts have done that, yes.
Mr Jackson: This is not necessarily the working model and the operating procedure as set out by the policies that will govern the committee which you are aspiring to operate.
Mr Bay: The courts have crafted that definition when dealing with appeals from the review boards. Under the Mental Health Act we had a good working definition that we understood. The problem was that it wasn't clear on the face of the Mental Health Act to the health practitioners etc. So we knew what we were doing, but the health practitioners, who had to deal with it on a day-in and day-out basis, didn't necessarily know it, and we're going to have to go through some of that definitional difficulty again with the new legislation.
Mr Jackson: You stated earlier under a previous question that you didn't feel amendments to the legislation were required at this time. I was fascinated by your reference that 80% of your activities would be around the issues of competency, which would leave about 20% for capacity.
Mr Bay: I'm sorry, committal, involving committal 80%.
Mr Jackson: Committal is in the realm of mental health concerns that deal generally with competency. I know all these words sound alike, but I understand the differences. I wanted to get a sense from you, as we move into the parallel regimen of the Ontario Advocacy Commission with the limited number of rights advisers who are going to be floating out there, how you see the distribution of your time based on this bold new world.
To put a very global point on Mr Callahan's specific point, we are reducing access to institutional beds for those who are concerned about capacity, Alzheimer's, seniors and so on and we have reduced in a very dramatic fashion access to mental health services in this province which deals with the whole issue around admission and competency issues. In my view, this is going to put incredible pressure on your appeals board because there will be people who will appeal in the reverse, that they were not.
Mr Bay: The question is, should we have the power to deal with people who want in and not just people who want out? That brings us closer to the Australian model of the review board, which has more of an Ombudsman role in the whole mental health system. I don't want to sound like an imperialist looking for more work or bigger jurisdiction, but I'm rather fond of that model, where we have some remedy for folks who are looking for access to the system, not just the folks who are running away from the system. Again, I have to work with what we've got.
1140
Mr Jackson: Fair ball. I'm very pleased to hear you say that, because that is what I think is the challenge of the next decade, which will be those people who are seeking treatment and can't acquire it in a society that is suffering certain financial realities, as are the words we're using.
But in mental health, that's particularly acute, where they're calling out, and it is on this fine point that I'm having trouble determining the real role of a rights adviser. Everybody in the system says, "Yes, this person needs treatment, he or she wants treatment, but we can't get them treatment." That is an entirely different approach to the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s model, which is more rights-oriented, which is a resistance to crossing a threshold into some type of regimen or program by government.
Mr Bay: That really is a question that should be put more to the Advocacy Commission.
Mr Jackson: We tried. We tried very hard.
Mr Bay: I hope very much, with all due respect to them, that their rights advice role will be somewhat separate from their advocacy role. If the rights advice is helping people use the law to make the system get away from them, I hope they will follow up in the way, for instance, that the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office did in Ontario in the last couple of years, being involved in issues like that, quite legitimate: "Get out of my life and leave me alone," on the one hand, but on the other hand, "I need services." I hope the advocacy side of that and the systemic side will assist in that regard and be active. I guess I'll be an observer in the same way as everyone else will be.
Mr Jackson: May I commend to you or can I suggest you look at the interview of Mr Reville. I at least tried to raise that focus point with him, because I have concerns about the tension that would exist within the Advocacy Commission. As has been referenced by Mr Callahan, he had a major determinant finger in the Mental Health Act amendments of 1985-86 when I was sitting with him over on this side of the House.
I wish you well. You're eminently qualified. I'm not worried about your background. I don't think you were in government with Mrs Caplan long enough to be that much influenced by her.
I would just indicate one more point, your familiarity with the work of Dr Willie Molloy in terms of capacity. I've had a chance to go to McMaster University and look at those models. I know even other countries are looking at them. I'm quite encouraged by them and I hope you in your tours get up to speed with that bit of information as quickly as possible. If the model is to be implemented in Ontario as the first of its kind in the world, I certainly hope that your office is keenly aware of it.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, thank you very much, Mr Bay, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
FAROUK MUHAMMAD
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition: Farouk Muhammad, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Development Corp.
The Chair: Our next appointment is Mr Farouk Muhammad. Welcome to the committee.
Mr Curling: Thank you for coming before the committee. I was reading your résumé and I was quite impressed with your résumé too, but I'm not too concerned about the résumé so much since you are that qualified. Could you tell me first, though, what is your understanding of the committee? When you were asked to come before the standing committee, what did you expect it to do, and the role of this committee?
Mr Farouk Muhammad: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, for your warm welcome and good morning all. My understanding is that this is a review committee. I'm here to be evaluated, I think the last speaker said, like a student in front of the principal. I'm here to be listened to and see how I interpret some of your questions, whether it is in focus with what is the desire of the group. But it is a review committee is my understanding.
Mr Curling: My approach normally in this committee from my point of view is to make sure we get enough information to see what type of individuals are sitting on different boards, commissions and agencies. My experience in this committee is to say to people like yourself: "Relax. You've already been appointed and it's fine. Don't worry about it. It's a done deal anyhow." What we try to do then is to get some information from you, because regardless of what we do, you'll be appointed. But I'm impressed by what I see here.
Where do you see the direction of the Ontario Film Development Corp going in regard to reflecting the community at large? Do you think it's improving or do you think there's more to be done? You have a wide experience internationally, and now that you are here you have quite a bit of experience locally. Do you see that the Ontario Film Development Corp is moving in that direction of incorporating the community as a whole?
Mr Muhammad: There is always more to be done. In terms of the industry of film and the industry of mass communications as a whole, we are in a watershed period right now. Certainly the work of the OFDC is reflected positively by the size of the industry in Ontario. We have probably somewhere around 22,000 people involved with it, so there is in fact positive participation. We are the province that's attracting the largest amount of film development investment in the country at the present time, probably somewhere around $550 million, say $600 million.
In terms of where we are directed or where we should go, you are all aware of the buzzword "the information highway." The information highway is certainly going to create a tremendous amount of software opportunity, and I think this is where the OFDC has a role to play in satisfying the needs.
Mr Curling: Yes, you're perfectly right in the progress that has been made of people coming here and making films here, but still, despite many, many developments of actors and film productions here, most of our best talent goes south to be more creative and get their stuff done. Do you feel more could be done here in regard to government in encouraging people who are making films who are Canadians or Ontarians?
Mr Muhammad: The attraction to the south is not only related to the film industry, unfortunately. It's a larger market and creates bigger opportunities. But certainly from an Ontario standpoint, yes, there are opportunities that are ahead. The demand for new and different software, both theatrically and on television, is in fact increasing. Even within Canada, the introduction of a number of new specialty services in itself is going to create new demand for Canadian material. I think there is an industry satisfaction here to be met and we in Ontario could in fact try to live up to this new market expectation.
1150
Mr Curling: The complaint you must have heard before is that many of the Ontario-based companies need not only moral support but some more financial support from government in order to advance some of the very creative and some of the productive things they are doing. Do you feel the government is listening, because in the arts circle, the first thing that is always cut anyhow when we're in a bad time is within the arts industry. Do you feel more should be done in the sense of advancing and encouraging with more loans to especially Ontario-based film production?
Mr Muhammad: Funding is a problem not only for government, but funding within the private sector is in fact a problem at the present time. More can be done, I think, in terms of the stimulation of opening up market possibilities. If market possibilities are there and realized, there would in fact be a velocity of spending which would create income. Free gifts are really not at all times the best solution to problems.
I think from an OFDC standpoint an understanding of their own marketing and sales positioning locally and internationally may in fact create new dollars instead of coming to the treasury and asking for increased funding. As I said before, definitely within Canada and outside of Canada the demand for software is increasing. If we are astute enough to take these opportunities and make use of them, I think we can get our products being sold commercially and, if the products are being sold for the right price, it will generate income.
Mr Daigeler: You obviously have quite a background in this whole area of film development. Before you applied for this position, were you familiar with the work of the Ontario Film Development Corp? Is it something that people out there really are aware of and appreciate? Speaking not as a possible appointee but as somebody who's out there, from your colleagues and so on, is this a government agency that is appreciated out there and where there's a lot of support for it, or what's the perception?
Mr Muhammad: Just for the record, I did not apply for the position. I think I was invited in by probably the OFDC, and this is understandable, answering the second part of your question. Personally, because of my involvement in what I do, I do come in confrontation with the working of the distribution arm of the OFDC.
Mr Daigeler: In contact, not in confrontation.
Mr Muhammad: Yes, professionally. I meet them in places like the south of France and Cannes at the French film and television festival. In fact, I saw representatives three weeks ago in Las Vegas at the --
Mr Callahan: How did you do? I'm sorry.
Mr Muhammad: Very badly at the slots, but I think in the film market not too badly.
I am aware of the working of the OFDC from its programming outlet possibilities and its support to producers in international markets. I meet people who are representatives within this group and have discussions with them. So, yes, to answer simplistically the question, I am aware of some of the working of the OFDC, particularly in terms of its distribution.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, sir. Have you met the director of the Ontario Film Review Board?
Mr Muhammad: No, I haven't had the pleasure.
Mr McLean: Do you know her background?
Mr Muhammad: Yes, I'm aware of her background.
Mr McLean: You don't think you would have any problem working with that individual?
Mr Muhammad: Not at all.
Mr McLean: I wish you well. Thank you for attending.
Mr Hope: A couple of questions I want to ask, because it's important: How do we increase Ontario and Canadian production, and promotion of Canadian and Ontario products to the broader public? I come from Chatham, where Detroit is just across the river, and we see more American television than we do Canadian. How do we do that through this agency? How do you see us promoting more Canadian and Ontario content, promoting our educational base, of television, with our children?
Mr Muhammad: I'm in free broadcasting and I have the same problem, the problem of the power of the south. But there are, I think, positive avenues to follow. One is the quality of our own writing and the quality of our own production, and if, with the support we give to writers and producers, they come out with product that becomes competitive, this would attract an audience. I think that's the basis. If it is for free television, it is the ability of a program to become sustainable to an audience. If it is theatrical, it's the ability to keep the box office going. It's not only a matter of dollars and cents, but a matter of the quality of the product in itself. That's one.
The second area is distribution. In traditional means -- and that's what you are looking at, free television, free at the box office, but there might be other means that could be used outside of schools and libraries. I don't know if the OFDC has considered in the past working through, say, community groups, for example. In every small town, there are community groups that are ethnically oriented or groups that are socially oriented. Probably interaction with such groups might give a whole different viewing opportunity for material.
In looking at the future, you do have to look at alternatives to what's happening at present. So to augment the mass blitz you may have to look at submarkets.
