CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 March 1997
Intended appointments
Mr Stephen Lim
Mr Larry Boese
Ms Marci Davies
Mr Stephen Kelly
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr MorleyKells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr John L. Parker (York East PC)
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1005 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. Welcome, members of the committee. The first order of business is the reports of two subcommittees, one dated March 6 and the other dated March 13.
On March 6, the following people were selected for consideration: Larry Boese for the Council of the Association of Architects; Marci Davies, the Ontario Film Development Corp; and Robert Whitley for the Ontario Film Development Corp, selected by the opposition. The third party also selected Larry Boese.
There were others selected who have since been withdrawn for consideration by members of the committee. One is for the Ontario Film Development Corp, Mr Whitley, withdrawn by the official opposition.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): No, actually, that one we're going to leave on, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. You're leaving that one on.
Also for that date, the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, Stephen Kelly. John Simpson is withdrawn. Still on the list for the Ontario Realty Corp is Stephen Lim, to be considered today. Also withdrawn is Arlene Wright for the City of Owen Sound Police Services Board.
If someone would move the subcommittee report, as amended with those withdrawals, I'd appreciate it.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): Mr Chairman, I'll move adoption of the subcommittee report of March 6, 1997, as amended.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I just want to be clear. Mr Kelly, in fact, is remaining on because he's one of the people who's scheduled for this morning. I just wanted the record to be clear on that.
The Chair: Correct.
Mr Silipo: So the two who are coming off would be Mr Simpson and Ms Wright.
The Chair: Correct. All clear? All in favour? Carried. Thank you for that.
The second subcommittee report is March 13, and there's also a withdrawal of two on that one. The first one is for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, and the name there is Kirsti Hunt, and that's for consideration on April 23, which is the next time the committee is scheduled to meet.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): April 2nd.
The Chair: Oh, sorry, April 2 as well.
The second is the Health Services Restructuring Commission, Harri Jansson, for consideration April 23; and two withdrawals, as I understand it, one from the Lakehead University Foundation, Emilio Rigato, withdrawn by the third party, and from the Council of the College of Optometrists, Nicholas Franceschini, withdrawn by the third party. But staying on the list is Harri Jansson. I thought we had him before?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. He was chosen by the official opposition.
The Chair: Okay. He was also chosen by the official opposition, right. He stays on the list.
That completes the selections of the subcommittee on March 13. Is there a motion for adoption of that subcommittee report?
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I move the adoption of the subcommittee report of March 13, 1997, as amended.
The Chair: Thank you for that. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
STEPHEN LIM
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Stephen Lim, intended appointee as member, Ontario Realty Corp board of directors.
The Chair: We can get down to the business of the day, which is to review a number of selections, and the first one is Mr Stephen Lim to the Ontario Realty Corp board of directors. Mr Lim, we welcome you to the committee. We will give you the opportunity to make any opening remarks, if you choose to, after which point the members of the committee can ask you any questions.
Mr Stephen Lim: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have no opening statement to make at this time.
The Chair: Any questions from the government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
The Chair: The official opposition?
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Lim. I see in your résumé that you are the president and owner of Stephen Lim and Associates, a management and development consulting firm specializing in the redevelopment of shopping centres in distress. Obviously in terms of the Ontario Realty Corp there's somewhat of an interesting connection in the sense of what one of the roles of the Ontario Realty Corp board is in terms of the use of government land and space and buildings. Is that why you're interested in this position or is that one of the reasons why you feel you'd be qualified for this position?
Mr Lim: In reviewing some of the aspects of the Ontario Realty Corp, I found that my experience over the past 20 years virtually touches upon all the aspects in the way the corporation functions. In that respect I was hoping that my experiences over the past 20 years would assist in some of the processes that will have to occur over the next few years through the realty board.
Mr Gravelle: I'm sure this probably wouldn't be a problem, but is there any potential for conflict in the sense that part of the responsibilities, as I understand it, of the Ontario Realty Corp is indeed real estate marketing services in terms of trying to basically unload some government property. I ask that in the least rude way possible. I see what you're doing in terms of your full-time career and wonder whether you could potentially see any conflict in terms of that and some of the roles that you may be undertaking with the realty corporation.
Mr Lim: I understand your question. It's a relatively small industry. Of course we know a lot of people in the industry. I think the conflict-of-interest guidelines are very clear that should I come into a situation where there is potentially a conflict, I would have to declare it and remove myself from the process involving that particular issue.
Mr Gravelle: But I take it you don't see that happening very often or you probably wouldn't be pursuing this.
Mr Lim: I can't predict what's going to happen in the future, but certainly I hope it doesn't happen often.
Mr Gravelle: In terms of the accommodation review program which is going on, I take it you agree in principle with what the realty corporation is attempting to do? Is that a fair estimation? Have you spent some time looking at what the mandate of the corporation is?
Mr Lim: I haven't had much time to review but I'm aware of the accommodation program. Your question is, do I agree? The answer is yes.