Mr Hope: Are you familiar with the Film Products Incorporation Act that was being asked for back in 1988?
Mr Muhammad: Peripherally.
Mr Hope: In the material supplied to us from legislative research, it makes it very clear that the former chair of the OFDC was calling upon "the Mulroney government to introduce legislation strengthening Canadian film companies' ability to bid for the distribution rights of foreign films to be shown in Canada." The Mulroney government had promised the legislation in 1988 but backed off because of pressure and allegations from the Reagan administration. I'm wondering, do you see yourself moving in that same direction? That's why I needed to know if you had familiarity with the Film Products Incorporation Act that was being asked for. Would you see that as another avenue, as there is a new government there, and understanding Mr Curling's really deep concern about the film industry, to push that forward to the new government?
Mr Muhammad: I think it will be difficult under the present NAFTA agreement. If an American company -- MCA, for example -- is producing an American movie, what that act was asking for is that once the film comes into Canada it should be redistributed within Canada through a Canadian agency. MCA will find it is better to have its own representative and have a Canadian office. I would think that under the free trade agreement right now this would be difficult, to say that an American product must come through a Canadian agency. It's the same as us saying that if OFDC wants to sell its programming in Hollywood -- take the reverse situation. Do we have to do it through an American agency or should it be done through a Canadian representative?
Mr Hope: Knowing there are provincial dollars given to the OFDC, would a 20% reduction damage the economic recovery or economic growth of the film industry?
Mr Muhammad: It's very difficult for me to answer that today. I really don't know the budget structure, and I don't know the financial distribution that's taking place at the present time. But from a business perspective I would say that if somebody comes to me and says, "I'll take 20% off your operating budget," it could have detrimental effects if you don't look at it in its broadest possible scenario.
Mr Marchese: Just a few comments, Mr Muhammad: Some of us are very interested in supporting the film industry, because we know what it generates in terms of economic and social activity. We know that France and many other countries, Italy, Germany, have a history of film, and I think they recognize that it is an industry. The Americans recognize it's an industry. That's why they hate to give it up in terms of film distribution. I'll get to that in a second. But we Canadians have lagged behind a great deal, and that includes governments. My suspicion of all governments is that they have been very slow in terms of support.
To be fair, the Liberals introduced the Ontario film investment program. We've continued that, and I'm happy we have done so, because we know that all the millions spent in the film industry generate so much more in terms of spinoffs in other areas. It is an economic generator as well as creating a Canadian culture that I think is desperately needed. Do you have a point of view with respect to all this in terms of how we promote it, what else we can do, how we get support from the public and government, both provincial and federal?
Mr Muhammad: It certainly is an economic generator. It is in fact a major industry and will become even more so as time moves along. We are getting into this whole new world where our lives are going to be governed by a television screen, whether we like it or not, in one way or another. With more channel capacity for television and more access, it means -- I come back to the first answer of software development. Certainly, in terms of an industry, for anyone involved in the development of software for radio-television the future looks better tomorrow than it probably looked in the past, because of more channel capacity.
There is a difference in our approach, certainly in Canada and even in North America, from that in Europe. In Europe, government spends more, I would think, in terms of the financing of their films through government agencies, primarily because a lot of it is based on image-building -- I don't want to use the word "propagandist," but I use "image-building" because there is a different kind of message to be sent out. It is a message we do not have to consider. Here, certainly there are cultural messages we want to send out through mass media, but we look at the distribution of those messages from a dollars-and-cents standpoint.
How can we promote? I think that the American domination of the screen, be it the theatrical screen or the television screen, is changing. I think there are new opportunities, certainly for us in Ontario, for Canada, because of this.
The Canadian image internationally is one of great receptivity, and it is an area we can take advantage of. We do not have the cast situation, the star cast and mega-stars, that you have in Hollywood. This is in itself a limitation. We are attracted to a television program or a theatrical film mostly by the big-name actors and actresses they attract. We do not have that. I think we can find our own sufficiencies through the cleverness of writing and production. Our technicians and our writers are probably as good as anybody in the western hemisphere, as good as anybody in the world; that's why we lose so many to the south, in any case.
But new opportunities for us could be in the versioning of some of our material in different languages, more of that, so you can get into Europe. There might have been in the past a traditional English-to-English or French-to-French module, but we could try and see if we can overcome that, particularly since there is now a NAFTA market here in Canada. As multicultural television in itself is developing, there is a whole market for an Ontario movie played in Italy in Italian and being repatriated back to Ontario. I can see that as a new stimulation.
The whole video market is growing, and in terms of our own distribution concept, to be again non-traditional, I think we should be looking at how more effectively, probably, video can be exploited outside of Ontario, outside of Canada, as a revenue source.
The Chair: Thank you for your questions, Mr Marchese, and thank you, Mr Muhammad, for your appearance before the committee this morning. We are now going to have a subcommittee meeting, so we will recess the rest of the committee for lunch. We'll see you back here at 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1203 to 1405.
DIANE MORROW
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Diane Morrow, intended appointee as member, Board of Management for Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes -- Parry Sound West.
The Chair: We would like to commence this afternoon's session to continue our review of intended appointments by the government, and our first interview this afternoon is Ms Diane Morrow. Ms Morrow, welcome to the committee.
Mr White: Hello, Diane. Thank you very much for coming down to join us this afternoon. This is a process which shouldn't be too terribly intimidating. My friends in the opposition won't be asking you what your party credentials are and things like that.
Rev Diane Morrow: I probably wouldn't be able to tell them.
Mr White: What we're about really is a fair and open process whereby people can be assured that public appointments are in the public's interest, and that's why I'd like to ask you a few questions about homes for the aged, your knowledge of the facilities in Parry Sound and your interest in the position. Perhaps I could start simply by asking what you know about the changes that came about recently in terms of homes for the aged and nursing homes.
Ms Morrow: I know there is one change that will probably become effective this year, this summer, up in Parry Sound. Other than that I don't have an awful lot of knowledge there. I'm learning. I've got all sorts of reading material that I've been trying to read up on.
Mr White: So you're preparing yourself for that role as a board member.
Ms Morrow: Yes.
Mr White: What have you done so far? You've been to the home?
Ms Morrow: Oh, gosh, yes. I'm a minister with the United Church of Canada, and we do church services there.
Mr White: On a regular basis?
Ms Morrow: On a regular basis, yes. We all take our turns on a Sunday with all the denominations. So I've been going into the home now almost two years as a pastoral assistant because my husband is the minister for Parry Sound Rural and I am in MacTier and Foot's Bay as the intern supply.
Mr White: So you were the person who would be the most likely to be doing the pastoral visitation then too.
Ms Morrow: Yes, more than likely. I haven't been called in. I've definitely been called into the hospital but not into the home. But I'm on the steering committee for palliative care, which we're trying to get off the ground in Parry Sound west also.
Mr White: Have you been involved with the local community care and other service agencies?
Ms Morrow: No, just through the hospital as a member of the ministerial, with the different denominations.
Mr White: And you're a member of the ministerial association, the local presbytery?
Ms Morrow: Yes.
Mr White: You've had a fairly active role there.
Ms Morrow: In the hospital I have, not so much in the ministerial. My husband has played more of an active role there.
Mr White: Ms Morrow, could you tell me a little bit about why, aside from the extensive experience you've demonstrated in your letter here, you feel that you would have something to significantly contribute to the board?
Ms Morrow: Because of my caring nature. I care very deeply about what happens. I've been in the people business for as long as I can remember, in the health services. I just finished three years as a chaplain at the Hospital for Sick Children and have dealt significantly with grandparents who seem to be forgotten when a grandchild is dying; the focus is on the parents. I care. We're dealing with an aging community out there. I'm in two churches where I have an aging congregation and I think it's very important that their future is looked after.
Mr White: Actually, when you mentioned working with the United Church and with the Hospital for Sick Children, it reminds me of my own minister, who had to come here from Alberta because his daughter needed the care that could be provided at the Hospital for Sick Children. But Alberta, because of its savaging of health care, no longer provides --
Ms Morrow: I know who you're talking about, as a matter of fact.
Mr White: Yes. He has a name very similar to mine, in fact.
Ms Morrow: Yes.
Mr White: Thank you very much, Ms Morrow.
Ms Morrow: You're welcome.
Mr Waters: I'd like to welcome you to the committee, being a neighbour from Muskoka. The first thing is, I've been away for a couple of days. How bad was the storm? I have to go home today.
Ms Morrow: Well, we've got lots of snow.
Mr Waters: That's good. I've seen from your résumé that you've done a lot of pastoral-type work, and I guess, knowing the riding you're going to be working in if you're successful here today, I'm wondering how you feel about it, because it's such small communities here and there around the riding. Are you going to be working solely in the rest homes or will you be working with the people in their transition or their families?
Ms Morrow: Oh both, definitely both. This is a big decision for people. The best thing is that persons can be kept at home because they're in familiar surroundings and they have familiar things around them. Yes, and I have been involved with people at St Joseph's and the General. I have only lived in Parry Sound now for less than a year; it'll be a year in a couple of months, but I've been going there for 25. I've been a resident in Carling.
Mr Waters: I apologize because I was a couple of minutes late. There's a question that I'd like to pose and I don't know whether it's been asked, and that is, how you would build a working relationship with the other members of the board and the staff at the institutions. I think that's part of it, that as well as working with the family, there's the board. It's two groups of people who come together to work as a partnership in order to indeed make the client groups' lives as comfortable as possible and to alleviate as many fears and all of those things that happen in a senior's life. I was wondering if you could elaborate on any skills that you feel you have that would help bring these groups together.
Ms Morrow: I'm a team player. I like to empower other people and have them make decisions. Sometimes you have to guide and sometimes they find their own way to decisions, but I am very much a team player.
I think one of the strengths that I bring is my listening skills. I quite often listen with my heart and my ears and my head. I like to see things made collectively. We don't always agree on things, but I think we can resolve issues without hurt feelings, without one person being wrong and the other being right. I'm a strong believer in that.
I think part of that comes from my background in working in an international hospital and having to pastor to people of all faiths and being very respectful of that and all individuals having their own beliefs. I think that has helped me in my relationships with working with people on boards, respecting where they come from and listening to them.
Mr Waters: I picked up the interfaith when you mentioned St Joseph's and the fact that Parry Sound is probably one of the very few communities of that size that has traditionally had two hospitals, a general hospital and indeed a Catholic hospital, and the fact that you're already working between both of those hospitals in your present position. I wish you well, and don't feel too intimidated by us. We're people like everyone else in the province.
Mr Hope: Some of us are. There are some exceptions.
The Chair: Randy, you were so good this morning.
Mr Waters: Don't be overly intimidated by my colleagues across the way.
Ms Morrow: No, I won't. I promise.
Mr Waters: Just relax and enjoy the atmosphere.
The Chair: Mr Curling and Mr Callahan.
Mr Curling: Go ahead, Bob.
Mr Callahan: First of all, I want to congratulate you for coming before this committee, applying for a position that doesn't provide any type of emolument. All you get is your expenses. I think that's indicative of the good people of this province, and you're to be commended for it.
I guess I have only one question and I hope you'll take it in the vein it's asked. When an applicant has come before us, if I've felt that there was some possible conflict, I've had to raise it. I somewhat have to raise it with you and I hope you'll forgive me and not think there's any undermining reason for it.
Ms Morrow: Go right ahead.
Mr Callahan: I notice that you presently deal with your own faith community where you are dealing with seniors. I guess my question is, obviously in that capacity you would have seniors in your own faith organization who might require admission to a facility of this type. In addition to that, I'm sure there are seniors from other areas of the community as well.
Would you find any difficulty in terms of not being so caught up in your own community -- I hope you can appreciate this is a very difficult question to ask and I'm certainly not accusing you of it, but it's one of those things that I have to ask -- that you might concentrate on your own community in terms of available beds? In all communities, these facilities are certainly not sufficient to look after all of our seniors and there are waiting lists. Would you have any difficulty in sort of putting aside your other hat in the aged community --
Ms Morrow: No.
Mr Callahan: No. Okay.
Ms Morrow: No, I don't.
Mr Callahan: I accept that, but you understand I have to ask that question because it becomes very -- I wish you the best of luck and again I congratulate you for coming before this committee. It's always a refreshing thing to find someone coming here looking for a position that really is, I guess, in line with your whole background rather than for per diems.
Mr Curling: I too want to commend you for offering your service here. It's a very, very important role you will be playing.
Recently, as long as the last nine months, I'm extremely concerned about the way the bureaucrats actually are handling some of the people who are running senior citizens' homes. I have seen situations where people are almost pushed out of the homes that they're running. I'd like to see a better system set up, in the way that those people who are proprietors or running the senior citizens' homes are treated with more respect, because I tell you, people like yourself who are on the board, people who are running those homes are very dedicated people and have so many bureaucrats at their doors, from the fire marshal to social workers and everyone who is knocking on their doors. I have been dealing with quite a few -- some have lost their investment, over $1 million -- on all of these situations.
1420
The reason I raise that is because as you sit on the board and as you assess, and some of these things may come about, you could take a look at some of the proprietors and those who are running it so they can be treated fairly too. They themselves, in respect, are trying to treat the residents in a very fair manner, but at their heels all the time are these other bureaucrats who are just demanding so much of them, sometimes unnecessarily. I'm giving a speech here in a way, a speech of appeal that, while you are on the board, these things are looked at. If you want to comment on that, that's fine.
Ms Morrow: Well, it was quite a speech.
Mr Daigeler: He's a politician.
Mr Curling: Am I? I got elected. You don't have to comment really if you don't want to.
Ms Morrow: No, I'd like to comment, because I think one of the strengths I bring to working on the board is the ability to listen to all sides, understanding that everybody has their own problems, and then how do we deal with it. We deal with it as a collective agency, not one person making decisions but as a collective body.
Yes, there are all sorts of wolves at the door. I can only comment that I'd love to take you up there and show you this place because it is absolutely beautiful. The patients are happy or the residents are happy. We have a marvellous staff. You can walk down the halls and they call you by name. They're not afraid, "Oh, here comes the boss." They're there greeting you. I know some of the board members and they're delightful people to work with.
Mr Curling: I have no doubt at all that those who are conducting and running those homes are very dedicated people. I say this in guarded terms, but there are some wonderful bureaucrats. But there are some other bureaucrats who somehow make the job for them to serve just more difficult, and I'd like to see some fairness on all sides. I'm just saying this because it may not be happening here, but if it should happen, one should feel free to approach your member of Parliament, whoever he is, to say that these things are happening.
Ms Morrow: No problem.
The Chair: You have four minutes left.
Mr Curling: That's fine. I just wanted to wish her all the best, and don't give it back to Bob.
The Chair: We'll move to Mr Jackson and then Mr McLean.
Mr Jackson: Diane, welcome. We've met before.
Ms Morrow: Yes. Well, I am from your area originally.
Mr Jackson: It's a loss to the city of Burlington, believe me.
Mr Waters: Your loss is our gain in central Ontario.
Mr Jackson: Just to put a fine point, to relieve you of the first question you received from Mr Callahan, the placement coordination services are not done by the home. That's done by the MSA, or will be, so you don't get into the differentiation. However, you are familiar with the political controversy of faith communities and how they're treated in terms of chronic care placement and extended care situations. That was rather controversial and the word is still not back on that.
I wanted to focus my questions with respect to the issues around how you feel about the range of housing availability for our aging seniors in any given jurisdiction, and in this case we'll be talking about the Muskoka-Parry Sound area. Placement can occur to a home for the aged, and as you know, 150 years ago these were our original poorhouses. The funding mechanism and the user fee, for want of another phrase, is handled differently in a home for the aged than it is for someone with the exact same set of circumstances who is in a nursing home or in a retirement home or in any of these other kinds of rest and retirement homes that don't fall under the Nursing Homes Act.
I'm looking for elements of need for cooperation among those three or four different types of accommodation arrangements in a given jurisdiction and how the home for the aged would interact within an MSA with the other agencies, because there's going to be a finite amount of program money available, depending on which classification of bed you have within a region.
Ms Morrow: Just let me come back at you here. You're asking me how the home is going to interact with the other agencies in the area. I don't anticipate too many problems. I am already working with some of those people in different areas, especially the palliative care, and I find them extremely easy to get along with and very open-minded and very caring people. They want to do the best they can for who we're trying to look after. I am sure there will probably be problems in the future, but those we have to meet when we meet them and deal with them at that point.
Mr Jackson: Some of your funding base is municipal or local.
Ms Morrow: Yes, it is.
Mr Jackson: Which distinguishes you from the other bed classifications that respond to this cohort of seniors. Right now, in this coming decade, there's growing concern that regional governments or municipal governments that contribute part of the cost are putting more and more pressure on this form of accommodation, different kinds of pressures than, say, nursing homes, which just recently got a huge boost from the injection of increased user fees by the current government. That is not the case in a home for the aged. They're financially structured differently and they didn't get this huge injection of user fees which the current government imposed on residents of nursing homes. How do you see the relationship between your work as an advocate for the facility while at the same time dealing with the politicians locally who have a major determinant on your budget outcome? After all, you are a provincial appointee and these are other municipal appointees on your board.
Ms Morrow: I'm very happy with the municipal contribution to the home because it means that the community itself is involved in it and involved with the caring, the facility, and sitting on the board. I think it gives them an idea of both sides of the picture. I don't think I can comment on what one got and the other didn't get. I don't have enough knowledge to give you an answer on that but I think it's marvellous that the municipalities are involved in this system because they'll work hard for it, then.
Mr Jackson: One last question, if I could, with respect to various models across Canada: Recently, in Ontario, they've been exploring the need to regionalize support services under an MSA. It makes limited sense to continue with independent boards of directors for varying kinds of facilities that provide similar services to similar seniors, and therefore, there are some discussions now floating around the province about disbanding this additional tier of boards in favour of having homes for the aged more directly accountable to the MSAs. Do you have any comment on that?
Ms Morrow: I think that each place will still need a body that will be governing -- it'll sort of be like your regional government -- because there are still things concerning that particular home that those people will be responsible for. If you make it too big and too much of an umbrella, then some of the little things are going to be forgotten and neglected. So I feel that you still need that board.
1430
Mr McLean: I want to elaborate a little bit on the very last question with regard to multiservice agencies. How familiar are you with the multiservice agency and have you had any input into the organization in the Parry Sound area?
Ms Morrow: No, I have not. I have had no input. I'm not all that familiar with it. My niece is a director with Waterloo county in the social work department. I'm not familiar enough to really comment intelligently. I'm sorry.
Mr McLean: Have you any idea how many nursing homes or homes for the aged there are in the catchment area of Parry Sound west?
Ms Morrow: As far as I know, it's just the one, the Belvedere, and St Joseph's for the nursing of chronic care.
Mr McLean: They probably wouldn't consider putting a head office in Parry Sound for the multiservice agencies if there's only one nursing home there and the home for the aged. They may be coming out of Sudbury.
Ms Morrow: It's possible.
Mr McLean: I know the one in Barrie covers down as far as Newmarket and north to pretty near Bracebridge, I believe. I've got to tell you, the calls that have come into my office since the multiservice agency has been appointed, the people are not overly enthused with the system, the direction that is given to people when the doctors and the people in the hospitals apply to be placed in a home. I've had more complaints since this has been set up than I ever had on the system before. So I was just concerned about how familiar you were with the new program the Minister of Health has in the works. Obviously, you're not very familiar with it.
Ms Morrow: No, but I have a lot of reading material to catch up on.
Mr McLean: What do you feel with regard to the long-term care? What is your approach to that?
Ms Morrow: Long-term care is that we always keep in mind that they have a future. It's not the end of the road, there's still a future, and I think we have to remember that. I can only relate it back to, if you went into a hospital room and somebody was terminally ill and you were afraid to say, "How are you," you don't be afraid to say that, because they haven't died yet.
Mr McLean: Do you think the Ministry of Health should be putting more emphasis on staying in their home? I've talked to the health unit in Barrie, which is responsible for the home care program. They feel that the ministry is cutting back. There's $300,000 less going into the county funding to help keep people in their homes, and I'm wondering how we're going to expand that program when the ministry is cutting back. What is your observation with regard to the home care program?
Ms Morrow: I still feel if a person can be kept in their home it's better for that person, because they are in surroundings that are familiar to them. You take that person out of their home and put them in a home and they start losing dignity, they start losing freedom of choice, they're told when they're going to eat their meals, and you start losing all these freedoms. So it's better if they can be kept in the home, and I suppose that's one of the reasons why we've started a palliative care volunteer service in west Parry Sound, to try and prevent that and give these people the dignity that they deserve.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Morrow, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
JOANNE DE LAURENTIIS
Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Joanne De Laurentiis, intended appointee as member, Ontario Casino Corp.
The Chair: Our next appointment is Ms Joanne De Laurentiis. Welcome to the committee, Ms De Laurentiis.
Ms Joanne De Laurentiis: Thank you.
The Chair: This is an intended appointment as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. We had some other appointees yesterday to the same corporation, so you're not alone before the committee this week. This is also a selection by the government party, and we'll start with Mr Hope.