Mr Silipo: Mr Lim, good morning. I note from your résumé that one of the extracurricular activities you've been involved in is as a member of fund-raising committees for Mr Tsubouchi, the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and on the fund-raising committee for the Premier, Mike Harris. Should I assume from that that you're a member of the Conservative Party?
Mr Lim: Yes.
Mr Silipo: Can I just go back to the point that you were discussing with my colleague around potential conflict of interest? I appreciate your position that should that arise, you're clear there are guidelines, and obviously you would abide by them. Your work -- again I'm just looking at your résumé in terms of your company -- you say is as a consulting firm which specializes in the redevelopment of shopping centres in distress. Given that the government is now involved in acceleration of the sale of what it considers to be surplus government lands, do you know if there is a real potential or beyond that of any of the lands the government is in the process of looking at selling, which would be part of the job you would be involved in approving as a member of this board, that might in fact be ones that would be there for commercial developments such as shopping malls?
Mr Lim: Mr Silipo, I have no idea what is contained in the government's portfolio of lands to date, so I don't believe I can comment on that at all.
Mr Silipo: Okay, fair enough. Could I just ask you then what it was that drew you to be interested in this particular board? Did you make an indication that you were interested in serving on this board or that you were interested in serving on a board? How did your appointment come about?
Mr Lim: I guess it started some time ago. We were sitting down, some friends -- in fact, I've lived in this province for some 47 years. The province has been very good to me. Looking for an opportunity to serve, a friend suggested that perhaps with my background there might be something I could do. I think there is a publication outlining all the positions available and it seemed like my background best suited the Ontario Realty Corp. On that basis, I submitted a résumé.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments for Mr Lim?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay, that's the painless procedure completed. We thank you very much for appearing before the committee. At the end of the proceedings this morning there will be a decision as to how the committee will vote on the various intended appointments. Thank you for coming before the committee.
We're running a little ahead of time, so I don't know if Marci Davies is here or not.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chair, I wonder if we might in the interim consider a concurrence vote on Mr Lim.
The Chair: Sure, if it's in agreement with the committee.
Mr Bob Wood: I move concurrence in the attended appointment of Mr Lim.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to it? Okay, ready for the vote?
All those in favour of Mr Wood's motion? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
1020
LARRY BOESE
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Larry Boese, intended appointee as member, Ontario Association of Architects.
The Chair: Mr Boese is here, and if the committee agrees, we can deal with Mr Boese's intended appointment now. Mr Boese, we appreciate your being here early to allow us to do this. As you may have heard before, there's an opportunity for you to make any opening remarks you might care to make, and then you'll have questions from members.
Mr Larry Boese: Thank you. I'm here early because I drive in from St Catharines. You never know whether you're an hour or two hours, so today was one of those one-hour-and-10-minute deals.
Thank you for the opportunity of appearing this morning. I would just like to recap very briefly my current and past civic involvement. I'm currently vice-chair of the board of trustees of Brock University. I've been in that position for six years. Also, I'm a co-chair of the Brock business school. That's a position I've held for nine years. In addition to that, I'm involved with the Herzog Foundation, which is a local foundation that raises money for the St Catharines and district hospitals, and I've been involved with that for 10 years. I'm also currently a director of the St Catharines city promotional task force, which is intended to raise the image of the St Catharines and Niagara area throughout the province and Canada to try to attract some industry.
I've previously been involved in numerous community affairs in addition to what was stated on my submission. I've also been the co-chair of House for Hunger. I've been involved with a distress home for unwed mothers, which we just finished paying off the mortgage on in three and a half years. I was also the chair of a community park stadium committee. The debt on that was retired in three years as well. I'm also the co-chair of the Brock University business school capital campaign.
I would also like to add that in addition to my other involvements I've sat on numerous other charities. I've always felt that giving back to your community and/or your province or your country is a foremost desire for the democracy we have in our country. I would like to also add that I did not apply for this position. I was approached by a director of the OAA who is currently the vice-chair of the board. This has been in the works, as I understand it, for about two years.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I think we should start with the official opposition this time.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Boese. You did not apply for the position, but obviously you're interested in being involved in this position. Can I ask you whether you've done any research in terms of how the board works and what your thoughts are in terms of how you can contribute to the activities of the board.
Mr Boese: Yes, I have looked at the workings of the OAA. The contribution I expect to be able to make is that as a Lieutenant Governor's appointee, one of the major functions is to sit on the discipline or the complaints committee. As I understand it, I would be on the discipline committee. This of course is the venue where the public and public safety and interest are protected by the council.
Mr Gravelle: Have you had much of a relation with the association before, in terms of your own activities? Have you been familiar with the workings of the association?
Mr Boese: Not directly, no.
Mr Gravelle: What do you see as being the main activities? Obviously in terms of discipline, maintaining and establishing standards is one of the things, which strikes me as being words that I'm not sure I understand. As architects -- I'm not, obviously, one myself. I'm interested to see what that would mean. What could you do proactively to change the association in any way at all, or does it need change?