Mr Hope: I'm going to start off with one of the basic questions, because I looked. From 1978 to 1985 you were in government and it says "minister." I take it that back then it was the Conservatives in power. I'm just wondering if you belong to any political party.
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes, I worked for a minister in the Tory government for those years and I was a member of the party.
Mr Hope: Are you currently a member of the party?
Ms De Laurentiis: I am, yes.
Mr Hope: With the background that you have, and I've looked over your résumé, what knowledge or what perspective do you believe you will be bringing to the Ontario Casino Corp?
Ms De Laurentiis: As a board member, my interest is going to be in making sure that the staff have the management systems in place and the procedures in place that will achieve the objectives and the mandate that the corporation has been set by the government.
Mr Hope: Everybody thinks gambling has just all of a sudden been fabricated in the province of Ontario. For years, gambling has been here. Whether you peel it or scratch it or whatever you do to it, it's here and it's been in our province and is a significant part of it.
We, for the first time, have established funds that will help those with a gambling addition. As one who will sit on the Ontario Casino Corp, let's say, for instance, and I use a hypothetical situation, that the addiction aspect has gone beyond its realm. As a person who sits on the Ontario Casino Corp, do you feel that you will contribute to or add to the addiction aspect of controlling the addiction, or what programs would you as a member try to put in place to protect the public and try to make sure that the corporation is the corporate citizen?
Ms De Laurentiis: I couldn't be very specific about the programs that should be put in place, but I think the mandate is really clear for the corporation, and that is that it needs to balance the business interests, the economic benefits that a particular community of the province will get, with the social benefits.
Clearly, if on the social side there is a clear indication that there are problems developing, then I think it will be incumbent upon the corporation, the staff and the board, to look at the problem and look at the kinds of solutions that have to be put in place, be it that gambling has gotten out of hand and addiction has got out of hand or policing interests or whatever. I think it's very clear that the corporation will have a role to play in rebalancing the problem, as it were.
Mr Hope: I'm curious about your opinion dealing with revenue-sharing, the sharing of the moneys that are made from the casinos, whether it's the one or maybe in future more than one, for those communities receiving special benefits; you know, the conversations that are going on in Windsor right now about Windsor wanting more money out of the corporation. I was just wondering your perspective of that and your opinion.
Ms De Laurentiis: It seems clear that a policy decision has been made by the government that if the government is going to run the business, the profits will be used to benefit the whole province. That seems a reasonable policy decision to have made, to me. I guess as a board member there may be petitions or information or pleas around that issue, and certainly we'll be interested to hear the arguments, but on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable policy decision to have made that the government runs the business and will use the proceeds to spend to benefit the citizens of the province.
Mr Marchese: The mandate of the corporation is "to enhance the economic development of certain regions," "to generate revenues for the province," and the third point is "to ensure that any measures undertaken in accordance with the above principles are undertaken for the public good and in the public interest."
That's why we do things, on the whole; it's for the public good and the public interest. Many worry about whether or not casinos generate, other than wealth, different kinds of problems, and whether we can contain them. Is that a concern of yours? Do you think we can achieve generation of revenues while at the same time making sure that we don't cause the kind of problems that some people say are caused in other jurisdictions?
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes, I think that's absolutely the kind of balance one should be achieving. In reading the interim report that was done by Ernst and Young of the Windsor casino, it demonstrates there that an awful of care was taken in order to ensure that this balance takes place. I think it goes without saying, especially when a business is run by government, that if you can't achieve that kind of balance, you'd better not be in the business.
1440
Mr Marchese: I'm assuming that's the kind of balance you will want to ensure indeed happens as a board member.
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes, I think that's very clear in the mandate and that's what I would want to work towards.
Mr Marchese: One of the four options that they looked at in terms of who should own it, how to manage it and how to operate it has been an issue for many people, and there were four types of arrangements that were looked at. The one we chose was a 100% government-owned but privately operated casino, as opposed to a 100% government-owned-and-operated casino, such as the Manitoba one, or a joint venture in which the government would enter into a partnership with a private operator and operate the casino jointly. Do you have views on that? Do you think we've done the right thing?
Ms De Laurentiis: I don't have a personal view. Again, in reading the analysis that was done, and looking at the structure that has been put in place, it looks reasonable, it looks like it can work. I guess only time will tell whether that was the right option.
Mr Marchese: Do you by any chance understand the difference between the Gaming Control Commission and the Ontario Casino Corp?
Ms De Laurentiis: I wouldn't claim to understand it a little bit, but I think yes, generally I have a sense that the gaming commission has the policing role, the regulatory role, and the corporation and the board of the corporation have the interest of running the business.
Mr Marchese: Do you think that was a useful thing to have done?
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes. I don't think I'd be interested in being on the policing side personally. It's always useful to separate those who are carrying the big stick and those who are making the business decisions. It makes a lot of sense.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you for appearing before the committee here. Could you just tell me, first of all, are you based here in Toronto or in Ottawa?
Ms De Laurentiis: I'm here in Toronto, yes.
Mr Daigeler: Is the national office here in Toronto then?
Ms De Laurentiis: It is.
Mr Daigeler: Interesting. I'm wondering, how did you become interested in this position? Did someone approach you or did you see it advertised somewhere, or what was the process?
Ms De Laurentiis: I was approached by the minister's office and asked whether I would be interested, and my answer was yes.
Mr Daigeler: I'm wondering, did you check with your employers? I presume that given the significance of the income that's related to this corporation, there's a fair amount of work to be done. Even though I understand it's a part-time position, you have a pretty senior position within the Canadian Bankers Association. Do you think you'll be able to juggle the two? In particular, how does your employer feel about this?
Ms De Laurentiis: I should tell you that I'm not with the Canadian Bankers Association at this point. You may have an older CV. I'm now with the Interac Association. Yes, I definitely checked with my board. It's part of our bylaws, in fact, to check with the board and with my chairman, and they felt they didn't have any problem with my serving on this board.
Mr Hope: Sorry for the interruption, but the CV is out and you said you're currently employed with whom?
Ms De Laurentiis: Interac Association.
Mr Callahan: They're the people who take your money out of your account, aren't they, with a card?
Ms De Laurentiis: No, they're the people who let you take your money out of your account.
Mr Callahan: Oh, that's right, yes.
The Chair: Mr Daigeler, are you finished?
Mr Daigeler: I guess that kind of eliminates my last question because I did see a possible, even though somewhat remote, conflict of interest in a bankers' representative being on the casino corporation. The Interac perhaps is a little bit less.
Interjection.
Mr Daigeler: That's what worries me. That's precisely the point.
Mr Callahan: Actually, I want to follow up on that. The Interac allows you to go to the bank machine -- and there are bank machines in the Windsor casino -- and simply take money out of your account and use it at the tables. So there is a very direct conflict, or it could be a conflict.
Ms De Laurentiis: Interac doesn't own the automated teller machines.
Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, but the point is that you work for a company that is involved with these cards that now allow us to buy our groceries and have the money taken directly out of our accounts. Well, if you carry that into the casino, I believe the Windsor casino has a bank machine where someone could use their Interac card to get cash out to be able to use it at the tables in the casino. It would seem to me that there's a very direct and clear conflict between your present job and being on this board. I would think you'd be constantly declaring conflict.
Ms De Laurentiis: Interac, though, is a switch. It has absolutely nothing to do with the operation of the machines themselves, the teller machines. Those are owned and operated by individual financial institutions.
Mr Callahan: I appreciate that but they're used --
Ms De Laurentiis: But the contract between, say -- and I don't know whether there are machines actually in the Windsor casino or which institution.
Mr Callahan: Trust me, there are.
Ms De Laurentiis: Okay, so there are. But whatever institution has that contract, it will be between the bank or the credit union or the trust company that will provide those teller machines and the casino corporation, and they will have a contractual relationship which is a business relationship between the two of them and over which the Interac association would have absolutely no say whatsoever.
Mr Callahan: Yes, but it's my understanding that Interac receives a fee every time you use direct withdrawal from your bank account. There is in fact a financial advantage to the Interac card being used as opposed to, say, your Visa or MasterCard where you're not charged a transaction fee.
Mr Hope: Less of a fee.
Ms De Laurentiis: No, but the fee is not --
Mr Callahan: There is no fee for --
Ms De Laurentiis: No, Interac does not charge a fee to the customer. You do pay a fee, depending on the account you may have, to your financial institution. So Interac is a piece of software that connects that teller machine. If you are using that teller machine and it wasn't of your financial institution, then it allows that machine to talk to your financial institution, and the fee that is charged by Interac is a switch fee, just like when you pick up your telephone and you --
Mr Callahan: I won't debate with you about it, because I never use it. I don't give banks any more money than I have to.
The second question is, you said you were approached by the minister's office. Who in the minister's office approached you?
Ms De Laurentiis: The minister's assistant gave me a call.
Mr Callahan: His executive assistant?
Ms De Laurentiis: I'm not sure if it was her. I don't remember his title. I'm sorry.
Mr Callahan: It was the minister as opposed to the deputy minister.
Ms De Laurentiis: No, it was not the minister.
Mr Callahan: Sorry?
Ms De Laurentiis: It was the minister's office.
Mr Callahan: It was somebody in the minister's office.
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes.
Mr Callahan: All right. You understand that part of your responsibility on this board is to ensure terms of profitability but at the same time high-quality products and services. I visited the Windsor casino as an experiment and I can tell you their slot machines are the pits. I didn't see too many people winning. So what I'd like to know is --
Mr Jackson: He's got workers' comp with an arthritic elbow.
Mr Callahan: What I'd like to know is, you're going to be in charge, I would presume, of regulating the payoff on these machines. You go to places like Las Vegas or Atlantic City and they say 95% of payoff. I haven't seen anything like that through the Windsor casino. Have you looked into that at all?
Mr Jackson: Stop giving her ideas, Bob. She's from a bank. You can bet she's figured it out.
Ms De Laurentiis: I should write that down. No, I really don't have any answer for that. I haven't got an opinion. I really don't know.
Mr Callahan: I gather you're going to keep your full-time job.
Ms De Laurentiis: Yes.
Mr Callahan: And your company is going to allow you to participate in the meetings, which might not necessarily be in Toronto. They might be in any one of the municipalities, because as you know, not only are you in charge of Windsor but you are charged with the responsibility of going all over the province to create these places. You won't have any difficulty doing that?
Ms De Laurentiis: No.
1450
Mr Callahan: Finally, I guess, you understand that the city of Windsor gets absolutely no money, no dollar money -- they'll claim there are jobs and all the rest, which there are -- from the casino operation, and yet the first nations casino that's being proposed will get all of the profits plowed back into the first nations. Do you subscribe to that or do you feel that that's unfair in terms of Windsor or any other future casino?
Ms De Laurentiis: The way I understand the revenue sharing is that Windsor certainly gets a whole lot of indirect benefits, job creation and so on, and the profits and the taxes that are collected from the casino are used then by the government for programs to benefit the entire province. As I understand the first nations side, the same principle will apply, that the revenues that will come from the casino operation will also be shared among the first nations. It seems like a reasonable principle to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a policy decision of the government, and the decision has been made. I think, as a board member, I would respect that decision.
Mr Callahan: You're not prepared to recommend anything other than that as a board member?
Ms De Laurentiis: Certainly not at this point.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee. I only have a couple of questions for you. Do you look forward to the fact that there are going to be more casinos established in Ontario in the near future, or do you think the one now will be all that's done besides the first nations one? They were looking at Niagara Falls or Sault Ste Marie. Is that in the works?
Ms De Laurentiis: I don't know that any are in the works, but in looking at the report, the initial assessment that's been done of the Windsor experiment, it seems to be a very successful one. I certainly look forward to working with municipalities to expand the program, yes. As to where that will be, I don't know.
Mr McLean: I guess it will be a government decision anyway; it won't be part of your jurisdiction.
Ms De Laurentiis: Absolutely.
Mr McLean: But I'm wondering if we shouldn't be looking at some impact studies with regard to the ones that we have now, how it has impacted the community and the surrounding area, such as, what impact has there been on Chatham, so to speak, with regard to Windsor? Has there been a major influx or has there not? I'd like to see something like that done with regard to the casino going in the first nations just out of Orillia. What impact is it going to have on the Nevada tickets, on the bingos, on all gaming that's going on now for smaller communities that need these revenues for sports, fitness or whatever they do? I'd like to find out if that has affected those small bingos and other gaming that goes on in Windsor.
Ms De Laurentiis: I think that's an interesting perspective. As I understand it, that is going to be, or is, part of the plan, that there would be an assessment of the impact of the casino more broadly, not just the economic benefits but also on the social issues and so on. I agree with you; I think that you want to have a pretty clear picture of what that impact is before you move to open up a whole bunch of other casinos.
Mr McLean: Thank you for appearing before the committee. I wish you well.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: No, I'm very pleased with the applicant, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your appearance this afternoon before the committee, Ms De Laurentiis.
We had put the subcommittee report in at this point, so I think we'll proceed with the subcommittee report because our next interview person isn't here. In any case, I wouldn't expect them to be 40 minutes early. The clerk is handing out the copy of the subcommittee report.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Mr McLean: Madam Chair, I missed one of the picks that I wanted this morning. I know that Mr Curling had picked it, but I would like to say that I'd like to give up one of the ones that I picked in order to add another half-hour on to the one that Mr Curling has picked, if I could.
The Chair: Which one are you willing to forgo?
Mr McLean: One of the ones that was previously on my schedule that was left over. The clerk will know which one it is that I wanted.
The Chair: If it's from one previously, is it Mary-Woo Sims?
Mr McLean: That was already my one that I was going to forgo if it wasn't --
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): Yes, she was identified as your alternate.
Mr McLean: That's right.
The Chair: Okay, so you're willing to forgo your alternate and give that time slot to the selection of --
Mr McLean: Nazru Deen, the Race Relations and Police Monitoring and Audit Board.
Clerk of the Committee: That was from which certificate?
Mr McLean: That was from February 9, on page 3 of 3.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr Hope: Yes, I'd like to follow what you're talking about.
The Chair: All right, I'll explain it, Mr Hope. You're now dealing with the report of the subcommittee. Mr Waters, Mr McLean and Mr Curling dealt with the subcommittee report today, and I know, Mr Marchese, you're familiar with that process. They each made their selections and they each had five or six selections to choose for the March meeting and there was no disagreement on any of the selections by any of the three caucuses, so this is a unanimous report. Mr McLean is now asking that one of his intended appointments for review, Mary-Woo Sims --
Mr McLean: She was one who was left over from the previous one.
The Chair: She had been selected in February and there was difficulty in scheduling her, so Mr McLean is saying that he's happy to let her appointment go forward now and he will apply that half-hour to the other selection made by Mr Curling, that of Mr Nazru Deen.
Clerk of the Committee: Just a moment. I have one clarification to make. That does not leave you with an alternate. It leaves you with --
Mr McLean: The one up above that can be the alternate, one of the two who were on there previously.
Clerk of the Committee: So Ms McKellar would be the alternate.
Mr McLean: Right.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on this report?
Mr Hope: So we'll have an hour dealing with one individual?
The Chair: Yes. We sometimes do that.
Mr Hope: Do you? I'm just asking.
The Chair: No, Randy, it's fine and I understand you asking. It's a fair question. We sometimes decide to have an hour with --
Mr Hope: Can we make sure Mr Callahan is not here for the full hour? I mean, it'll be a long one.
Mr Callahan: I won't be. Don't worry about it.
The Chair: Anyway, is that report being moved by Mr Marchese?
Clerk of the Committee: I just want to clarify this. It's item 5 on page 3 of the subcommittee report. So that would be altering the official opposition's change to represent one hour rather than one half-hour.
The Chair: Since these selections were made by Mr Curling, would somebody from the Liberal Party agree --
Mr Callahan: We agree with them.
The Chair: Mr Callahan is agreeing on behalf of the Liberal caucus to an hour for Mr Nazru Deen. No further questions. Mr Hope, would you like to move this report, now that Mr Marchese is out of the room temporarily?
Mr Hope: I'd be more than happy to move the report.
The Chair: All in favour of the subcommittee report? Thank you.
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair --
The Chair: Just one second, till we see what the next --
Mr Waters: We dealt with the other thing yesterday.
The Chair: Oh yes, we did.
Clerk of the Committee: Except that that is now changed, because Ms Mary Anne McKellar in item 1 would now be Mr --
The Chair: No. This only applies to Engelmann and Wilson.
Clerk of the Committee: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we did.
The Chair: You're right. Thank you. We've dealt with item B.
1500
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr Callahan: Seeing as how our next applicant's not here, I would like to thank research for a document that was dropped on your desk.
The Chair: Would you clarify what the information was?
Mr Callahan: When we were interviewing an applicant for a position on the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who was I believe from Toronto, I also inquired about the chair, who I understand is either from Toronto or from British Columbia, I'm not sure which, and I referred to the fact that in our research, the policy outlined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission was to spread the -- what are the words I have to use here? I should take them out of the report: "Commissioners are generally chosen to reflect the diverse nature of Ontario's geography, occupations and population composition. They should have strong interest" etc.
Madam Chair, the difficulty I have is that in looking at the ones that have been provided in the additional research, Anne Cox is from Thunder Bay -- no problem, lovely area; Alberto Di Giovanni is from Toronto; Aida Graff is from Toronto; Baljinder Singh Sidhu is from Toronto; Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet is from Ottawa; and then we have the chairman, who is either from British Columbia or Toronto, I'm not sure which, but I hardly see that that reflects what I'm led to believe by the research officer is taken from -- the policy manual, is it?
The Chair: Mr Callahan, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but in fairness, you have only read the names that are on the front of this sheet, and if you're reading into the record the makeup of the current commission, you need to read the second page.
Mr Callahan: Yes, why don't I go to the second page as well. We've got Rosemary Brown, who is the chair. Her location is indicated as Toronto, but I understand she lives in British Columbia. We have Alok Mukherjee, who is from Toronto, although I think Alok -- that name sounds very familiar. I think he's from Brampton, but they've got Toronto. Louis Lenkinski is from Toronto; Carmen Paquette is from Vanier; Gaetane Pharand is from Sudbury; St Clair Wharton is from Oakville --
The Chair: No.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. My eyes are not working well. Islington, yes.
The Chair: Islington, which is Toronto.
Mr Callahan: I presume that's Toronto. Robert J. Milbourne is from Oakville; Richard Miles is from Thunder Bay; Ida Dejesus is from Toronto; and Thomas Warner is from Toronto.
I hate to say it, but if this is meeting with the requirements, as stated, "Commissioners are generally chosen to reflect the diverse nature of Ontario's geography," I fail to see --
Mr Hope: On a point of order, Madam Chair: How can we make a comment when there are currently five for whom we don't know the geographic location.
The Chair: Excuse me. In fairness to you, Mr Hope, for the first five on the front, Mr Yeager now has the information where they're from.
Mr Hope: Okay. Can somebody share that with us?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Callahan: I thought I did.
The Chair: Mr Callahan did just --
Mr Hope: Some of us don't always listen, Mr Callahan. Sorry.
The Chair: Then let me read it into the record for you.
Mr Hope: I'd sooner get it from a credible source, the Chair especially.
Mr Callahan: Do you want to say that outside?
The Chair: Anne Cox is from Thunder Bay; Alberto Di Giovanni is from Toronto; Aida Graff is Toronto; Elizabeth Hung Sorfleet is Ottawa; and Baljinder Singh Sidhu is from Toronto.
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair, I have no problem with --
The Chair: Just a second: Was that too fast, because I did go pretty quickly.
Mr Hope: No.
The Chair: That was additional information Mr Yeager has just received since he brought this back after lunch today.
Interjection.
The Chair: We'll let Mr Callahan finish, and then I'll come to you, Mr Waters.
Mr White: On a point of clarification, Madam Chair: When we say "Toronto," my understanding is you're referring really to the greater Toronto area, larger than just the city of Toronto.
The Chair: I would suggest that this information coming from the OHRC would be using Toronto as its mailing address, so as to that detail, I can't answer it for you.
Mr Callahan: Can I guess, Madam Chair, that if they refer to Mr Wharton as being from Islington, the rest of them are from the city of Toronto, as opposed to Metropolitan Toronto? I think that's a fair assumption.
The Chair: Islington may be the mailing address. That's right, Islington is a mailing address still.
Mr Callahan: I want to be clear that I have nothing against the city of Toronto, obviously, but before you vote, and perhaps what I'm saying will not be accepted by the government members because they may have their marching orders already, I don't know, I would certainly want you to look at the requirements and if we are to in fact fulfil those requirements, we're getting a little top-heavy. You might want to consider that at the time you make your vote today, whether or not another Toronto person should be allowed.
Certainly, I don't comment on the quality of the applicant. I thought he knew what he was talking about, but you may want to try to meet the diverse nature of Ontario's geography a little better. That's all I have to say.
I take particularly significant umbrage at the fact that -- perhaps I should ask for a little more information as to whether or not Rosemary Brown is still in Toronto, or whether she's commuting back and forth between here and British Columbia. If she's commuting back and forth, I'd like to have some idea of how we're meeting the diverse nature of Ontario's geography in that particular appointment.