Mr Boese: Quite frankly, not having been on the council, it's very difficult to comment as an outsider as to whether it needs change, but my perception of the information that I've been given and have read in detail is that the association is a very well-oiled, smooth-running operation. It's a self-regulating body. There are a few of those in Ontario. Some of them have been very successful, some have not. This particular body has been very successful in education, establishing qualifications, furthering the mandate of the association and in looking after the complaints and discipline within their own community.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Boese, I presume you're familiar with Bill 98, the Development Charges Act.
Mr Boese: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: I would be curious to get your viewpoint on that bill, particularly in light of your profession and everything else.
Mr Boese: Do we have about an hour and a half to discuss this?
Mr Gravelle: We've got a little bit of time. I'm sure Mr Silipo will be happy to follow up on it if we run out of time.
Mr Boese: The Development Charges Act, which really has nothing to do with the OAA --
Mr Gravelle: Really?
Mr Boese: -- started out on a very, very positive route and unfortunately has taken a few detours and sidetracks along the way. In my opinion, in some municipalities it's being overused, it's being blatantly misused; in others, I think they have been using it for the purpose it was intended. But we could get into a real discussion on that one.
Mr Gravelle: In terms of the bill being put forward by the government, have you had a chance to look at that?
Mr Boese: No, I have not.
Mr Gravelle: Certainly one can make the case that a lot of the municipalities aren't too happy about it, and certainly there's a feeling made public by a number of people, and some of them known Tory supporters too, and they're very, very unhappy with it. I'm surprised you haven't got more familiarity with the actual bill being put forward.
Mr Boese: As I understand it from the regional organization that we are involved with in the Niagara region, there is a briefing of that coming within the next two weeks, towards the end of the month.
Mr Gravelle: Even though you haven't looked at it, tell me what you would want to have in it then and we'll see how close it is to what's in there. What are some of the changes you would be recommending if you were in the position to do so?
Mr Boese: In the Development Charges Act? First, I would set some standards which are universal for the province rather than giving as much of the mandate to the local municipality. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have a local mandate. I think that's great, because local needs are different throughout the province. But I think the guidelines need to be a little more stringent so that the applications as such cannot be abused. As I say, there are a lot of municipalities where the Development Charges Act works extremely well, but I know of others where it has been blatantly misused.
Mr Gravelle: Do you feel that municipalities are the ones who should be setting local development charges?
Mr Boese: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Boese, just one other question which I'm curious about too, and this is usually a question that Mr Silipo asks, but I'll ask it anyway, if I can jump the gun, Tony: Are you a member of any political party, Mr Boese?
Mr Boese: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: May I ask you which party that is?
Mr Boese: At the present time, the PC Party.
Mr Gravelle: Are you involved in any specific activities with the party?
Mr Boese: No.
Mr Gravelle: I don't mean to be coy. I understand you're involved in fund-raising, to tell you the truth, and very involved in fund-raising for the party.
Mr Boese: I have raised funds for various parties for various elections. At this particular point in time I am a PC.
Mr Gravelle: Can I ask how you feel about some of the decisions this government has been making or forcing upon us in the last couple of months in terms of some of the downloading decisions?
Mr Boese: I don't really think that's a relative question.
Mr Gravelle: Is that unfair? Sorry?
Mr Boese: I don't think that's a relative question to today's discussion. Again, we could go on for numerous hours. I'm not trying to slight your question.
Mr Gravelle: I'm always especially curious to hear how a party member feels about these issues. Mr Boese, thank you very much.
Mr Boese: You're quite welcome.
Mr Silipo: Mr Boese, good morning. Mr Gravelle has asked my first question.
Mr Gravelle: Sorry.
Mr Silipo: No, I think that's fine. I appreciate somebody else asking it from time to time.
Let me just be clear, Mr Boese, because your résumé makes reference to you having founded at one point an architectural design consulting firm, you're not an architect?
Mr Boese: No, I'm not.
Mr Silipo: All right. I wanted to be clear, given that you are, as you pointed out, being appointed as a public member of the council.
There are a couple of things that I wanted to pick up on. I think you touched on part of this earlier on, but I just wanted to hear your comments on how you feel about the issue of a body like the Ontario Association of Architects, which is one of a relatively few number of professional bodies that are self-regulated, as opposed to others where the regulation is split off from the association of the members. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have. I can tell you honestly that I don't have at this point a particular right or wrong answer in my mind, but I'm interested in people's perceptions of these things.
1030
Mr Boese: As I said earlier, and to expand on it just a little, there are several bodies -- for example, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the engineering association and the OAA, the architects' association, are three that come to mind -- that have in fact, as I said, set the standards for education and qualification and have become their own insuring body as well as a complaints and discipline organization. They've become all-encompassing.