The Chair: The only way that we could answer that question is if the committee were to write and ask the minister or Ms Brown herself where her permanent residence is.
Mr Callahan: Do you need a motion for that, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Mr Callahan: I would so move, because I think it's important to determine the issue of the diverse nature of Ontario's geography and perhaps even the expense, if that's what she's doing, back and forth. I'd like to know what the cost of that is to the taxpayers of this province.
Mr Waters: I'd like to point out, though, for Mr Callahan, just to let him know, that when you look at page 2, Mr Lenkinski is on page 2 already from Toronto and he is moving now, I believe, to the vice-chair, which was a Toronto position, right?
The Chair: Correct.
Mr Waters: Okay, so indeed, in that case, you're swapping a person from Toronto; they're taking another Toronto position. My assumption is that the additions would be filling some of these vacancies or these people whose term has run out that are dated February 1994 and February 1995. So indeed, not all of the people who appear on page 2 are necessarily -- and I would like Mr Yeager, if he could, to clarify that. Are these additions to what's on page 2 or are some of the page 2 people now being, their term is up and these are their replacements? I'm just curious.
The Chair: Some of them actually expired a year ago.
Mr Waters: Yes.
Mr Lewis Yeager: In calling the Human Rights Commission, we were able to learn -- of course, the vice-chair you interviewed this morning; the previous vice-chair, Alok Mukherjee, is no longer there. The only other change that we were able to ascertain was Carmen Paquette of Vanier is no longer a member, so she is replaced by one of the new members. The others appear to be new members in addition to those who are there. So it's only the previous vice-chair and Carmen Paquette who are no longer there on the page 2 chart.
Mr Waters: So indeed, out of five selections, two of them are from outside Toronto.
Mr Yeager: Yes.
Mr Waters: In the additions.
Mr Yeager: And Baljinder Singh Sidhu was described to me as being either from Toronto or Mississauga. They were a little unsure.
Mr Waters: But the greater Toronto area.
Mr Yeager: Yes.
Mr Waters: I agree in some ways with Mr Callahan. I don't see me changing my vote today necessarily, but it may be of use for the committee to remind the ministry or the Human Rights Commission that when it's searching for these people, indeed it look at the diversity of the province and not the diversity of its large metropolitan areas. I think that's what you're getting at, Mr Callahan.
1510
Mr Callahan: Very much so. If I could respond to that, it's not the Human Rights Commission that --
The Chair: Excuse me just a second.
Mr Waters: Indeed the appointments secretariat is probably the correct place.
The Chair: Let's just go in order. Have you finished, Mr Waters?
Mr Waters: All I'm saying, and then I'll finish, is that it might be worth our while to remind, I would say, three groups: the ministry that's involved, the appointments secretariat and the commission. I think that will cover the concerns Mr Callahan has that we should be looking not only at the diversity of the large metropolitan areas within the province but indeed the diversity of the province, and in the future could they please start looking at broadening their horizons.
As far as the appointment today, I am going to be supporting that appointment. Mr Lenkinski has been there as a member since 1987. He was appointed by a previous government. He's been there long enough. Obviously you want somebody as the vice-chair who has knowledge of how the system works and what's going on. So I will be supporting that particular appointment.
Mr Hope: I don't want to get into a lengthy debate over the geographic aspect of it. I just did a rough calculation from the information provided to me which says that six members are from Toronto and six members are from outside of Toronto. Geographically, did we cover southwestern Ontario? We covered the north, we covered the east and we didn't cover the southwest. I guess I have a hard time understanding the arguments. We would all like a perfect world, but getting people from southwestern Ontario to put their names forward, to make application to sit on the commission -- not everybody is out there wanting to be on these boards, agencies and commissions.
I'm having a hard time understanding the debate, but as far as my vote, I'll continue to support the candidate who was put forward. I would sooner promote from the inner members to a vice-chair than to have somebody as vice-chair who has no knowledge or experience of what's been going on for the last years in that commission. I'll continue to support the recommendation put forward when the voting time comes, but if we're looking at geographic arguments, if I look at the members, there are six members from Toronto and six members from outside. It just so happens that the vice-chair happens to be from Toronto. So be it.
The Chair: I have a question on the expiry of these people a year ago. In other words, according to this list, on page 2, there are four that expired a year ago.
Mr Curling: That's right, and --
The Chair: Excuse me just a second, Mr Curling. This is just a technical question, Dan, and I'm looking at you. Do you think those four people --
Mr Hope: The question should be to Lewis, to get more factual information. We should be provided with an updated list. I was doing some scratching of names and I'm saying somebody's got to provide me with an updated list.
The Chair: I think the committee needs to know whether those four people have just continued sitting, in which case if they did expire a year ago, then Mr Lenkinski's appointment today is a reappointment, but he's also being appointed as the vice-chair. I don't know whether you want to know that or need to know it.
Mr Waters: Madam Chair, seeing as how you were looking at myself, if you look at the source, it's the book, and the book was published about a year ago. It was published in the spring, I believe, the agencies, boards and commissions book that's in libraries. So indeed these people could have been reappointed for another term. The top four that show February 1994, they may have been reappointed, but there are times when that does not happen. I've seen that in the book at different times when it has gone on.
The Chair: Mr Yeager would have to go and ask that question and come back to us either today or at the next meeting.
Mr Yeager: If I could add one thing, we have contacted the commission today, and of the names that are listed on the table, only two were not presently on the commission. That was Louis Lenkinski, who will become the vice-chair if approved, and Carmen Paquette, who is one of that group of four. So I would suspect that the remaining ones were reappointed and as a reappointment they probably would not appear on the lists that you see.
I can confirm that, but I have already confirmed today that this list is up to date, with the exceptions of the names on the first page. So you do know all of the members who are currently on there, according to the Human Rights Commission, and it is only the ones who have an expired tenure who may be questionable, but I suspect that the case is that Carmen Paquette has left and the remainder have been reappointed and you just have not seen them because of the process that's in place.
Mr Curling: My time now, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes, I think Mr Hope's finished.
Mr Curling: He should be. Well, thanks very much.
First, let me ask Mr Yeager this then. You're saying that the cost of the process, that's an expiration date of February 18, 1994. It's a year ago and this information we have, it's not up to date. It's quite possibly because they're reappointed, we wouldn't be informed?
Mr Yeager: Perhaps the clerk can advise you better, but I believe that it's only new appointments that appear on the sheets that come before you to be selected for review. That's all I'm saying, that it wouldn't be obvious to this committee if somebody were reappointed, because through the natural course of events, reappointments don't appear on the sheets that you choose from. That's just my understanding. I don't mean it to be --
The Chair: Oh, no, excuse me. If there were a reappointment I think it would be listed in all the information that we get.
Clerk of the Committee: No.
Mr Waters: No, it isn't, Madam Chair.
Mr Curling: This is so farcical.
Mr Waters: We only deal with new appointments. We do not deal with reappointments.
The Chair: Oh.
Mr Waters: That's part of the standing orders.
Mr Curling: Could I please finish? Thank you. The fact is then that if we sit in this committee and find out that some of the information -- because it's important to know when we are appointing someone on a committee that we know the composition of the committee, how many people are valid or invalid and we are saying here now that maybe they're reappointed. The other question I wanted to ask Mr Yeager or the clerk is, do we deal with reappointments?
Clerk of the Committee: We deal only with new appointments or the case of a person who has been on a board and is being promoted, like, for example, a regular member being promoted to a vice-chair.
The Chair: In fairness to your question, Mr Curling, it is reasonable for you to say that the committee should have updated information when we're dealing with any appointments and today we are dealing with an appointment to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and we should have had updated information about who currently sits on the commission.
Mr Curling: Yes, thanks. That's one of my questions. The part that we should know though, that the vice-chair position, which is a new position really --
The Chair: No.
Mr Curling: Let me just finish. It was created to give Mr Mukherjee a job.
The Chair: Lenkinski.
Mr Curling: No, a job when they gave it to Rosemary Brown, so let's face that. He was the acting chair for the Human Rights Commission and when they brought in Rosemary Brown, they didn't want to dump him, so they gave him this created position called "vice-chair." I then asked, at that time when she was being appointed, what is the role of the vice-chair. We never did get a proper definition of what the vice-chair does; that is the point.
I think the point that Mr Callahan was speaking to is a very important one. It seems to me this government talked the talk but can't walk the walk. The fact is about employment equity. Within this system here, that the person is being promoted, the job must be advertised. The gentleman before us today stated emphatically that he didn't apply for the job, somebody asked him to do it, he was in the right place at the right time and he gave us a résumé that was 1984 and didn't even include that he worked in this.
1520
It is such a farce, you see, that we sit here and decide to assess an individual, if the person is competent to even move up in the hierarchy, and then ask me now to interview this individual and to vote on this. It's very, very bad that this individual is being promoted and the fact is that you are then saying, "I know it's wrong," like Mr Waters said, "but I'm going to endorse this one and next time around I'll do something different."
The Chair: From the Chair, in fairness, Mr Curling, Mr Waters has not said that.
Mr Curling: He said he understands the position.
Mr Marchese: Let's move on.
Mr Curling: Do you have a problem with this? You just walked in a minute ago. Are you bored?
Mr Marchese: Yes.
Mr Curling: Now my point I want to make --
The Chair: Is your point that there has only been one vice-chair so far? Is that the point that you're making?
Mr Curling: No, no. I'm just saying that the point I'm trying to make is that here is a position not only that there is one vice-chair, but the fact even in the promotional aspect of it, that it was done in the wrong way. We are going to vote on these things although the process was so wrong. It flies in the face of employment equity -- how one promotes within a system. And here he's appointed as a chair. If he was being reappointed at this time, it seems to me then the four that you have identified, one, two, three, four people you identify, that expired February 18, 1994, have not been reappointed, I don't know, because if Mr Lenkinski has just been reappointed now, I want to know if he was reappointed and now been promoted. Do we know that?
The Chair: Oh, I see what your question is. The thing is, because we are not informed of reappointments, in order to answer your question we have to ask Mr Yeager to phone the OHRC to get that answer, because certainly I don't have the answer as the Chair. If Mr Lenkinski was reappointed -- his appointment expired on February 18 last year. If he was reappointed, he is currently a member.
Mr Curling: That's right.
The Chair: The question you're asking is, was he reappointed and now he's being promoted, and in order to know if he was reappointed Mr Yeager will have to phone the commission to find that out.
Mr Curling: Yes. Because, just to explain that, we are promoting someone who's not a member.
The Chair: Well, we don't know that.
Mr Curling: If he's not reappointed.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Curling: Good. So how can we vote on it? I think we cannot vote on it. How can you promote someone in your company who is not a member?
Mr Marchese: Lewis is going to find out, okay, Alvin?
The Chair: Okay. Anyway, the motion on the floor at the moment isn't dealing with a motion to approve Mr Lenkinski yet at this point.
Mr Callahan: Let's get back to that.
The Chair: So we will get back to Mr Callahan's motion, which reads as follows. It's something similar to this:
"Mr Callahan moves that the Chair of the committee write to the minister and to Chief Commissioner Rosemary Brown to determine where is her principal place of residence. If it is outside of the province, is the cost for commuting borne by the province and, if so, what is that amount?"
Mr Callahan: Could I speak to that just briefly?
The Chair: Did we have it correct?
Mr Callahan: That's close enough. That's the thrust of it. The concern I have, and I have no axe to grind for Miss Brown or any of these other people, but in the requirements that we have been given by research, it says, "Commissioners" -- particularly for the Ontario Human Rights Commission; I think that's critical because they're dealing with the rights of the people of this province -- "are generally chosen to reflect the diverse nature of Ontario's geography."
What I'd like to know is, why do we select the chairman, who was a British Columbia resident and, I might add, a former MLA in the NDP government out there? Why do we select somebody from Quebec to come here? My colleague --
The Chair: Ms Brown was a federal member of Parliament.
Mr Callahan: All right, federal member of Parliament.
Mr Curling: No, she wasn't.
Mr Callahan: No, she was an MLA.
We also had, I'm told by my good friend Mr Curling, an appointee from Quebec. Now, if we're not even respecting the geography of Ontario by reaching outside its borders to bring people in, in addition to that, it would appear from the appointments that are being recommended by the Premier's office that we're not even respecting the geography of Ontario in terms of location. I represent Brampton South, you represent a Mississauga riding, you represent Orillia and so on. Don't you think the people in our communities have human rights that are abused or have something to offer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission? I find that this makes this whole thing sort of smack of political -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- magic, opportunism, that this committee really is just here not to review appointments, but to review people who have already been appointed.
If that's the case, why are we wasting the taxpayers' dollars by even having this committee continue to sit? It's a waste of money to the citizens of this province when we're in deficit financing to the tune of a $10-billion deficit, probably more this year. Why are we here? I'm surprised. I really find it interesting that the press can just say, "Mr Mulroney was terrible in what he did: political patronage; Mr Chrétien is terrible in what he's doing," but they didn't set up this hocus-pocus of a committee to sit and supposedly give the imprimatur to these appointees.
Mr Marchese: They just do it.
Mr Callahan: They did it. That's right.
Mr Marchese: In the dark.
Mr Callahan: And they were prepared to take the heat.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Callahan has the floor.
Mr Callahan: They were prepared to take the heat of doing it, which is fair game --
Mr Marchese: But we know what they're doing.
Mr Callahan: -- but what does the Premier of this province do? He sets up this legislative committee to supposedly review the appointments to the boards and commissions of this province, and we're finding out now that this is just a total sham. Where's the press? Why don't the press get out here and start complaining --
Mr Marchese: I want to do it the way the Liberals do it.
Mr Callahan: -- about the New Democratic Party and how they do this stuff? Don't you feel guilty sitting over there and voting the party line every time? As I said yesterday --
Mr Marchese: I want to do it the way the Liberals do it.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Callahan: -- what really disturbs me is the fact that there are never the same faces of the New Democratic Party sitting in this committee.
Mr White: How do you know? You're never here.
The Chair: Mr White.
Mr Callahan: In the morning you've got a particular number of people; in the afternoon you've got a different set of people. How can you can vote intelligently, even if this was not a sham, on whether you'd vote for someone or not without hearing their presentation, without reading their material? You float in and out like a bunch of --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: But surely to heaven the press -- and if they're listening, get your butts down here. Start reporting the stuff that's important in this province. This is adding to our deficit, this sham, and I think it's an affront to the people who come before this committee. It's absolutely outrageous that this government says, "We're going to set up a committee so we can look into the fairness of doing this." Balderdash. It's bunk, and this is costing the taxpayers big bucks to play this game and to endorse what the white knight, who's going to call an election very shortly, is saying: "This is the way we do it in the province of Ontario."
I'll tell you something. His office is not even living up to reflecting the diverse nature of Ontario's geography in terms of Brampton, in terms of Mississauga, in terms of Thunder Bay, in terms of Sault Ste Marie, in terms of Orillia, in terms of Burlington.
Even beyond that; he goes beyond it. He goes and he appoints people who are defeated in the NDP government in British Columbia and brings them here to be chairman of the committee, and I found out today from my good friend Mr Curling that in fact Mr Mukherjee, who was the chairman, was required to step down to let Rosemary Brown have the position and they created the position of vice-chairman.
That is really up to your armpits in the oink-oink bucks. That's piggery to its highest extent.
I have great problems, and I want to get to some of this information. I know how you guys are going to vote. You're going to vote in favour of all the appointments today. If you can do that in the face of what's just been learned from our research department and what's been said by members here, well, then, let me tell you this whole thing is just a mockery.
Perhaps we should report to the public why we're being paid to sit here and to rubber-stamp the decisions that are being made by your government. At least be up front, say, "Well, we're going to appoint them because they're good people, they're NDP, they're Conservative, who cares." That's what we did when we were in government.
1530
Mr White: Oh, oh.
Mr Callahan: Well, we did. We appointed probably more NDP appointments than we did Liberal appointments when we were in government.
Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr McLean, on a point of order.
Mr McLean: The other person we're supposed to interview is here. Perhaps we could continue with this dialogue after we're done interviewing. Let's get on with it.
The Chair: As a matter of fact, I'm going to take the prerogative of the Chair, which is to set aside dealing with this motion at this point, because I have two other speakers, and I think, in fairness, when one speaker has spoken for five minutes --
Mr Marchese: For 10, 15.
The Chair: -- we should allow other speakers on the matter.
Mr Marchese: This is true.
The Chair: However, to be a courteous committee, I would like us now to return to the review of the appointments. We will come back to this motion immediately after we've dealt with this appointment.
Mr Waters: Maybe we could deal with it next time. What's the schedule?
The Chair: It came up as a matter of business in the order of business. We will now continue with the review of the appointments.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS (CONTINUED) LYNN LIGHTFOOT
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Lynn Lightfoot, intended appointee as member, Gaming Control Commission.
The Chair: Ms Lynn Lightfoot, would you like to come forward, please, and make yourself comfortable.
Mr Curling: I want to welcome you to the committee.
Interjections.
The Chair: I think we could return to being polite gentlemen and complete the afternoon in a civil, courteous way. Thank you.
Mr Curling: Basically, those individuals who come before us, some are so well qualified that we take the opportunity of picking their brains, in a sense. Sometimes what sneaks out is the frustration that we have with the process. If there's any twinkle of anger in my tone, it has nothing to do with you but with the way these things are conducted.
Could you tell me a bit about why you would want to serve on a board like this.
Ms Lynn Lightfoot: Perhaps I could start, Mr Curling, by indicating that I was initially approached and asked if I would be interested in serving on the Gaming Control Commission. I would like it stated for the record that I did not contact the government about this appointment, because I frankly was not aware of the existence of the commission. Rather, I believe that the appointments office had accessed my curriculum vitae as a consequence of my having been previously appointed to the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington District Health Council and then subsequently to the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board. As I understand it, my curriculum vitae was available in the data bank. I believe I was approached because of my interest and expertise in the areas of addictive behaviours and forensic psychology.
Initially, I quite frankly must tell you, I wasn't sure whether I was interested in serving on the Gaming Control Commission, because I was not very aware of what its activities would include. It was only after careful consideration of what possible role I might play on the commission that I decided to let my name go forward.
I believe that as a psychologist the role I could play would be to serve as one source of information or opinion or viewpoint to the commission about the impact of particular decisions it might make, particular regulatory decisions, in terms of risk to individuals and to society. I think that's probably one of the key roles that I can play. Perhaps I'll leave it there and let you ask further questions.
Mr Curling: As a matter of fact, you approached the second question I was going to ask you, because I understand too, from the composition of the board, it's a diverse professional ability that comes to the board and your professional ability would help tremendously in some of the concerns that people have in the community.
You talk about addictions in regard to gambling. Do you have concerns that as the government, whatever the government, is moving into gambling, so to speak, it is of great concern to the community, or do you see that more people will be more or less attached or will become addicted to this kind of behaviour of gaming or gambling? Do you have that concern, that there's going to be an increase of -- I don't want to call them clients -- individuals who may be more or less associated in this respect, gravitate to this?
Ms Lightfoot: Quite the contrary, Mr Curling. I in fact believe that one of the benefits of having the new legislation, the control act, is that it will perhaps provide for more regulation of the industry and, depending upon what kinds of decisions are struck, perhaps can over the long term reduce the incidence of problem and pathological gambling.
Mr Curling: That's very interesting, because I took the other view, maybe because I tried gambling and I lost so many times and I'm attached to go on to do it. You've stated that legislation would help those who would be addicted or who are prone to be addicted to it because we have regulations.
Ms Lightfoot: Yes.
Mr Curling: Do you feel, then, having regulations and having some control of what happens, that a greater enforcement of the law would have to be in place so that it is not carried away and that some more support services are there to help those who have become addicted to this? Do you think that we do enough? I think I'm asking quite a few questions here; just answer any one. Do you think we're doing enough about addiction in regard to gambling in this province?
Ms Lightfoot: I'm aware that there are a number of initiatives that have been undertaken. I'm aware of initiatives that the Ministry of Health has undertaken in terms of developing an expanded expertise in people working in addictions agencies across the province that will enable them to deal with people with pathological or compulsive gambling problems. I think that decision was made in anticipation that perhaps more people might be identified and referred on for assistance as a consequence of the amount of regulation that will be associated within the terms of the new legislation.
Mr Curling: Do you feel that location plays a very important role, where gambling takes place? Is that very important or doesn't it really matter because of legislation?
Ms Lightfoot: I'm not sure I thoroughly appreciate your question. Perhaps you could expand on it.
Mr Curling: Let me put it this way, then: I presume there are areas where we put all kinds of business and we are quite selective in where we put our business. Even in the business of bars you make sure they're not around an area where the family is and the drinking is not being so accessible to the young. I'm just saying that in terms of gambling situations or events, does it play an important role in regard to people where we put those locations, or doesn't it really matter where they're located or is it only on an economic basis that it's assessed?