Some smaller organizations that I've been associated with in the past have not done as well as the OAA has. The OAA has managed itself very well. Their indemnity fund is well-funded. They have taken extremely cautious approaches, from what I can see by their annual reports, as to possible claims. They have tried to be fair. The act, as I read it, even though they are self-regulating, does have the opportunity to still go to the courts, if you will, for appeal. Of course, the act has changed several times, 1935, I think, and 1984; the act has changed considerably, but I think they've done an extremely good job over the years. If there were more organizations that could do this, it would take the load off government and government involvement -- not that I'm against government involvement in all cases, but in some cases I believe it just adds to the bureaucratic process.
Mr Silipo: Do you think there's a rationale for having, in some professional bodies, the kind of setup we have here and as we have, as you mentioned, in the legal profession but not in others; in other words, in other organizations where the governing of the profession is separate from the association of the members? Is there an overarching principle or general parameters that you would see as dictating when there should and when there shouldn't be the kind of merging of the two, as there is in this case?
Mr Boese: First I'd like to comment that this appears to work very well even though it is a very one-sided, if you will, council because you have three lay members and the balance, I believe a minimum of 14, come from within the profession. When an act is put together between a body and the government and both can live with it, and it's in the public interest that it is established in that fashion, I would see more and more of this happening, if possible.
As I say, it takes strain off the taxpayers in that self-governance, if it's effective, is better than getting the government involved because of the cost. We end up paying it in taxes.
Mr Silipo: I want to ask you about another area where again, I'll be very clear with you, I don't know what the council is doing on this and I'm just curious to see if you know, and that's the whole area of how the council deals with people who come to Ontario with qualifications from other jurisdictions, whether they be other parts of Canada or indeed other parts of the world. Do you know what the attitude or the approach of the council is?
Mr Boese: I have not read anything in the act or their legislation or annual reports that specifically refers to the educational or qualification point of view from out of province, if you will. They have members from out of province. They have members throughout Canada, the Northwest Territories and Yukon who are members of the OAA, so obviously there is a qualification process. You're speaking more specifically, are you, of individuals coming from another country?
Mr Silipo: Yes, and how easy or how difficult the council makes it for people who are qualified as architects from other countries who come to Ontario as landed immigrants, and eventually become citizens, to exercise that profession.
I raise it really more as a request, because obviously I expect that you will be appointed to this. You seem to come to this with some good knowledge of the area as well as some good qualifications, your membership in the Conservative Party notwithstanding. I really raise it as an issue where I'm very interested in seeing what various professions are doing and, quite frankly, if for nothing else, to ask you when you get appointed to this body to take a look at what in fact the council is doing, because I believe it's an area we all need to turn our minds to in a more concerted fashion than we have. I know there are some activities going on now within the government. We had begun some steps in that direction when we formed the government, and it seems to me we're wasting a lot of potential when we have people who are trained in the various professions and we make it hard, or harder than we need to, for them to translate their previous training, education and qualifications into the Ontario context.
Mr Boese: Thank you for your comments. I can't comment because I don't know what their position is. I do know that in many professions it's not the governing body that creates the problem; it's Immigration Canada that creates the problem.
Mr Silipo: That may be. As I say, I don't know enough about what happens in this area to say one or the other. I can give you one example in another professional body where there appears to be a situation in which there is an additional exam that's required for people who are trained in other jurisdictions. As one Ontario-trained professional in that area said to me, the cost is, first of all, exorbitant, much more than the cost for the equivalent exams of an Ontario-trained professional in that area. Second, it's an exam, as he put it, that he probably wouldn't be able to pass as an Ontario-trained professional.
I'm not assuming for a second that the same situation exists here in this profession, but again, I take advantage of your being here, as somebody who's going to be appointed to this body, to raise that and ask you to take a look at what is happening within the architectural profession on that.
Mr Boese: Certainly. Thank you for the comments.
The Chair: Government members?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. That completes the cross-examination, Mr Boese. Thank you for coming before the committee.
Mr Boese: Thank you for the opportunity.
MARCI DAVIES
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Marci Davies, intended appointee as member, Ontario Film Development Corp.
The Chair: Is Marci Davies here?
Ms Marci Davies: I am.
The Chair: Good. We welcome you to the committee. If you wish to make any opening comments, please feel free to do so.
Ms Davies: I don't think so, thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Can we start then with Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: Ms Davies, good morning. We've been asking all people who appear in front of the committee, unless we know for a fact, whether they are members of any political party. Are you?
Ms Davies: No.
Mr Silipo: Have you made donations to any political party?
Ms Davies: No.
Mr Silipo: I'd be interested in your thoughts on what is happening, or what you know has already happened and what you anticipate might happen, as a result of the changes the government has made to the funding scheme. As I'm sure you know, the government has reduced the level of funding, almost eliminated, I guess at this point, the level of funding to the Ontario Film Development Corp. To be fair, the government has instituted a form of tax credit scheme, and I'd be interested in your views on that whole approach in terms of the difference between direct government funding to the Ontario film development industry, as opposed to the tax credit scheme that's now in place and what impact that's either having, as you see it, or is going to have.
Ms Davies: I don't know a tremendous amount about production. My experience is more in the other end, which is getting the pictures on the screen. I assume it will become harder for smaller, independent producers to get pictures made and we might see fewer of those. Other than that, it would be pretty difficult for me to comment without too much knowledge in the independent production end of the business.
Mr Silipo: That's actually something else I want to pursue, your comment that it might hurt small, independent filmmakers or producers, because the statistics that we have, and they may not be the most current, indicate that between -- I don't know if you have this information we have or not --
Ms Davies: Yes.
Mr Silipo: You do. Just looking at the change from 1995 to 1996 in terms of the film and TV location production spending in Ontario by Canadian and American productions, it's interesting to see that the American productions have gone up noticeably, while the Canadian productions have gone down. It seems to me that if we are concerned about the relative weakness that the Ontario film development industry is in, and I don't want to jump to any premature conclusions, is it fair to say that at least some of that has come about as a result of the change in the funding scheme?
Ms Davies: That's only been in place for I think about six months, so I can't imagine how that could be a reflection so soon. I think you always see an increase in American production in this country when the Canadian dollar is weaker, and as the American dollar gets stronger, production here goes up throughout the country.
1040
Mr Silipo: I'm not complaining about the increase in American production, because obviously that means jobs for people here, but I'm concerned about the decrease in Canadian production. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have about what, if anything, government should do and what, if anything, the body that you're being proposed to be appointed to can do to change that around.
Ms Davies: Right now I really don't have a lot of knowledge about that and I'm really not in a position to comment on that specifically.
Mr Silipo: Can you tell me then what brings you to this position? What led you to be interested in being appointed to this body?
Ms Davies: I was asked if I would be interested in sitting on the board and obviously am very interested in the film industry and have been with Cineplex for eight and a half years and have an extensive background in marketing and media relations. I think, wearing the exhibitor hat, I'd probably have a lot to offer the OFDC, bringing a different perspective to the board.
Mr Silipo: What needs to be done to increase the number of Canadian films that we, as members of the public, get to see?
Ms Davies: Commercial viability. It all boils down to the fact that we know when a picture opens on Friday night how long it's going to last in a theatre. We say people vote with their wallets, and if nobody goes to see Canadian films, they're just not going to stay in the theatres. Until more commercial-type pictures are made that are going to draw a much broader audience, the percentage of box office that Canadian pictures do, relative to the total box office gross in Canada, is not going to change.
Mr Silipo: But looking at your own situation as vice-president of Cineplex Odeon, where obviously you also, because of smaller cinemas, are able to cater to films that might not attract the big audiences, what about in that area? If I take it at its crudest level, and I'm not suggesting that's how you intended it, your comments would seem to indicate that the Canadian film industry would have to change significantly what it does in many ways in order to become attractive at the box office.
Ms Davies: That's absolutely correct. I completely believe that.
Mr Silipo: Would we be sacrificing in that perhaps some of the more artistic aspects of the film industry if we were to do that?
Ms Davies: No, that market could maintain itself, but there has to be tremendous growth in the commercial end of the Canadian film product, much like you see on television. The success of the Canadian television series and the export of that product has proven that we can produce those kinds of things here and now it just has to translate itself into our business, which is the film industry. There have been a handful of Canadian films that have succeeded outside this country. They have very limited commercial viability on a mainstream basis, and until that changes, nothing is going to change the percentage of the box office gross that Canadian pictures earn.
Mr Silipo: Okay. I can only judge in terms of individual, more anecdotal types of situations, but certainly when you look at some of the foreign films that seem to be well received, they don't tend to be films that are copies of the American commercial-type film venture. They tend to be more -- I'm using a generality here -- the artistic-type film, so I guess I --
Ms Davies: Those are films that find an audience, very much so.
Mr Silipo: What is it that prevents the Canadian film industry from finding that same niche, that same kind of audience?
Ms Davies: Either the appeal of the film or the picture isn't marketed properly or they don't get distribution outside of Canada to give other countries an opportunity to see the picture.
Mr Silipo: What, if anything, should the Ontario Film Development Corp do in terms of that whole area of distribution and what can be done to increase the number of Canadian films that we get to see?
Ms Davies: Not understanding completely how they help promote the pictures outside of this country, I would assume that if there's an opportunity to help people get to other markets, such as Cannes and Venice and all of the other markets where they can sell their pictures, that certainly would be an opportunity to help promote that.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Ms Davies. I want to just pursue a little bit the intent you have in terms of serving on the OFDC, because I'm curious as to whether you feel it's important to invest in Ontario-made films and in Canadian-made films. Obviously, under the Ontario film investment program that's what OFDC did until I guess fairly recently. I think the statistics are there that prove that certainly for every dollar invested, it came back in tax revenues and production money spent and employment that came for people. So I'm curious as to whether you feel that investing in Canadian film and being a supporter of Canadian culture is an important thing to you personally.