Ms Lightfoot: I certainly wouldn't profess to have a great deal of expertise in terms of the economic impacts of the distribution of gaming. In terms of the impact for communities, I think that is something that both the gaming commission and municipalities are going to have to carefully consider. As part of their deliberations, I'm sure they're going to be looking at the experiences in other jurisdictions and trying to make decisions which will reduce any potential risks to individuals or to the community as much as they possibly can.
1540
Mr Curling: I don't know how relevant this is and I don't know if you can answer this one, but the non-profit organizations are concerned that as the government gets more and more into the gaming business -- they are saying that's one of the main sources that they get money from, voluntary groups putting on their bingos and what have you, and feel that as government gets into it more, they are being deprived of their resources. Do you see this as a concern to the non-profit groups?
Ms Lightfoot: I certainly think it's a significant issue. I think that charities perform a very significant and important role in our society and that they depend on the income from gaming events to support their activities. As the commission deliberates, I'm sure that one of the major concerns they are going to constantly revisit is how to protect the interests of all parties, including the charitable gaming.
Mr Curling: I want to wish you well in your appointment, and thank you very much for responding to my questions.
Ms Lightfoot: You're welcome, sir.
Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee, Lynn. I'm interested in your background because I'm curious if you know what has happened with regard to Windsor. Is there somebody in that area who works in the addiction foundation who monitors what's going on in that casino or what's going on within the community that you're aware of?
Ms Lightfoot: When you say within the foundation, do you mean within the Addiction Research Foundation?
Mr McLean: In Windsor, yes.
Ms Lightfoot: My understanding currently is that the community offices of the Addiction Research Foundation, of which I'm no longer an employee -- I know it appears on my résumé, but I want people to be clear that I have not worked for them for four years -- do take an active interest in monitoring, both in a casual way and in terms of feedback and input that they receive from the community about new developments in their communities, and also at a more scientific level through surveys and other activities that they're involved in. I couldn't comment on what their current knowledge is. I'm not apprised of that.
Mr McLean: Are you aware of any research that's been done from the Montreal casino or the Manitoba casino? Are there any statistics available that you're aware of that have been done in those areas where we've had casinos for some time?
Ms Lightfoot: I'm aware of some research. There is a Montreal-based researcher who has been looking at those individuals who frequent gaming establishments and trying to identify which individuals are at risk of developing problems. I think one of the limitations to current research is that it is so new, on the one hand, and that there are great differences in the patterns of gambling that we observe in people who engage in different forms of gaming.
I think in terms of understanding gaming and gambling behaviour, we're in the very early days. I am aware of some researchers, but I would say that the state of our knowledge is very rudimentary at this point.
Mr McLean: Are there any statistics with regard to even people who go to play bingo or use Nevada tickets? Are there any statistics on those people who continually go night after night, or three times a week, to a bingo hall, who are consistently doing it because they can't stop?
Ms Lightfoot: We know that if you look at national estimates the figures are that something like 7% to 10% of the adult population may develop a compulsive pattern of gaming at some point in their life. How that breaks down for different forms of gaming activity, I'm not aware of specific studies which have looked at that.
Mr McLean: Well, I'm glad to see you're appointed to the board. With your background, I think it will be an advantage. Congratulations.
Ms Lightfoot: Thank you.
Mr White: Thank you very much for coming down to join us. There were a couple of things I wanted to bring up with you. I'm very impressed with your résumé and your CV, your four to five pages of articles and books that you've published, mostly in the fields, of course, of behavioural problems and of substance abuse. I'm familiar very much with the Addiction Research Foundation. One of your colleagues is a very close friend of mine who has gone from Durham region out to BC. Not everyone comes from BC to Ontario.
Ms Lightfoot: Mr Finlay.
Mr White: Indeed, yes.
I think it's exemplary that someone like yourself will be able to inform the commission with your experience. There are a couple of things. First off, the Addiction Research Foundation, while it's a research foundation and it has those community wings that deal with helping people with substance abuse, does not itself have a position of advocating total abstinence from the use of substances such as alcohol. That's my understanding.
Ms Lightfoot: That's my understanding as well.
Mr White: Rather it helps people to deal with what is already a regulated substance. So in some ways your experience there is excellent here, because you're talking about dealing with difficult situations, with potential substance abuse, finding ways of regulating that behaviour within the community.
Ms Lightfoot: Yes, I would agree.
Mr White: Could you comment a little bit about the difference between what would be in my mind an addictive behaviour, a compulsive behaviour, and the abuse of substances?
Ms Lightfoot: You may be sorry you asked that question, because I could bore you for hours with my thoughts on that. I believe there are probably more similarities than there are differences. I think that as we understand it now, the mechanism whereby people become involved in compulsive behaviour patterns is very similar across the addictive behaviours. Certainly there are differences when the behaviour in question involves ingestion of a substance, because the kinds of physiological changes that occur are different.
However, any activity which results in a major physiological change -- and most activities where there is some element of excitement or arousal, such as gaming, themselves become capable of creating a physiological change through the behaviour itself, rather than through the ingestion of any outside substance. So in many regards I think the similarities far exceed the differences.
Mr White: So in terms of treatment of compulsive gambling, it makes sense to use the same kind of treatment technologies, or similar treatment technologies, as exist in terms of substance abuse.
Ms Lightfoot: I would agree with that. I would also go further and say that I think we can look even further than treatment. We are gaining I think a great deal of knowledge about which kinds of activities we can engage in that will help to prevent the development of problems and to identify people very early on in the development of a compulsive behaviour, and I would say that is something that all wings of government would want to work collaboratively to try and do within the whole area of gaming.
Mr White: Thank you very much. I think you'll probably offer a great insight to that commission and I really commend the government for making that appointment.
Ms Lightfoot: Thank you, Mr White.
Mr Marchese: Ms Lightfoot, you've raised some questions about insights that we're gleaning around prevention.
Ms Lightfoot: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Could you give some examples of what we're learning that is very useful for us all to hear about?
Ms Lightfoot: I would say that we've gained an increasing understanding that some of the precursors of addictive behaviour have to do with the way in which individuals are socialized and the skills they develop early in their lives, and that some of the primary prevention programs that are now in place for other addictive disorders, including alcohol and drug abuse, can I think very logically be extended to include gaming kinds of behaviours, because what we're essentially attempting to do in those primary prevention programs is inoculate younger people against the effects that they may experience when they start to engage in one of these behaviours, in order to prevent the development of problems. So I think there are many similarities that can inform us in this area of gaming, if we look at the experience we've acquired in other addictive behaviours.
1550
Mr Marchese: Would you say, as a comment, is it inconsistent to at once have a casino or create one and at the same time provide money to have people keep the habit of going to casinos or gambling in general?
Ms Lightfoot: I don't see it as inconsistent because I think whether or not we create a casino, people are going to engage in gaming behaviour. It's something that people have always done. Many people, in fact the majority of people, engage in that behaviour without negative consequences. I think as a society what we want to do is maximize the benefits to our society in terms of economic development opportunities and so on that gaming can provide, yet at the same time minimizing the damage, through prevention and early identification, in that small proportion of people who might develop a problem.
The Chair: Any further questions? All right, thank you very much, Ms Lightfoot, for your appearance before the committee this afternoon.
Ms Lightfoot: You're very welcome, and thank you for the questions.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, you had just completed speaking and, Mr Marchese, I have you down to speak to Mr Callahan's --
Mr Marchese: Oh, Madam Chair, I'm tired of the discussion. I've been exhausted by it. I have nothing more to say.
The Chair: All right, and the other speaker who was on the list was Mr McLean.
Mr Marchese: He's gone. He was exhausted and he left.
The Chair: All right, so the motion is on the floor, moved by Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: This is going to be a close one, I'll bet.
The Chair: All in favour?
Mr Marchese: Madam Chair, for the benefit of those who didn't hear the motion, could you read that out again, please?
The Chair: Yes, certainly, I could read it again. This is a test, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Callahan moved that the Chair write to the minister and Chief Commissioner Rosemary Brown of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to determine where is her principal place of residence. If it is outside of the province, is the cost of commuting borne by the province and, if so, what is that amount?
Mr Callahan: A recorded vote, please, Madam Chair.
The Chair: All in favour of that motion?
Ayes
Callahan, Curling, Daigeler, Hope, Malkowski, Marchese, Rizzo, Waters, White.
Mr Callahan: Are we all in favour?
Mr Waters: Yes, that's why we were wondering why the big kerfuffle from you people.
The Chair: That motion is carried unanimously.
Interjections.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Hope has the floor.
Mr Hope: It really puzzles me that we went through a great big dramatic theatrical speech that Mr Callahan gives and we were ready to support it. He talks about efficiency, he talks about rubber-stamping; if he'd just talk about and understand what's coming from this side, he'd probably speak a little better.
The Chair: We do have another motion. Mr Curling and Mr Marchese, we have yet to approve today's appointments.
Mr Curling: Oh yes.
Mr Marchese: I move concurrence of all the appointments.
The Chair: Mr Marchese is moving the appointments.
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair, individually, please.
The Chair: The first motion by Mr Marchese is to approve the appointment of Mr Louis Lenkinski as the vice-chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? Mr Daigeler, you have to vote.
Mr Daigeler: In favour.
The Chair: You're in favour. That motion is carried.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Mr Myron Humeniuk as a member of the Environmental Assessment Board. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Mr Michael Bay as the chair of the Consent and Capacity Review Board. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried unanimously.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Farouk Muhammad as a member of the Ontario Film Development Corp. All in favour of that motion? That motion is carried unanimously.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Ms Diane Morrow as a member of the Board of Management for Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes -- Parry Sound West. All in favour of that motion? That motion is also carried unanimously.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Ms Joanne De Laurentiis as a member of the Ontario Casino Corp. All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That motion is carried.
Mr Marchese moves the appointment of Ms Lynn Lightfoot as a member of the Gaming Control Commission. All in favour of that motion? That motion is also carried unanimously.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation today. That's a record number of unanimous motions.
Before we adjourn, we asked Mr Yeager for some further information about the status of the members of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I would like Mr Yeager to read that into the record since he now has that information for the committee.
Mr Yeager: I spoke with Lolita Phillips, the executive assistant to the chair of the Human Rights Commission. Mr Louis Lenkinski, whom you saw this morning, was reappointed until February 18, 1995. Gaetane Pharand and St Clair Wharton were both reappointed until February 18, 1997. So all of the members whose terms expired last year were reappointed. Those are the pieces of information you required.
The Chair: There were four that had expired.
Mr Yeager: Yes. Carmen Paquette has left, as was noted earlier today.
The Chair: There are no further questions on that information. Thank you for the information, Mr Yeager. Mr Hope's going to move adjournment of the committee.
Mr Hope: I move adjournment of the committee, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope.
The committee adjourned at 1558.