Ms Davies: Absolutely. I think creating jobs in the province is important. I think promoting Canadian culture is important. I think the opportunity for Canadian filmmakers to get their films made in this country is important. But if the economics in today's environment don't provide that kind of funding, as a taxpayer I also understand that.
Mr Gravelle: I guess what I question about that is the fact that under the investment plan it was very, very clear that the economics were there with the money that was invested in the plan, into the productions. The return was clear in terms of that. I guess what I'm trying to do is pin you down to some degree to say whether you believe dropping that plan, which clearly has meant $30 million less in investment in Ontario-made films, there's clear evidence of that happening, whether you would argue that indeed they should be looking at reinvestment again in terms of that film investment plan, or whether you think the tax credit plan as it is now is good enough.
Ms Davies: I perceive that to not be an option, that the funding cuts were in place and that, sitting as members on the board, it wouldn't be in our position to recommend otherwise.
Mr Gravelle: I guess that leads me then to my sense of what you feel your role is in terms of being on the OFDC. Is it your role, do you believe, as a member of the OFDC to lobby and to be strongly supportive of the cultural industries in this province? You certainly have a stake in the film industry in this province in terms of your career as well and obviously you have real personal interest, but do you believe it's the role of a board member in this situation to look at other options, to recommend to the government in that position and say, "We've looked at this, we think this would work better," or do you feel it is just simply to follow the rules as they are and to be I guess a reasonably passive member of the agency? That's really what I want to --
Ms Davies: I think my personal role would be contributing to policies and issues that are in place and going forward and not actively taking a role in lobbying for more funding. It's one day a month, from what I understand, and that's the time commitment I've made to the board. I certainly feel that in the other initiatives that are taking place I would be able to spend that day wisely.
Mr Gravelle: Do you feel in any way at all that the cultural industries in this province are somewhat under attack -- I appreciate that my colleagues wouldn't appreciate that phrasing -- in terms of the government's approach to their funding for the cultural industries in this province? Is that how you see what's happened in terms of this government's approach?
Ms Davies: I wouldn't say they're under attack any more than all of the other areas that are undergoing significant budget reductions.
Mr Gravelle: Obviously there's been a reduction in funding for a number of agencies. There's certainly no reason the cultural agencies or film production should be any different is what you're saying?
Ms Davies: That's correct.
Mr Gravelle: Despite the fact that you could make a strong case that the payoff is very much there when you make that investment. I guess that's what concerned me, that the investment has absolutely paid off and it seems that the withdrawal of that investment has hurt the industry.
Do you see yourself then as a person who would be lobbying and looking, in the limited amount of time you have available, at different options and different recommendations to the government to try and see what might work better?
Ms Davies: Possibly. I think it will take some time in understanding exactly what the mandate of the OFDC is and exactly what's involved in being on the board.
Mr Gravelle: Can I ask you just about Cineplex Odeon too, what Mr Silipo was asking you about as well, in terms of the Canadian films getting, I guess, about 3% of the screening time? I know that Cineplex Odeon shows --
Ms Davies: Versus half that in the box office.
Mr Gravelle: That's the brutal fact right there.
Ms Davies: Absolutely. We play more Canadian film product than any other exhibitor in this country.
Mr Gravelle: I believe that. I see what's on your screens. You're saying the bottom line is that unless the films make money, you obviously can't --
Ms Davies: It's like any other picture: If people don't go, the picture is removed and something else is put on that screen. More films are in production than ever before, and there's a fight for screen time. If a picture isn't grossing, it's got to go.
Mr Gravelle: I think it probably is still one of the oddities of the film industry that the Genie awards, which are a great achievement obviously for filmmakers, frequently show films that have not had distribution in the country or in the province. That is a real oddity. I guess that's strange.
I don't mean to embarrass you at all, but can you tell me what happened in terms of Lilies and John Greyson? Here's a man who had the Genie-award-winning film and the film was premiering at Cineplex Odeon. He was unhappy about OFDC funding and was making some form of protest and it ended up turning into probably something you weren't happy about.
Ms Davies: Our theatre manager wasn't happy about the protest in the theatre. He was asked to leave; he refused to leave. The theatre manager thought it was in his best interests to call the police; he called the police. The police asked him to leave the theatre; he wouldn't leave the theatre and the police arrested him and charged him with trespassing. The charges have since been dropped and we've kissed and made up.
Mr Gravelle: It was unfortunate.
Ms Davies: Very.
The Chair: Any other questions for Ms Davies?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. Ms Davies, thank you very much for coming before the committee and providing the answers you did. We appreciate it. Good luck.
We have one other intended appointment, who has not yet arrived, and we are half an hour early. We could entertain a concurrence motion, if that's --
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Ms Davies.
The Chair: Any comments? Are you ready for the question?
All in favour? It's unanimous; carried.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Boese.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comments?
All in favour? It's carried unanimously.
I think since it's half an hour or more before Mr Kelly is scheduled to appear, we could take a recess for 20 minutes or so and try and keep an eye on when he comes in.
Mr Bob Wood: Do you want to set 11:30?
The Chair: Yes, why don't we just set it at 11:30.
The committee recessed from 1053 to 1127.
STEPHEN KELLY
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Stephen Kelly, intended appointee as member, Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.
The Chair: Mr Kelly has joined us in the committee this morning. He's an intended appointee to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. Mr Kelly, welcome to the committee. We are pleased you're here. If you want to make any opening remarks, you may do so at this time, or you can simply wait and receive questions.
Mr Stephen Kelly: I just have some brief opening remarks. Just to let you know a little bit about myself, I am from Nepean, I am married and I have two children. I have a BA from St Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. I have a law degree from the University of Ottawa. I am a partner with Kelly, Howard, Santini in Ottawa. I practised for 13 years in private practice. Presently, my practice is focused on insurance and commercial law.
I have appeared before a number of tribunals, including the Workers' Compensation Board and the Ontario Insurance Commission. I've also appeared before most levels of court in Ontario. I am also a strong proponent of ADR mediation and I am a member of the panel of court-connected mediators on the Ottawa pilot project, which is just under way and I am looking forward to seeing how that works out.
I have also taken extensive training in ADR, which included a component in arbitration, but most of it has been on mediation. Some of the mediation training I have has been specific to commercial disputes.
I am also secretary-treasurer of Kelly Funeral Homes, which is a family-owned funeral home in Ottawa, my family.
I first became aware of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal three years ago when I represented a client before the tribunal. During the course of setting up that hearing, I became aware of the fact that there weren't any representatives, members of the panel, from Ottawa and that these panel members were being flown in from out of town, which seemed a little strange to me, not very cost-effective.
Last fall I had another case that was before the tribunal and again it came to my attention that there were no panel members in the position of vice-chair from the Ottawa area and they were being flown in, so that got me looking into things and led to my being here today.
As far as what I have to offer the tribunal is concerned, I have experience before administrative tribunals, I have a great deal of trial experience, I have my legal training, and as a result I know the rules of civil procedure, the principles of natural justice, and I've dealt with issues such as expert reports, expert witnesses, weighing what hearsay evidence gets in, how much weight should be put to it, that type of thing.
From my own experience I also have an appreciation of the need for tribunals or courts, for that factor, to be open and receptive, to be courteous and polite, and to remove the intimidation factor. I understand that with CRAT, in between 30% and 40% of the cases, the applicants or appellants are representing themselves and I think it's a duty, as much as possible, to make those people feel welcome and give them an opportunity to be heard so that they can present their case as best they can.
To be frank, I get something out of this too. This isn't all altruistic. I think it's an important function and I get the satisfaction of hopefully doing a good job. It's also a change of pace for me, from being the barrister acting for a party to the role of decision-maker and it gives me some experience in arbitration that I don't have today. That's what I get out of it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Kelly. We'll start with the government members if they have any questions.
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. The official opposition.
Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Kelly. I must say that in your opening statement you actually answered some of the questions I very much wanted to ask, and may I say answered them in a fashion, in terms of the sensitivities I think are needed in this position, that you were very appropriately sensitive in terms of trying to make people feel comfortable and that sort of thing, so I was glad you addressed that.
Clearly, you are well qualified in terms of your background in the legal field and your experience, so I can't imagine having any objection to your being appointed. In fact, I feel very encouraged by your attitude about this. But I do want to ask you a few questions.
One thing you referred to is that there's the potential you'll have to remove yourself on occasions, based on the fact you've appeared before the tribunal. I take it you don't consider that to be a likely problem, but obviously a conflict could arise if you have a client. Do you anticipate that being a problem?
Mr Kelly: No. The most part of my practice is insurance and commercial; it doesn't involve licensing and that type of thing very often. I would think probably the greater conflicts will come under the Cemeteries Act and funeral directors act. Even those were only 1.4% of the tribunal's cases last year and I would suspect very few of those came up in Ottawa. If they did come up, I guess I have the option of disclosing the potential conflict and see if people are content with it, but I think I'd be more comfortable simply saying, "Someone else should hear this." Ottawa's a smaller city and I wouldn't be comfortable hearing anything that one of my competitors may be involved in.
Mr Gravelle: You made reference to the percentage of cases that come under the funeral directors act or Cemeteries Act, which makes me understand that you've done some research in terms of the number of cases that have come before the tribunal and the percentage. One thing I don't know is, do you know what percentage of the cases are successful? Do you know what the record is in terms of appeals being successful or unsuccessful?
Mr Kelly: I don't know. I have my doubts they keep those simply because in the view of the tribunal they are successful in that justice has been rendered. They probably don't keep won-lost statistics, but if they do, I don't know.
Mr Gravelle: The fact they've got there, they've had their day in court, so to speak.
Mr Kelly: Yes.
Mr Gravelle: Are you familiar with the task force on agencies, boards and commissions which Mr Wood here chaired, which basically recommended that the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal be merged with various other agencies into one body, a new licensing appeals tribunal? Are you familiar with that recommendation?
Mr Kelly: Somewhat. When I looked into this in more detail I asked the CRAT office to send me information on themselves and a bit of that information was included, and from the committees office some additional information came down. So I am aware that CRAT is to be merged with three other boards including child and family services, private training schools and licensing, I believe, under the Ministry of Transportation, which deals primarily with trucking. I am aware that is there and I've read some of the papers saying what the changes are designed to achieve. To that extent, I am aware of it.
Mr Gravelle: Do you support that? Obviously it is somewhat of a cost-saving measure, a way to be more cost-effective. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr Kelly: My opinion is it suggests that there are five boards, tribunals, that are basically obsolete, that are going to be removed and that the aim is to simplify and streamline, to be easier for people to have access to, and to be cost-efficient. To the extent it achieves those goals, great. To the extent that it will, or whether it is a wise decision, I just don't have enough information to give an informed opinion.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Kelly, did you seek out the appointment yourself? You indicated in your opening remarks that you became aware of the tribunal as a result of your involvement. I'm just curious exactly how the process unfolded in terms of you sitting here today, so to speak. Did you seek it out yourself?
Mr Kelly: Yes. There was a very helpful woman in the CRAT office who sent me the materials I asked for, and they're just general materials that go out typically to lay appellants. She sent that out and then I phoned a number of members of Parliament to find out the process, "It seems to make sense there should be somebody in Ottawa and what's the process?" and then I made the application myself.
Mr Silipo: Mr Kelly, good morning. I too appreciate very much the extensive nature of your opening comments. You really left very little room in terms of any questions I might have, because the one issue I wanted to raise with you was in fact the one Mr Gravelle raised about the agencies, about this board being merged with others.
I want to pursue that a little bit more and just put out a concern, because this may turn out to be something useful and I want to keep very much of an open mind on it. If I understand it correctly, the idea is to put together a few other boards in so far as they deal with similar issues; that is, the question of approving or not approving licences to run particular services. In that sense one could say, just looking at the surface, that there might be some sense to doing that.
I would just be curious about whether you have any sense, given the lot of knowledge you do have of how the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal works, of whether this would just create more of a workload or would complicate things by creating a new board that would have too much to do in terms of the myriad of responsibilities, not so much the different bodies but the myriad of responsibilities that come with them. I would just be interested in any thoughts you have on that.
Mr Kelly: I guess their concerns would fall into two camps. One is administrative, how awkward or how easy it is going to be to administer this. I really can't comment on that because I haven't been involved in the administration of one of these tribunals. I can say that, dealing with CRAT, and I've met the chair, Mr McClure, I am really impressed with them and they seem to be very capable people.
From the panel members' point of view, I think it introduces more legislation to deal with but we're already dealing with 19 pieces of legislation. You can't possibly know 19 pieces of legislation inside and out. It is a general knowledge of the area, a general knowledge of the law, and then as each case comes up you re-examine that piece of legislation. By adding on five or 10 more, whatever number it is, I don't think changes anything.
You're still going to have to look at it again. It's a challenging position. It's a lot of legislation to interpret and apply and that's what makes it interesting.
Mr Silipo: One question that I ask as a standard question to everyone who appears, Mr Kelly, so I'll ask it of you, is, are you now or have you ever been a member of any political party?
Mr Kelly: Provincially?
Mr Silipo: Or federally.
Mr Kelly: Provincially, no, not now, not ever. I have supported individuals in every one of the three major parties. I'm one of those good government people, so if they're good people and they ask for my support, then they get it. Federally, I think I've been a member of each of the three major parties at one point in time, all I think dealing with nomination meetings. People want to get the nomination for a party in a particular riding, and if they're good people and I think will they do a great job, then I'll probably sign up, vote and not remain an active member.
Mr Silipo: That's one of the most interesting responses I've had to that question. Thank you, Mr Kelly. I want to wish you well. I'll certainly be supporting your appointment, as I am sure other members of the committee are. I want to applaud you for the initiative you've taken in getting here. I agree with you that it's important we also have on this body, as we should on all bodies, people from various parts of the province and obviously your appointment will fill a gap that's there, but also I think will add somebody with very good credentials to this body.
The Chair: Do the government members have any questions or comments for Mr Kelly?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Mr Kelly, thank you very much for coming before the committee. I'm sure I speak for all members of the committee when I say I wish you well. We're pleased you put yourself forward to sit on this tribunal.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr Kelly.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. Any comments? Ready for the question? All in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you for that.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I didn't have my hand up.
The Chair: Mr Johnson.
Mr Bert Johnson: I heard something very disturbing in that and it just moved me to wonder about his appointment.
Interjections.
Mr Silipo: He didn't say he was a member of one of the opposition parties now.
Interjection: No, he didn't.
The Chair: Before this meeting degenerates any further, we stand adjourned until April 2. Thank you.
The committee adjourned at 1143.